Website of the President of Russia: Videos: Media Events

Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Good afternoon.

We are broadcasting live from Moscow.

We, Pavel Zarubin…

Pavel Zarubin: … and Yekaterina Berezovskaya…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

Remark: Hello! I’m 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel, let’s continue meeting our colleagues.

What does your sign say here?

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: And who do you have there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Pavel, what’s happening in your sector?

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

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

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

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

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

Anton, what are you doing?

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Just like that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Yes, thank you, Mr Peskov.

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

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

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

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

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Peskov: Give him the microphone, please.

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

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: The civilians were under constant…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: Everyone indiscriminately?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Yes, everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Out of 157?

Naran Ochir-Goryayev: Out of 84.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Out of 84.

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Peskov, over to you.

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

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

Ivan Dvoynichnikov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivan Dvoynichnikov: Will you come visit?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can you comment on that?

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: But they have not succeeded so far.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darya Shuchalina: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for the invitation.

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

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

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

Thank you for the invitation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristina Grebe: Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Elina Dashkuyeva: Thank you.

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

I am Elina Dashkuyeva, Mir International Television Company.

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

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

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

Maxim Zakharov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Two and a half.

Vladimir Putin: 2.5 million.

Pavel Zarubin: 2.7 million.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yakutia, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: A video call, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

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

Denis Maksimov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

Denis Maksimov: Yes.

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

Denis Maksimov: My eldest daughter.

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

Denis Maksimov: I hope they are delicious.

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

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

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

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

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

Denis Maksimov: With pleasure.

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

Thank you very much.

Denis Maksimov: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. Let’s continue.

Pavel Zarubin: So, no winking then.

Vladimir Putin: I’ll wink just for you.

Now, let’s turn to Belarus. Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Dmitry Peskov: Pass the microphone, please.

Keir Simmons: Keir Simmons from NBC News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, thank you.

Let’s go to Belgorod, please.

Anna Rudchenko: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you so much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anna Rudchenko: Thank you.

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

Zeljko Sain: Good afternoon,

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Use them.

Gulnara Bayazitova: But everyone is looking at income.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artur Khalilullov: Mr President, good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

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

Our guests from China, Xinhua, please.

Liu Kai: Good afternoon, Mr President,

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a question regarding demographics in general.

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

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

This leads directly to two questions.

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Let us now watch the video message.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please, go ahead.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Here is Alina Gamazina from Kemerovo.

Vladimir Putin: Please, go ahead.

Alina Gamazina: Good afternoon, Mr President,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: The floor goes to Dmitry Peskov.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us work with the audience.

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

Yevgeny Poddubny: Good afternoon, Mr Putin.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead.

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

Vladimir Putin: Family mortgages?

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

Vladimir Putin: I understand.

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

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

Yekaterina Yerastova: Good afternoon, Mr President,

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

Vladimir Putin: What is the name of the town?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Strezhevoy. A town of oil workers.

Vladimir Putin: And the region?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Tomsk.

Vladimir Putin: The Tomsk Region.

Look, this decision – are they listening now?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: I believe Yekaterina is definitely watching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: There is not much to add here.

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

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

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

What does your fiancée do?

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Zvezda TV, Konstantin Kokoveshnikov.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Mr President, back to the audience?

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

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

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

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

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

Remark: Women first, as they say.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: Has Moscow traffic become less congested?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dmitry Otstavnykh: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remark: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Question: Here is my question.

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

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

Yes, I wanted TF1 to ask a question.

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

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Jerome Jerome Garro, from TF1 French TV.

Mr President,

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

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

Garro: Laurent Vinatier, a Frenchman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me.

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

Pavel Zarubin: Is this a text message?

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

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

Video question: Hello, Mr President.

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: For Pavel?

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Let’s have a look.

Viktoria Vasilyeva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much, Viktoria.

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: We’ll make that happen.

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

Here is another video message from MAX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ksenia Aksyonova, Spas TV channel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Good, let’s have Avtoradio.

Dmitry Peskov: Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pass the microphone, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: Short questions, short answers.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: No, I have never done that.

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Does the President experience professional deformation?

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: What personal trait do you hate?

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

Pavel Zarubin: Do you have a true friend?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Is there love at first sight?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you very much.

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

Anna Yarygina: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Artificial intelligence – this is probably a relevant topic.

Please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, let’s go to Tomsk, please.

Dinara Mindubayeva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Dinara Mindubayeva, Tomskoye Vremya [Tomsk Time].

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

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Dinara Mindubayeva: Let’s hope so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galina Merkulova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pavel Zarubin: Can you formulate your question please?

Galina Merkulova: Yes, certainly.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us go over there, to Siberia.

Denis Shalyuta: Mr President, good afternoon.

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

“Mail”, please.

Remark: Good afternoon.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“HSR: Speed.”

Dina Gazalieva: Good afternoon.

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

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

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

Vladimir Putin: The railway?

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

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we will build it.

Dina Gazalieva: What’s the timeline?

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

Thank you all very much for your contributions today.

Pavel Zarubin: Thank you.

Yekaterina Berezovskaya: Thank you very much.

Interview with Aaj Tak and Indian Today TV channels

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Dear viewers,

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Yes, Anjana.

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

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

Thank you so much for joining us on our network.

How are you doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: May I ask you a question?

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

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

Vladimir Putin: About the Prime Minister?

Anjana Om Kashyap: Yes. And to him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: Are there any specific agreements?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anjana Om Kashyap: Three specific questions, Sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geeta Mohan: And the Kalashnikovs.

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

Now, Indian military specialists – thanks to their strong ties with our military – understand clearly how and in what circumstances a particular weapon performs best, and where and when it should be deployed. This is an extremely important understanding, which is shared by both the Indian and Russian sides.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, I have to go back to your oil question, because you spoke about strategic autonomy, which is what India has been talking about. Strategic autonomy decides for India's interests, but has India reduced Russian intake of oil after pressure from the West?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there is a certain decline in overall trade turnover during the first nine months of this year. This is just a minor adjustment. Overall, our trade turnover stands almost at the same level as before.

I can’t give you exact monthly figures right now, but trade in petroleum products and crude oil, as well as the production of petroleum products for consumers of oil, Russian oil, is running smoothly in India. I know the sentiment of Russian partners, of Russian companies: they believe their Indian counterparts are reliable and very serious people.

Geeta Mohan: The other important aspect in terms of cooperation between India and Russia is the nuclear front. Russia has been one of the biggest movers when it comes to nuclear facilities in India. Are we looking at important announcements on the nuclear front? Nuclear today is a sensitive issue for Russia.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course we have some announcements to make.

We are indeed one of the biggest ”movers,“ as you have noted. Speaking seriously, we are not ”movers,“ we are producers of the world’s most advanced and reliable equipment for nuclear power plants. The Russian company Rosatom builds and operates more nuclear reactors for nuclear power plants abroad than any other company in the world – 22 nuclear units. The well‑known facility and our joint project, the Kudankulam plant, is one of the leaders in this regard.

These are large units, they operate efficiently and, I reiterate, have proven to be very useful.

There are some announcements you have just asked about. What is it about? The news is that Russia is probably the only country in the world today capable of building – and actually does build – small nuclear power plants. Such plants are already operational in Russia, and we can make them either floating or ground-based. It’s an excellent option for specific regions where big power stations are not needed or where connecting electricity grids between generators and end-users isn’t feasible. These compact nuclear power modules can thus be deployed in isolated and hard-to-access locations.

Geeta Mohan: That's a lot of collaboration and cooperation. You're talking about ”Make in India, Make With Russia.“ How do you think President Trump is going to react to all of this?

Vladimir Putin: You know, neither me nor Prime Minister Modi, despite certain external pressure we face, have ever – and I want to emphasise this, I want you to hear it – approached our collaboration to work against someone.

President Trump has his own agenda, his own goals, whereas we focus on ours – not against anyone, but rather aimed at safeguarding our respective interests, India's and Russia's interests. In our dealings, we cause no harm to others, and I believe that leaders from other countries should appreciate this.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With regard to Mr Donald Trump. My second question is also about him, because recently he said that if you are buying oil from Russia, – about India – you are funding the Russian-Ukrainian war.

How would you characterise Mr Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I never give character assessments about my colleagues – neither those I’ve worked with in the past nor current leaders of individual states. These assessments should be made by citizens who vote for their leader during elections.

As for India's purchases or purchase of energy resources from Russia… Well, I would like to note and have already mentioned this publicly once – the United States itself still buys nuclear fuel from us for its own nuclear power plants. That is also fuel – uranium for the reactors operating in the United States. If the US has the right to buy our fuel, why shouldn't India have the same privilege? This question deserves thorough examination, and we stand ready to discuss it, including with President Trump.

Geeta Mohan: You are being very kind, you say you are not characterising Trump, but he certainly does that with regard to you. Having said this, he has weaponised tariffs. And he has weaponised it against India. How do you think the two countries should be handling Donald Trump and the US administration?

Vladimir Putin: You know, he pursues his own policy, and he has advisors – his decisions aren't made out of thin air. He has advisors who believe that implementing such tariff policies, involving the imposition of additional duties on trade partners, ultimately benefits the US economy. He is acting in good faith, I presume. Our experts believe there are risks involved, but it is the choice of each country and its leadership to decide which economic policy to adopt.

We have never engaged in such practices, do not do so now, and have no intention of doing so in the future. Our economy is open. We hope that, in the end, all violations of World Trade Organisation regulations will be rectified.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, things have changed a little between the US and Russia. The fact that America is engaging you, we would have loved to be a fly on the wall when you were meeting with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. That was an important meeting. Were there red lines that Russia reiterated? What really happened?

Vladimir Putin: It's premature to discuss that now. I doubt it would interest you to hear about it, as it lasted five hours. Frankly, even I grew weary of it – five hours is too much. However, it was necessary because…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Five hours! Witkoff and Kushner?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I was alone. Can you imagine it?

But speaking seriously, it was a very productive conversation, as what our American colleagues presented was, in one way or another, based on our prior agreements made before my meeting with President Trump in Alaska. We had discussed these very issues, to some extent, at the meeting in Anchorage. However, what the Americans brought us this time was truly new; we hadn't seen it before. Therefore, we had to go through practically every point, which is why it took so much time. So it was a meaningful, highly specific, and substantive conversation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Were there certain specific points of disagreement?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, such issues were raised, we discussed them. But this is a complex task and a challenging mission that President Trump took upon himself – fair enough, I say without irony, because achieving consensus among conflicting parties is no easy task. But President Trump, truly, I believe, he sincerely tries to do this.

We went through each point again, let me reiterate this. Sometimes we said, “yes, we can discuss this, but with that one we cannot agree.” That was how the work proceeded. To say now what exactly doesn't suit us or where we could possibly agree seems premature, since it might disrupt the very mode of operation that President Trump is trying to establish.

But that's what they do – shuttle diplomacy. They spoke with Ukrainian representatives, then with Europeans, came here, had another meeting with Ukrainians and Europeans. I think we should engage in this effort rather than obstruct it.

Geeta Mohan: You are saying that the 28 points peace proposal is not on the table?

Vladimir Putin: They're discussing – that's what they're discussing right now. They simply broke down those 28 points, then 27, into four packages and proposed discussing these four packages. But essentially, it's still just the same old 27 points.

Anjana Om Kashyap: We will go back to that and try to understand how it's going forward.

What happened in Alaska? You met President Trump and it was all about the peace deal, right? What happened? Did you actually have sense of or see a sincere intent?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there was indeed a sense – no, more than just a sense, I have absolutely no doubt that President Trump had genuine intentions (we won't discuss here what caused them or why they appeared, but they're definitely present). Both the United States and President Trump likely have their own understanding of why this needs to be resolved quickly.

Moreover, by the way, on humanitarian grounds too. I truly believe that is one of the motives behind President Trump's actions regarding this matter because he constantly speaks about his wish to minimise losses, and I'm confident that his sincerity is genuine. He undoubtedly considers these humanitarian concerns when formulating his decisions.

However, other factors also come into play: political considerations and economic interests. Therefore, I believe that the US is actively seeking a solution to this problem.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, he has spoken about intentions, you're right about. He claimed he would end wars and conflicts – causing consternation in India when he claimed that he had brought peace between India and Pakistan, now he's looking at Russia and Ukraine. Do you really think he's a peacemaker?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the situation in Ukraine – yes, let me repeat once again, I am absolutely certain, with no doubt at all, he sincerely aims for a peaceful resolution.

Let me stress once again: the United States may have various reasons for this – humanitarian ones personally for Trump because he genuinely wants to end hostilities and prevent further loss of life, but there could also be political interests tied to ending the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, or economic motives too. By the way, they can be in the energy area and in other areas. There are numerous areas where restoring economic relations between the US and Russia would benefit both sides.

I showed you some letters – I won't go into this now – large US companies sent to us. We should remember this.

Comment: Really?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. About their existence. They’re waiting until all problems are solved, and they’re ready to return to us, they want this, asking us not to forget about them. The letters are there.

Comment: It’s surprising.

Vladimir Putin: What’s so surprising about that? Many want to return. So, of course, the Indian government is saying right: “Why should we leave…?”

Geeta Mohan: They arrived with letters from companies – quite astonishingly unexpected indeed.

Vladimir Putin: No, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. We have letters from American companies – letters they have sent us, where they urge us not to forget about their existence. These are our former partners, who did not leave by choice. They express a clear desire to resume cooperation and are waiting, among other things, for a corresponding political signal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: This conversation is becoming very interesting because there are so many highlights of understanding and it is really pleasant to see you, and your sense of humour, and how you are putting things forth.

But now we are going to go into a very serious matter – and that is the Russia-Ukraine war. So what, in your view, would constitute a victory for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war? What are the red lines? Because you have, and I quote you, you have said very clearly that Russia will lay down arms only if Kiev's troops withdraw from the territories claimed by Russia, which parts would that be?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it's not about victory, like you have said. The point is that Russia is determined – and will certainly do so – to protect its interests. Protect its people living there, protect our traditional values, Russian language, and so on. Protection, by the way, of religion that has been cultivated on these lands for centuries. Yet you know that the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is almost banned: they seize churches, drive people out of temples, etc. – it is a problem. And I'm not even mentioning the ban on the Russian language, etc. It is all part of a big set of issues.

Let me remind you: we were not the ones to start this war. The West egged Ukraine on and supported the events, orchestrating a coup d'état. That was the point that triggered the events in Crimea, followed by developments in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass.

They don't even mention it – we've tried to resolve these issues peacefully for eight years, signed the Minsk agreements, hoping that they could be resolved through peaceful means. But Western leaders openly admitted later that they never intended to honour those agreements, signing them merely to allow Ukraine to arm itself and continue fighting against us. After eight years of relentless violence against our citizens of Donbass – something the West hasn't uttered a word about – we were forced to recognise these republics first, and secondly, provide support. Our special military operation isn't the start of a war, but rather an attempt to end one that the West ignited using Ukrainian nationalists. That's what is really happening now. That’s the crux of the problem.

We will finish it when we achieve the goals set at the beginning of the special military operation – when we free these territories. That's all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: What is the end gain for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: I have said that already. Listen, we didn't recognise these self-proclaimed republics for eight years. Eight years. They declared independence, while we were trying to establish relations between the rest of Ukraine and those republics. But when we realised this was impossible, that they were simply being destroyed, we had no choice but to recognise them – and not just their existence on part of the territory, but within administrative boundaries established during Soviet times, then later under independent Ukraine after its independence, still within those administrative borders.

And right away we told Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops: ”People don't want to live with you anymore. They voted in a referendum for independence. Withdraw your troops from there, and there won't be any military actions.“ No, they chose to fight instead.

Now they have pretty much fought themselves into a corner, all this boils down to one thing: either we take back these territories by force, or eventually Ukrainian troops withdraw and stop killing people there.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Before we move to the other one, just one last question. On March 8, 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, you were addressing the Federation Council and you said, ”Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities.“ What did you mean?

Vladimir Putin: Here I haven't made up anything – historically this is how it was said. Originally, the Russian state was formed from several centres. The first capital, according to history, was in Novgorod in the northwest. Later the federal status moved to the city of Veliky Novgorod, and then it moved to Kiev. This was Ancient Rus. And since then, Kiev has been known as the ”mother of all Russian cities.“

Later, historical events unfolded in such a way that the ancient Russian state split into two parts. One part began developing with Moscow as its centre, while another part fell under other countries. For instance, the part with Kiev, along with some other lands, these parts first formed a state with Lithuania, subsequently merged with Poland, forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thus, this part of the ancient Russian state ended up in Poland, and by the seventeenth century, it sought to return back to Russia.

Geeta Mohan: The fact that you know, you were mentioning the history and it brings me to what I did when the conflict was underway. I had travelled to Donetsk, I had travelled to Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, and most of the people there are Russian-speaking, they speak Russian language. They were very disappointed that Kiev had banned that language in eastern Ukraine. But they were also a little shocked at how Putin is doing this to us, we are his people. A lot of women I spoke to were in shock. So, what do you have to say to people in eastern Ukraine who actually have families in Russia, who, on a daily basis, move from Ukraine to Russia. What do you have to say to them?

Vladimir Putin: I didn't understand the question. What exactly shocked them?

Geeta Mohan: They were shocked that there was an operation that happened, and their homes were destroyed, because they lived in eastern Ukraine. And they have love for Russia and the Russian people, and they are Russian-speaking themselves.

Vladimir Putin: The answer is quite straightforward. These individuals presumably resided in those parts of Ukraine – specifically, in the areas of the Lugansk or Donetsk region – that remained under the control of the Kiev authorities at the time. Meanwhile, that part of the Lugansk or Donetsk region outside their control was being subjected to intense military action by the Kiev authorities. We were consequently forced to extend support to those areas that had declared independence. That is the first point.

Secondly, we provided people with an opportunity to express their will in an open referendum. Those who believed it was in their interest to join Russia voted accordingly. Those who did not were free to leave unhindered for other parts of the Ukrainian state. We have never placed any obstacles in the way of that choice.

Geeta Mohan: What do you make of President Zelensky? He was promised NATO, the European Union promised him the EU. But nothing really happened. Was NATO ever on the table for Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: When this gentleman came to power, he declared that he would pursue peace at all costs, using every means possible, without sparing even his career. But now we see things differently. He follows the same pattern as his predecessors – putting the interests of a narrow nationalist group, particularly radical nationalists, ahead of those of the people. Essentially, he is addressing their concerns rather than those of the nation.

This regime’s mindset truly resembles a neo-Nazi regime because extreme nationalism and neo-Nazism are almost indistinguishable concepts. Today, undeniably, military action dominates their approach. However, they haven’t achieved much success here either.

I have already said before that what matters most for them is realising that the best way to resolve the problems is through peaceful negotiations, and we attempted to negotiate with them back in 2022. What exactly they plan to do remains to be asked from them directly.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That would be interesting to see what they have to say on that, and how this peace process goes forward.

But you have always said that the eastward expansion of NATO is your real concern. Ukraine has not got this NATO membership as of now. My question to you – is NATO expansion a real threat or just a pretext for what you think is a part of Ukraine which is probably you want control over? Or you think that injustice is being done, the Russian language is being banned – these are the real issues?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, NATO is another matter altogether. The Russian language, Russian culture, religion, and even territorial issues – these are very important topics, one subject. NATO is something entirely different. We don't demand anything exclusive for ourselves here.

First of all, there are general agreements that the security of one state cannot be guaranteed by undermining the security of others. This idea might seem somewhat obscure, but I'll explain it simply. Each country, including Ukraine, has the right to choose its own means of defence and ensure its own safety. Correct? Absolutely correct. Do we deny Ukraine this? No. But it's not acceptable if done at Russia's expense. Ukraine believes it would benefit from joining NATO. And we say: that threatens our security, let's find a way to secure yours without threatening us.

Secondly, we are not asking for anything unusual or unexpected, nothing falling from the sky. We are just insisting on fulfilling the promises already made to us. These weren't invented yesterday. They were pledged to Russia back in the '90s: no expansion eastward—this was stated publicly. Since then, several waves of expansion took place, culminating with Ukraine being drawn into NATO. This completely displeases us and poses a serious threat. Let’s remember that NATO is a military-political alliance, and Article Five of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO hasn't been repealed. It's a threat to us. Nobody bothers to take us seriously.

Lastly, when Ukraine became independent, few people recall this: what was the first document ratifying independence? It was the Declaration of State Sovereignty, Independence of Ukraine. That forms the foundation of Ukrainian sovereignty and modern statehood. And it clearly states that Ukraine is a neutral state.

Geeta Mohan: Was that also the basis for what happened when you decided to annex Crimea, you only seized the water port, a very important strategic port for Russia? And then Russia was no longer part of the G8. Today, the West claims, or says, that you actions in the recent past are the reason for, and I quote-unquote, the isolation of Russia.

Vladimir Putin: We didn't need to seize that important port in Crimea because it was ours already – our Navy had been stationed there under the agreement with Ukraine, which is a fact. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our fleet remained there regardless. The matter isn't about that, though it's significant, but that's not what we're talking about here.

And we did not annex Crimea, I want to emphasise this point. We simply came to help people who didn't want their lives or fate tied to those who staged a coup in Ukraine. They said: “Hey, nationalist extremists took over in Kiev. Did anyone ask us? Ok, we ended up as part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. So be it, history happened like that. Fine, ok, now we'll live that way. But we believe that we exist in a democratic state. And if coups happen here with unknown consequences, then we won't accept that, we don't want to live like that.” There was a threat not just of pressure, but of outright violence against the Crimeans. Russia stepped in to help them. How could we do otherwise? If someone believes differently, thinking that Russia would act differently, they’re deeply mistaken. We'll always defend our interests and our people.

Geeta Mohan: One brief question before we move on to the other part. Dou you want to go back to being a part of the G8, because there are a lot of reports on that. Is that something Russia is looking at?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Interesting answer. You are clear about that?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. The fact of the matter is that I myself, at a certain point – such were the circumstances, I won’t go into details now – I stopped attending those meetings. This is the first point.

The second thing is that as I have said before, it’s not entirely clear why the countries that form the G7, call themselves the ”Big seven“? What’s so big about them? In terms of purchasing power parity, India’s economy is the third largest in the world. And where are the countries like the United Kingdom in terms of purchasing power parity? What is their ranking now, tenth or thereabouts?

Of course, these are all countries with advanced, high-tech economies; a robust foundation exists, it hasn’t gone anywhere, although their share in the global economy is shrinking year after year, like a piece of Shagreen leather. This is an obvious fact, we all see it.

The trend is obvious, and it will keep going like that, as far as can be seen, among other things, due to what I would cautiously call the deeply flawed economic policies pursued by the leadership of many of those countries. A recession in Germany is evident, for the third year in a row; France is in a difficult situation, also on the brink of recession, as are other leading European nations. Nevertheless, it is an important platform; they do work there, they do make decisions, they do discuss matters among themselves, and so may they all be healthy by God's grace. This is a good story as such.

But I will say it again, at a certain moment I simply stopped going there. And this was not connected to the events in Ukraine, but to some other events; I won’t go into details now. Incidentally, we informed our American partners about this.

Geeta Mohan: You informed them during this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, during this meeting as well.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With Mr Witkoff?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we discussed this topic among others.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That's a very important aspect…

Vladimir Putin: You think so? I don't believe it's that significant. But if you feel that way, okay.

Anjana Om Kashyap: So, coming back to…No, I just wanted to put it in perspective before we go ahead. So, you are just telling us that in your recent meeting with Mr Witkoff it was offered to you that you could make it back to G8 and you categorically said that you are not interested?

Vladimir Putin: No, this topic just came up on its own.

I explained to Mr Witkoff why I stopped attending those events long time ago. It wasn't a suggestion or even a question, nothing like that. We just mentioned that subject. I recalled when I stopped going there – it was in 2012 after the Russian presidential elections. Then I seemed to come back there, then stopped coming again – and anyway, that's no longer important now. But the platform still exists, I wish them to continue their job and Lord give them all the best. But other major international alliances are forming now -such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the G20. We're involved everywhere, and we definitely have a completely non-confrontational approach.

However, there's another aspect here. Look at the current relationship between Russia and European countries. These relationships are far from being called normal. How do you imagine that I come to the G8 meeting, how would I talk to its members if they don't want to talk to me? What am I supposed to do there then? Well, if they do want to talk about it, fine – we can come back to this topic later.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You said that countries like India whose gross trade is far exceeding a lot of European countries need to just calm down and understand some things. The other thing you say is that organisations like probably G7 are losing their relevance and what would I do if they don’t want to talk to me.

But the third thing you mentioned was BRICS, and so there is my question to you: is there a new world order falling in place, because you are not going to G7, but you just visited China, and you are about to visit India. Russia, India, China. RIC. BRICS. SCO. Global South. What do you see as a new power centre in the multi-polar world?

Vladimir Putin: You asked whether the world is changing, and a new order is forming? The world changes constantly – everything flows, cuncta fluunt. The pace of change varies, but the world always evolves.

Nowadays, this rate of change is fast, indeed very high. We can see it, we can feel it, I’ve already said that. And primarily, we’re witnessing the global economic processes unfolding. These processes aren’t linked to events in Ukraine or other hotspots – they’re just happening generally. We could talk about this for hours, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but our viewers might grow tired from such discussions.

One fact remains, however: new centres of growth are emerging of rapid, strong growth. These include countries of the Global South, notably South Asia, India, and Indonesia, which has nearly 300 million people and is rising quickly. Of course, it’s not one and a half billion people living there, like in India, but still these are very rapidly developing countries. Let me say it again: Africa is already advancing swiftly and will accelerate even more. With its young population, these countries would be our future. They’ll strive toward higher living standards, which is inevitable. In the future, rates of change in the global economy will continue to accelerate steadily and significantly.

By the way, we often hear that Russia recently recalibrated its relationships with the Global South and Asia. That's not true, because we’ve been doing so since the early 2000s.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Actually this picture ruffled a lot of feathers across the world. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Three nation heads together. And people were going all over social media and America.

Geeta Mohan: But even if you’d look at that picture, how do you have these alternative blocs and how can they become a real force, if there are fundamental unresolved issues between key member states in that bloc?

Vladimir Putin: You know, conflicts always exist. But tell me what period of history there was no conflict at all? Let's take a look at the historical development of major world centres or regions – wherever we point our finger in time, we will always find a conflict somewhere.

Though the point is elsewhere: it's about finding solutions to these conflicts, seeking most effective ways to resolve them. In large alliances like BRICS, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, we share a common understanding that we have common values rooted in our traditional beliefs, which underpin our civilisations such as India's civilisation for already hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Drawing on this heritage of the past, we work together instead of suppressing opportunities. When efforts are combined, the resulting synergy turns out unexpectedly strong and high.

We never set out to come up with ways to deceive, outsmart, or hinder someone's development. Nothing like that has ever happened. We always focus only on positive agendas. I believe that's important.

Geeta Mohan: That’s an important answer.

But are there alternatives? Because the biggest thing when you have these blocs is how do you make it economically viable. Are we looking at alternative payment systems? Is there going to be a BRICS currency? Or are we looking at alternative payments in terms of national currencies, rupee or ruble? Moving towards de-dollarisation basically.

Vladimir Putin: You know, there's no rush in this, festina lente and you'll avoid big mistakes.

For instance, we were talking about Europe. They set up the euro system and dragged in there certain countries that weren't economically ready for one single strong currency. And now they're dealing with some difficult social matters. There's more than just playing around with inflation there, right? This question is far more complex than just tinkering with inflation a little bit and calling it done. Their entire economy is tied to just one stable currency, therefor social problems arise and budgetary issues emerge.

Right now we don't aim at having a single currency within BRICS. In this process, there's no rush anywhere, and we aren't rushing either. There is a need to expand the use of national currencies, you've mentioned this already. We must make better use of the BRICS New Development Bank's opportunities.

For example, we propose creating a new investment platform using electronic payments (with an initial capital of 100 billion dollars) to encourage joint investments both in our economies and those of developing nations in the Global South. I believe this could be very appealing option, because these investments would help us, and they would also benefit the recipient countries, since together we would produce high-quality goods at reasonable prices. These products could help the countries of the South to develop further, while also advancing our own growth.

There will be more and more tools like this. Modern payment systems and digital money exist already and they are evolving rapidly. And for us, this is definitely not about working against anyone – we see it more as refining tools that are already widely used worldwide.

Geeta Mohan: Rupee and ruble payment then?

Vladimir Putin: There are no obstacles here. These are purely economic issues. We fully understand and realise that we do have a certain trade imbalance. However, India's government does not impose restrictions on our mutual trade. Why? Because they need both oil and petroleum products. The Indian government needs to expand its purchases of Russian fertilisers because these are crucial for Indian farmers, and Prime Minister Modi constantly raises this issue: ”Please increase the volume of deliveries.“

The issue is entirely different. It's not about rupees; it's about what those rupees can buy respectively for our companies. We're also thinking about this, not only the Indian government, but we also do. And we agree that this disparity must be addressed, but not through bans, rather by finding areas beneficial for both sides.

Therefore, during my visit and at our initiative, there will be an exhibition showcasing our importers from India. I want to share with you something completely candidly: this was my direct instruction to the Government of Russia, which is to consider what else we could purchase from India. We're considering this matter together, including from the perspective of the Russian Federation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: My next question before we move to other issues is – how do you balance – I’m going to ask that directly – how do you balance India and China? Because it is very clear that you are keen on good relations with both these countries. How do you balance them, seeing some tensions between us.

Vladimir Putin: We know this very well. India and China are our closest friends – we treasure that relationship deeply, and I do not believe we have the right to interfere in your bilateral relations. But I know that both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping are committed to finding solutions to all issues, even to the most complex interstate problems.

I know about it because both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping see that some specific tension is rising, and they both try to find solutions to these issues, exerting maximum effort – I know this well and can see it clearly. And the key reason why they would succeed would be their wisdom, which we appreciate immensely. At the same time Russia does not feel entitled to intervene, because these are your bilateral affairs.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The next important issue with regard to India is terrorism. We faced two major terrorist attacks, one in Pahalgam and then one in Delhi. My question to you is that we see a dual ideology on terror in the world from different countries. What is the solution in your eyes? Because Russia also faces terrorism, India faces it. What in your eyes is the solution to your terrorist – my – freedom – fighter ideology?

Vladimir Putin: It’s very simple. To achieve freedom, we must use lawful means only. Any actions involving criminal methods or those harming people cannot be supported – this has been decided long ago. As you've correctly noted, Russia has repeatedly faced acts of extreme terrorism throughout its recent history. In these matters, India is our full ally, and we completely support India's fight against terrorism.

Geeta Mohan: But there’s another country in the neighbourhood, very important – important to Russia, important to India: Afghanistan. You are a very rare country to have recognised the Taliban regime. What really made you look at that as a strategic interest – to recognize the Taliban at the time, when the world is still saying “they have not given equal rights to women,” when there are still a lot of issues with Afghanistan actually becoming a country that holds women and men equally. And there are many other human rights issues there.

Vladimir Putin: In every country there are enough problems. And Afghanistan is not an exception, considering that for decades this country has been embroiled in a civil war. It's just horrible. But the Taliban clearly controls the situation in Afghanistan and this is evident. Here's what needs to be said first, and you have to accept it because it's reality.

Secondly, what’s important to note is that the Afghan government takes many actions to combat terrorism and various terrorist organisations, including ISIL and others like them. This we also know very well.

Afghan authorities have significantly reduced opium production in their country and are actively addressing drug threats from within its borders.

There are several other important issues here. The main point is that in order to influence events happening in the country, you must stay in contact with current leadership there – exactly what we’re doing.

Geeta Mohan: Afghanistan’s Taliban minister Muttaqi was in India, and we weren’t allowed – women weren’t allowed to attend the press conference, and we fought back, and then he had to hold a press conference with women as part of that entire violation. Isn’t it interesting? I was just sharing it with you.

Vladimir Putin: There’s truth in what you say, but on the other hand, if he hadn’t come here, you wouldn’t have had any chance to influence these events at all. And now you’ve got both connections and the minister who has arrived. You were able to express your reaction to what happened. How do we measure whether that’s little or much? It seems to me that at least this is part of your influence and your partners’ influence on the situation.

But imagine there were no contacts at all. Then what? Everything remains exactly as before. And nobody, including yourself, would influence anything, or express any opinion about this. In contrast, now such an opportunity is available to you. Contacts are better than no contacts at all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The other flash point is Gaza. And it is now being known that you, Sir, Vladimir Putin, have a new peace plan for Gaza. Trump also has one. What is your Gaza peace plan? What do you propose, Sir?

Vladimir Putin: We don't offer any special plan. We've always believed that the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is by implementing the solutions adopted and considered by the United Nations over many years. And the most important one is establishing an independent Palestinian state. That’s the key to resolving all issues.

Geeta Mohan: The other important issue when you talk about Israel and Gaza that Anjana just did is the fact that the Arab world when it comes to the issue of Gaza and Palestine did not do as much as your ally, your friend Iran did. How do you look at this entire scenario? Well, this is a changed world order. We never thought that Iran would fight back for Palestinians more than the Arab world.

Vladimir Putin: Each of these countries in its way is concerned about Palestine and the Palestinian people, worrying for them. And each of them tries to contribute in resolving the situation. Some things are obvious, others remain hidden in the shadows. But it doesn't mean that no one is doing anything. This is a complex issue that no one has managed to resolve over the years. Hence, it can't be fixed in just a few months by clicking a button. However, we should aim precisely at achieving this goal: establishing a Palestinian state.

What has been done until now was done by President Trump. Naturally, primarily the return of Israeli hostages and Hamas took this step. I think, frankly speaking, this was the most important thing that was done as part of the latest steps for the settlement in Gaza. I believe it would be correct, perhaps, to think about the possibility of organising the governance in such a way as to transfer all authority to the Palestinians. There are such options. They are being discussed both by Arab countries and the neighbours, and beyond it. It’s being discussed in the United States as well, I know it. As part of the United Nations, we have always taken part in this process. We will continue to do that with our friends.

Geeta Mohan:Well. President Putin, we have discussed a lot of geopolitics, we’ve stick to it for a while.

Let’s talk about your journey. You are a man from the intelligence community. How would you rate intelligence agencies today? Which one, do you think, is the best? I am sure you will say Russia but I am still saying, which one is the second best then? And how does the CIA fair?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there are several powerful intelligence services in the world. There is CIA and our, Soviet and Russian intelligence. There is, as it is well-known, a very efficient service Mossad, Israeli intelligence. Many countries of the world have tradition of intelligence services.

You know, I think it is better not to give evaluation to the efficiency of other peoples’ intelligence. I am happy with the quality of work of our intelligence service.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Fair enough. So we would like to because this is a rare opportunity we get to interact with you. We want to understand what shaped Vladimir Putin and as we peep into your early years, we’ve read a little about your KGB days when you were working in Germany and then you moved on to Saint Petersburg and then Moscow, you worked with Mr. Yeltsin.

What actually shaped the man you are today, the leader you are today? Which what it is?

Vladimir Putin:My family, the family that I lived in and that I was born into, my parents, my closest people. I think that everyone is shaped, primarily, by our closest surroundings. Naturally, the social situation around, the colleagues and as you have fairly noted that work in the intelligence service because it has strict discipline, strict ideology that primarily has to do with the defence of the interests of Motherland and that was the entire point of the intelligence service of the Soviet Union and I lived in that system for many years.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I watched in your interview when I think you were interacting with schoolchildren and one of the children asked you, a girl, I think, asked you what has been the most shattering experience of your life has been. And you said the disintegration of USSR. How did that affect you? And what is your vision of Russia?

Vladimir Putin:It had an impact in a sense that we always need to very carefully look at our every step and we need to understand the consequences of that. That’s number one.

Number two. It is very important not only for the former Soviet Union but it applies also to Russia. What was the conclusion that I came to? It is that the Soviet Union at a certain point of time was in such a state that its leadership and possibly even ordinary citizens always believed that it was so big, so great that nothing, ever, under any circumstances would happen to it. And this idea of grandeur is the point when a country starts to make one mistake after another, thinking that everything is alright: yes, we made a mistake here and it was a small failure there but we are so big that it will all pass, we’ll survive. And the number of mistakes grows like a snowball and it is getting harder to manage that. I see the same is happening with some other countries today. Therefore, I am keeping an eye…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Would you name them?

Vladimir Putin:No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Let’s return to the USSR because you talked about one mistake was rolling into another. Whom to hold responsible for the situation? I mean, you are talking about people also thought that it would probably would never happen with us. They’ll never be in disintegration but I am sure you have seen Gorbachev as you saw Yeltsin went on. Whom to hold responsible? What was the phase in which decisively USSR was disintegrating, breaking up?

Vladimir Putin:I would not want to pin-point the guilty and who is to blame more. In general, it was the system that turned out not to be viable. We need to recognise that and we need to think about it. We should not look for specific culprits but we need to think how to create a system that will not simply protect itself but develop. That’s the point. And if such system is in place, it would be self-sufficient, autonomous and effective.

Geeta Mohan: How are you looking at reintegration then?

Vladimir Putin:Reintegration of what? Of the Soviet Union.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, of the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin:No, of course not, that’s simply not on the table. We do not have such a goal and it won’t make any sense. There is also a question of rationale. It does not make sense in current circumstances because it would critically change the national and religious composition of the Russian Federation. It does not make sense.

Mohan: You should say about it to some Western newspapers constantly writing about how you really want the old Soviet Union back because that’s what they keep doing.

Vladimir Putin:I won’t tell it to them. You know why? Because they still do not want to listen to what I am saying. They want to listen to themselves only or they want to comment on what I am saying the way they like it.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You make a point. As Geeta said, they speak and they type a lot about you, that you are building empire back.

Vladimir Putin:Yes, they do that in order to scare their population. They abuse their monopoly in the global media. It is called manipulation of the public opinion and the goal is to justify their aggressive policy towards Russia. I don’t see another goal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Then, if you are different, how would you, Vladimir Putin, summarise Vladimir Putin’s life and ideology?

Vladimir Putin: No, I think it is too early for me to summarise my life. I have some work ahead of me.

Geeta Mohan: I like it because we are going to talk about longevity but before there is a very important question. You are going to India. Prime Ministers of India had a huge, huge role to play in strengthening India-Russia ties. Who do you think in you span of being a leader of Russia really made that difference, since you have been in power enhancing India-Russia ties? Which of the prime ministers?

Vladimir Putin:Well, you have already asked me to characterise other leaders of other countries. I do not think it is very polite. You know, now we are working with Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. Indeed, we have very trustworthy and friendly relations. He is a very reliable person. In that sense, I am speaking very sincerely. India got lucky. He lives India. I am talking to him and I know him. I hope he won’t be cross with me – I am just saying what I am seeing and what I am thinking. It is very pleasant to me to talk to such person, a person of integrity, you know. And that’s number one.

Number two, indeed, he is very sincere when it goes about strengthening Indian-Russian ties across the whole range of areas, especially crucial issues of economy and defence and humanitarian cooperation, development of hi-tech. It is very interesting to meet with him. He travelled here and we sat with him at my residence and we drank tea for the whole evening, and we discussed different topics. We simply had an interesting conversation purely like humans.

So I am looking forward to this meeting. I am sure it will be very interesting and useful.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am sure he has this mutual admiration for you as well.

Quick question on the future because AI is the force to reckon with. You have your viewpoint on this. Do you think it is a force for chaos or it’s a force for good and where is Russia in this AI-weapon war?

Vladimir Putin:You know like any other achievement of progress it can be both good and evil. It’s clear that it’s cross-cutting technology that changes the life of an ordinary person and, of course, in the near future it will change the lives of the whole humanity. And those who will be the first to master this technology, use it most effectively would gain a tremendous benefit in the economy, in social sphere, in defence as well as in every sphere, in education, in science, healthcare, everywhere because the effective use of artificial intelligence in each of the spheres will have a multiplier effect for efficiency and productivity.

There are also challenges here and specialists know it fully well. The fact is that it is all based on processing major data sets, big data. Here comes personal data of people as well. That’s number one. And, naturally, we need to take steps to guarantee safety and protection, to ensure human rights in the widest sense of the word.

But here is yet another very important thing. It is that the people who have these databases, in essence, they can use their capacities, the capacities of the developing technologies to shape the world view of people.

Geeta Mohan: We are talking about future. You are talking about health also and you just spoke about health. There was a hot mighty moment between you and President Xi Jinping and it was reported very widely when you spoke about longevity and the stride of medicine by bio hacking. Do you think immortality is achievable?

Vladimir Putin:Everything has an end. Only God is eternal. We can extend longevity of life, one hundred percent, I am sure we can. Seventy seven years ago, average lifespan of a person in India was thirty one years and now it’s about seventy. That’s what healthcare does. In India, infant mortality was cut fourfold. We congratulate you.

These are all the results of the healthcare effort and if you use AI in healthcare and you use it to produce medical drugs, for example using genetic engineering and so on, that means it would have a tremendous effect. Nevertheless, everything comes to an end.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I would not like to mention you age but there have been recently a lot of gen-Z protests across the world.

How do you connect with the young generation? We have a lot of leaders who are looking now younger and younger and younger. How does this happen? And how do you connect with the young people in Russia?

Vladimir Putin:You know, there is nothing new here. In literature and in art, this topic of contradiction of the older generation and the younger generation, of fathers and sons in our classic literature, these images have always existed, fathers and sons. There is nothing new here.

You know what’s new? The technology: those messengers, Telegram and so on. They are used to influence the youth.

The younger generation, this generation is more or less the same. Young people are always more mobile, more radical. The younger people, a young person thinks that they are coming across this injustice and so on and no one saw it before them. And now they saw that and they will tell it to everyone around, and they think that these injustices are very easy to deal with, they can be easily solved.

And when a person becomes more mature, he or she is trying to change something, it turns out that they start to understand that it’s possible to find the solution but it’s not as easy as it seemed at first glance.

Therefore, we need to work with people. We can’t just say that you are just young, you don’t understand anything, you are just sitting there in your homes; it does not work like that. You need to always keep in touch with young people and to use their tools, their devices of obtaining information, to use feedback, social networks and so on. You need to work there.

And I am sure that you partly do that. I’d like to wish you every success.

Geeta Mohan: Mr. President, we would spend hours talking but we are reaching the end of our conversation with you.

You just mentioned religion a while ago and the Orthodox Church, a very important aspect. I have travelled to Moscow a few times now and every time you are coming here around Christmas, it is unbelievably lit, unbelievable to see how beautiful Moscow as a city looks like.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am for the first time here.

Geeta Mohan: That’s why she was surprised, it was better than any European city.

But religion does play a very important role now. How do you see spirituality when it comes to the morality question and leadership, to the Russian society and for you personally?

Vladimir Putin:Well, that’s the foundation. We always turn to our traditional values as we call them, at least that’s what we have been doing lately.

This does not mean that we use these traditional values to just sit idly, this is simply the foundation that we feel very solid on but we need to look forward, naturally, we need to develop and use all modern means of development. And only with that, using our basic fundamental values and vision of the future, that’s the only way to efficiently achieve the goals that we are setting for ourselves. And that’s the way we have shaped or formulated our goals – the goals of national development.

I would really like our national goals and the goals of India shaped by government of India headed by Prime Minister Modi, I would really hope that they coincide so we could join efforts and achieve maximum result.

Anjana Om Kashyap:Welcome with open heart to India and we look forward to whatever it comes out of the meetings.

But I don’t know how much of Hindi films or songs you’ve ever heard. There is a song that was very popular in Russia “Sar pē lāl ṭōpī Rūsī, phir bhī dil hai Hindustānī”. Actually, it just means there is red cap on the head, you are wearing a red Russian hat but the heart is Indian. It was very popular even in Russia, a lot of people knew about it.

Anything that you wanted to say about India, Indian society and Indian culture? And what is your message to all Indians, who like you a lot and who would want to listen to what Mr. Putin has to say to them.

Vladimir Putin:You’ve just mentioned the Indian culture and the Russian culture. You know I think that we have a lot of citizens in the Russian Federation also having notion of Indian culture as about a fairy tale, a beautiful, bright, colourful fairy tale. From the time of the Soviet Union, people here like Indian movies and Indian music. I would even say that certain known people from Russian society have a cult of the Indian culture and I like that very much because I think that it is, as they say, from heart to heart.

And we’ll be doing everything in our power so that this interest would not lose its spark. I would like people in India to know that.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Mr President, we are very thankful to you for this very open interview that we had with you and the best part, I think, of this entire interview is that we touched everything we talked about. Everything but this is a bond, India-Russia bond, it’s a friendship that is to be cherished forever, there are seasonal friendships but there are friendships that last a lifetime. It means a classic vintage and let’s see what comes out of it.

We are very thankful to you for this interview.

Geeta Mohan: You watched the interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The interview was conducted by Aaj Tak and India Today. We discussed Russia. Russia will not be isolated and it will protect its interests. And it says that it would make part of the developed world but not part of any society like G8.

India and the whole world are looking at you. Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Conversation with journalists and executives of Aaj Tak and India Today TV channels

2025-12-07T11:09:51+04:00

After the interview, Vladimir Putin had a conversation with presenters and executives of the India Today Group media conglomerate.

Vice Chairperson of India Today Group Kalli Purie: We’re for the first time in Russia – at least I am. The city is just breathtaking. I've been all over the world, but nothing like this has ever caught my eye before. It feels like I'm in a fairy tale.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: You should stay here for two weeks, then you'll truly feel that you're in a fairy tale. Then, really, the city will be fully decorated for Christmas and the New Year. We're only getting started now.

Kalli Purie: Like a Fabergé egg – you open one up and there's a surprise inside.

Vladimir Putin: Moscow looks beautiful, and it's one of the best megacities in the world now. And definitely, you must visit other major Russian cities too. I recommend St Petersburg because that's where I grew up. It's also a unique place.

Kalli Purie: I am surprised, I admit, and feel slightly guilty. In some ways we were exposed to Western propaganda, and I did not expect what I saw in Russia and especially in Moscow… We expected sanctions; we expected people wouldn't be so friendly nor speak English. But everything turned out completely different from how I imagined.

Vladimir Putin: Your ladies constantly pushed me towards expressing anti-Western sentiments, but I tried to keep things balanced.

Anjana Om Kashyap: When you began speaking about not giving characteristics to your colleagues…

Vladimir Putin: I believe the Western community can only be pitied these days. Honestly. They've cornered themselves into numerous dead ends in many areas. Who’s against protecting the environment? Everyone supports it!

I mean, political elites began speculating on issues that concern people. Is the environment important? It is very important. Is the climate changing? It is. Does this bother us? Yes, it does a lot. The question is, ”What do we do about it?“ Some political circles started speculating by saying, ”We’ll offer you a solution.“ But which one? Abandon traditional energy sources entirely, switch everyone over to wind, solar, or other forms of generation. That’s good, but it takes time, requires a lot of investment in new technologies. How will people live in many Asian countries, Africa? How? We must take things step-by-step, invest money in new technologies.

Geeta Mohan: Do you work on projects like this?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we do.

Geeta Mohan: Rejecting fossil fuel sources?

Vladimir Putin: We’re not rejecting them; we’re developing new technologies and gradually changing things, yes. But that takes time and huge investments. Countries with insufficient level of economic development do not have these resources – they can’t invest in new types of energy. So what should they do? And the West imposes restrictive measures on them and says, ”Do whatever you want.“ In essence, this is a new form of neo-colonialism.

It’s quite obvious, but we just can’t allow it. We need to establish some common rules.

They [the Western countries] simply stalemate themselves. They shut down nuclear power plants, coal production, everything. How are they supposed to live? Now they have to open them again because cheap Russian gas isn’t available anymore—so everything is being launched again, all types of energy generation.

You know, over decades they have been constantly accusing us of being aggressive. Every issue, western countries try to resolve through some kind of pressure or by using force – military, political, or economic. That is the use of force in international affairs, exactly. That’s what it is.

Anjana Om Kashyap: They even take pride that they don’t recognise climate change. The US President declared that liberals had invented the myth about climate change.

Vladimir Putin: Partly he is right – it's not a myth, but an abuse of these processes for political purposes. He is absolutely right here, I agree with him.

Yet it requires coordinated, fair and honest work. If someone wants other countries to adopt cutting-edge technologies, then give them money, invest. Otherwise, don't impose restrictions on their goods.

Geeta Mohan: You met at CCC, the climate change conference, three of you together: there was Trump, you and Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince bin Salman. It was quite a rare occasion.

Vladimir Putin: All countries do this one way or another, we do too. We have our own programme for modern renewable energy sources in several areas. In fact, Russia has one of the most environment-friendly energy systems in the world. Because we have vast resources in hydroelectricity, nuclear power, and gas energy, which is considered to be the ‘greenest’ one among hydrocarbons.

Let me say that the use of coal is growing in Europe now, there's no reason for them to criticise other nations for doing the same.

Comment: That's true.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You have a great sense of humour.

Founder of India Today Group Aroon Purie: Can I ask you one question?

Vladimir Putin: Sure.

Aroon Purie: You've been leading the Russian Federation for over 20–25 years and faced numerous crises. Do you regret anything? Looking back, would you do something in a different way?

Vladimir Putin: It's a traditional question, indeed, but, I think looking back and thinking that I would have done this or that differently, so to say, doesn’t make any sense. What’s done is done.

Overall… Well, you know, there's one general rule that I consider to be my rule – it's well-known: I try to do what I consider not just necessary, but something I have no right not to do, no matter what.

Comment: Great principal.

Vladimir Putin: Well, I don’t know how great it is, but it’s a sort of my inner rule that just came up in my life on its own. So to say, I do what I have no right not to do. That’s the most important thing.

Kalli Purie: We’ve been watching you for three days now, and we saw that you worked tirelessly exactly like our Prime Minister. Do you ever have a rest? Are you planning to have some rest on the New Year or Christmas holidays?

President Vladimir Putin: Who has worked in the intelligence agency, me or you? You have been watching me for three days.

Geeta Mohan: Thank you very much.

Can we have a photo with you?

(Taking a photo.)

Answers to media questions

2025-11-29T00:52:26+04:00

Following the state visit to Kyrgyzstan and the CSTO summit, Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. I am at your disposal.

First, I would like to express our gratitude to the leadership of Kyrgyzstan for organising this event and for the past year when Kyrgyzstan chaired the CSTO and hosted various events, which has certainly helped strengthen the organisation.

I believe that in the current turbulent situation it is a major factor of stability in our common space. This is important for Russia and very important for many CSTO countries.

We have coordinated everything without much difficulty, that is, all proposals advanced by the Secretariat. Everything we planned to sign has been signed. There were hardly any differences in any of the spheres we discussed. Everyone knows that it is necessary to work more closely together in the current situation. We do not threaten anyone, but we must be ready to respond to any actions that could be aggressive towards our countries.

There are many other spheres we are working in, and we will probably talk about this now. We have done good practical work in all of these vital spheres.

Overall, we can say, first, that we have achieved the desired result. And second, I see good prospects for the further development of our cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

As you know, Russia has taken over the CSTO chairmanship and will head the organisation for a year. I set out the priorities of our chairmanship during the expanded format meeting. I believe you are aware of this, so there is hardly any need to repeat it all. On the whole, we are very pleased with the results of our joint work.

Thank you. If you have any questions, which I am sure you do, I will do my best to answer them.

Pavel Minakov: Good afternoon, Interfax news agency.

The question concerns our priorities. So we are the chair of the Organisation, our slogan is “Collective Security in a Multipolar World.” Why was this chosen as the guiding principle for our chairmanship? Could you elaborate further on our specific priorities when we hold this position?

The second question also pertains to collective security. Prime Minister [of Armenia Nikol] Pashinyan has once again declined to attend the summit, while at the same time Armenia is conducting joint military exercises with the United States. The question is whether this poses a threat to our unity within the framework of the CSTO’s collective security. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me reiterate: I outlined the priorities during the expanded-format meeting. This was done openly – you were likely present there, or at least, many of you have heard it.

There are numerous priorities: enhancing our cooperation, comparing the capabilities of our respective defence industries. As is known, since the time of the Soviet Union, this cooperation has been very extensive. We provide CSTO member states with preferential terms for the procurement of our arms and equipment. All of this is functioning and operating quite effectively.

It is perfectly clear that amid the special military operation, our capabilities for some components are currently not that great. That is to say, they are substantial, but we must meet our own needs. In specific sectors, we are achieving this in full, entirely.

I do not believe that our production capacities are excessive, but we not only meet our own needs but also continue to export our equipment, incidentally. This primarily concerns aviation technology – both aircraft and helicopters. Now we have achieved significant advancements – a revolutionary step for us, one might say – in the field of unmanned technology and unmanned aerial vehicles, drones. We are prepared to share all of this with our partners.

Another area of cooperation is enhancing the operational efficiency of CSTO management bodies. This is somewhat bureaucratic, yet it remains important, given that every country is interested in minimising expenditure and improving coordination.

We will continue, as before, to conduct corresponding joint exercises across all domains. This concerns not only cooperation between armed forces but also the work of security services.

Unfortunately, the threats posed by drugs and organised crime persist. All of this will remain within our focus. We intend to build on the work undertaken by our colleagues from Kyrgyzstan, as I have mentioned. There will be full and complete continuity. I am confident this will be to the benefit of every CSTO member state.

Concerning Armenia’s position, it, too, is well-known. It is as follows, as our Armenian colleagues inform us: “We support all decisions adopted by the CSTO, we consider ourselves members of the CSTO, but at this stage, we are abstaining from participation in the Organisation’s meetings.” That is their choice. If they deem this course of action possible for the time being, then so be it; we agree.

Since they remain members of the Organisation, we – Russia – maintain contact with them. As the country assuming chairmanship of the CSTO, we will, of course, maintain constant engagement with them in their capacity as members. Naturally, the decisions we prepare regarding each priority will be discussed and coordinated with them as well.

Leonid Kitrar: Mr President, Leonid Kitrar, Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre. I have a question about bilateral relations with Kyrgyzstan.

We are pursuing quite a few projects, among them in the energy sector. This year, Rosatom stated it was prepared to build a small nuclear power plant here. Was this discussed? Are there any concrete figures? What are the most promising areas in bilateral relations?

I have another quick question. Not long ago, there were issues with moving cargo between Kazakhstan and Russia. Are there similar issues here?

Vladimir Putin: I will start with bilateral cooperation.

I am grateful to the President of Kyrgyzstan for the invitation to come to Kyrgyzstan on a visit of high diplomatic status and for the hospitality accorded to our entire delegation.

Here is what we said during a press event following the visit. Indeed, our relations are following a very positive track, and our investors are working increasingly actively on the Kyrgyz market. Why has this become possible? I mentioned it briefly earlier, but it is crucial: this is happening in part because the current leadership of Kyrgyzstan has managed to ensure a stable domestic political situation, which is always extremely important for potential investors, because everyone hopes that the commitments undertaken by the recipient country will guarantee the implementation of all agreements. This is one of the most crucial matters. Kyrgyzstan’s leadership has succeeded in doing this. We wish them every success in strengthening domestic political stability and, as an EAEU and CSTO member, we will support and assist them in doing so.

Our relations cover many areas in addition to investment to include the mining sector and energy. As a reminder, Kyrgyzstan receives our resources at the lowest prices and exports are exempt from corresponding customs duties. Naturally, this makes our products highly competitive, to put it mildly, on the Kyrgyz market and provides strong support for the Kyrgyz economy. This includes oil and gas, but we are not limiting ourselves to this; we have plans that may include the construction of small NPPs.

As a reminder, Russia is the only country in the world that carries out such projects. Many are saying they are ready to do it, but so far we are the only ones to do it. If Kyrgyzstan decides to go ahead with this project – our colleagues are in contact with one another – we will implement these projects.

High-tech areas are also developing in the course of bilateral cooperation. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Yandex has been working here more and more actively. Hopefully, it will continue this way, meaning that Yandex is not only engaged in food delivery, transportation and taxi service; Yandex is keenly engaged in developing artificial intelligence. This is an extremely important and promising area for all of us. Yes, Kyrgyzstan is not a large country, but there is an educated part of society here, young people with good education, who have very good prospects. And this is important for us – to create a common space in this extremely promising area. So, naturally, we will work here, too.

Both us and Kyrgyzstan deem it very important to do everything so that Russian migration policy could reliably provide for the interests of native residents of the Russian Federation, our citizens, and our economy, as well as for the citizens of Kyrgyzstan who come to work in Russia. They should be ready for this, including in humanitarian terms; I mean above all their command of the Russian language, starting from an early age, from school age onwards.

In this regard, as you also know, we are assisting the leadership of Kyrgyzstan to promote the study of the Russian language. We will open schools here and work in the field of higher education. In general, there is a great scope for joint work. In Kyrgyzstan, as you know, the Russian language has the official status at the legislative level, which we appreciate very much. And we will go on working in all these areas.

Regarding cargo traffic. Yes, indeed, such a problem did occur. What caused it? I will not conceal the fact that, on my instruction, the Customs Committee – within the framework of the EAEU, our customs authorities are entitled to such actions – began random checks on the roads, so to speak. It turned out that a significant number of goods, a significant number of these lorries, as you said, cross the Russia-Kazakhstan border without any documents at all. Yes, we have a common customs space, a common market, and free movement of capital and goods.

But every such heavyweight, every such heavy lorry must have a certain set of documents agreed on between us – between the states. There aren’t that many of them, but they are a must. There should be a paper, a document about what is inside the lorry, and at least it should be clear who is the consignee of these goods. The first document clearly shows the customs value, what customs duty should be paid by the person who crosses our border with these goods, and who should pay VAT upon receiving the goods. As soon as the roadside checks started, it turned out that there were no documents at all. It is just illegal import, and forgive my manners, it’s just gushing into our customs territory. The Russian Federation is missing out on billions, tens of billions of rubles in our budget. Of course, I informed my colleagues about this situation.

We talked about this matter with President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. He understood everything, and he has no questions or problems with that. We have agreed that we will do everything possible to ensure that this large number of lorries that have accumulated on our border, on the territory of Kazakhstan, move on to the Russian Federation.

Our customs authorities have agreed among themselves that the value of the goods being transported will be declared, and the final recipient will be indicated. And we will gradually let these lorries in. There will be no queue. Yes, it will actually be almost within the framework of the green corridor, at a minimum cost, let them pay at least something, to begin with. And starting next year, our customs officers will require all the necessary documents during random checks. If there are none, then the customs service will not send these goods back. I think that the customs authorities will come to an agreement, up to and including confiscation, probably.

You see, there are all kinds of goods in the lorries, from nails to diamonds and television sets. But let them at least write down shoelaces costing five kopecks, let them start paying something, let them declare the final consignee so that we can receive VAT, even if it is modest. We just need to put things in order.

Thousands of lorries have already passed through. I think the queue will be gone by the end of the year.

Pavel Zarubin: Good afternoon. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.

The principal global topic of recent days has been the Trump peace plan. Naturally, we have many questions for you.

To what extent does the draft initially published unofficially take our position into account? Have we received an amended version of the document following negotiations between the United States and Ukraine? Consequently, when will Russian-American negotiations begin – which, as we understand, have not yet taken place regarding this document? When will Steve Witkoff visit you? What is your current assessment of the prospects for a peaceful settlement? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the draft agreement. There was no draft agreement per se; rather, there was a set of issues proposed for discussion and finalisation. In general, I have spoken about this on numerous occasions. Prior to my visit to the United States, before the trip to Alaska, we discussed this with American negotiators, and subsequently, a list of 28 potential points for an agreement was formulated. As I have already stated publicly, it was conveyed to us through certain channels, and we examined it.

Thereafter, negotiations were held in Geneva between the American and Ukrainian delegations. They, as I understand it, decided among themselves that all these 28 points should be divided into four separate components. All of this was passed on to us.

In general, we agree that this could form the basis for future agreements. However, it would be inappropriate for me to speak now of any final versions, as these do not exist.

Certain matters are of a fundamental nature, and overall, we observe that the American side is, in some respects, taking our position into account – the position that was discussed before Anchorage and after Alaska. There are, unquestionably, areas where we need to sit down and engage in serious discussions on specific points, and all such matters must be framed in proper diplomatic language. Because, generally speaking, one thing is to say that Russia does not intend to attack Europe. To us, that sounds ridiculous, does it not? We never had any such intentions. But if they want to have it formalised, let’s do it, no problem.

It is simply that there are individuals there – I believe they are either not entirely of sound mind or are a certain type of swindler – who seek to gain from this by publicly telling their population, their citizens, that Russia is preparing to attack Europe and that they must urgently strengthen their defence capabilities. Either they are serving the interests of the defence industry and private companies, or they are attempting to bolster their domestic political ratings against the backdrop of the dire state of their economies and social spheres. It is difficult to say what motivates them, but from our point of view, it is complete nonsense – an outright falsehood. Nevertheless, if this narrative has taken root in their public consciousness, if they have frightened their citizens who now wish to hear that we have no plans – no aggressive intentions – towards Europe, then very well, we are ready to formalise that in any manner they see fit.

Perhaps there is even merit in this, considering that we all wish to talk, to discuss, and to articulate matters of pan-European security. Probably so; we ourselves proposed this at one point. If our Western – let us once again call them “partners” – now want this, then very well, we are ready. But we all understand that this requires serious discussion, as every word carries significance.

Or, for example, one of the documents mentions that we should resolve the issue of strategic stability together with our American partners. For heaven’s sake – are we opposed to that? That is precisely what we proposed, having even suggested to the Obama administration that we should agree on certain matters. The response was, “Yes, yes,” and then, a month before the Obama administration left the White House, everything stalled. Now another treaty – New START – is expiring in February. If they do not wish to do anything, so be it.

From these papers, we see that, overall, there is a desire to revisit these issues. However, each of these issues is a separate, very serious area. We are certainly prepared for this serious discussion. Next week, an American delegation is due to arrive in Moscow.

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

As a follow-up on the colleague’s question. Will you please name the main Russian negotiators?

And one more thing. There were reports on talks underway in Abu Dhabi. Does it mean a concurrent process is going on there? Could you tell us who is talking to whom and what is happening there? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Obviously, the negotiator from the Russian side is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When we really sit down at the negotiating table and start discussing each of the proposed items in substance and in detail, the Foreign Ministry – on our part, from the Presidential Executive Office – Vladimir Medinsky, Aide to the President who has been engaged in that from the outset. I also included my Aide, Yury Ushakov, to deal with current issues, to organise all this work, he is in touch with his American counterparts. But he cannot deal with all of this alone – the Foreign Ministry must step in and to some extent, the Presidential Executive Office. This is a big, very extensive set of issues that need to be discussed, formalised, and properly spelled out.

That is the way it should be done, I think. It’s not that I think so, but it is never done any other way.

As for the Abu Dhabi talks, yes, I have heard some information noise on this score. But there was nothing unusual, nothing secret happening there either. Our secret services, Russian and Ukrainian, have always been in contact with each other, even in the hardest times. And they are in contact now. What are they dealing with? They are resolving a number of humanitarian issues, primarily related to the exchange of prisoners of war. The Abu Dhabi platform is actively used for this purpose. We are very grateful to the President of the United Arab Emirates for the opportunities extended to us. Thanks to his efforts, hundreds of our men, our heroes, have returned to their homeland.

At the initiative of the Ukrainian side, one of such regular meetings was scheduled and took place in Abu Dhabi. On our side, one of Russia’s FSB leaders attended it. A representative of the US administration also came to this meeting. It was a bit unexpected for us, but we never give up on contacts. He spoke with the Russian representative and wondered if perhaps we should not wait until next week to continue contacts but rather hold a meeting in Moscow this week.

I only learnt about this when the plane landed in Bishkek, but nevertheless, I said that we were ready, you are welcome, at any time. The issue is so important for everyone and for us that at any time of the day or night – we will arrive tonight, we will return, so we can meet right on Thursday, or Friday, Saturday, Sunday – whenever they want. But we agreed that we would decide, and the administration of the US President would decide who should arrive and when.

The latest information was brought to my attention yesterday that President Trump had decided that, after all, as previously agreed – and there was such an agreement earlier – the meeting is proposed by the American side to be held in Moscow next week. OK, we are always open.

As to who will represent the United States from the American side, this should, of course, be determined by the President of the United States. Therefore, we are expecting them in the first half of the next week.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Mr President, are you going to insist that the territorial issue, above all in Donbass, should be resolved here and now, and for good? Or, will you agree to postpone it, so to speak, until better days? One more question, with your permission: would you agree to return to G7, the Group of Eight, as one of the peace plan versions provides; that is, to all those people?

Vladimir Putin: As for G7 or G8, we have never asked to be there, we were invited there once and we worked there. It was a platform for coordinating certain positions. I must say, you know, please take note, even before the tragic events in Ukraine began, I stopped travelling there. Did you notice?

Remark: Yes, indeed.

Vladimir Putin: This is why, when the developments in Ukraine began, they said: “Well, we are not expecting you there.” And good riddance… I do not remember who it was, I think it was the Prime Minister who went there once. The first time I refused was because really, I do not invent anything, it was when the Government was formed after I was elected President, I think in 2012. However, we never reject contacts, we are always open for interaction. First, nobody invites us there, I have not heard of or received any official proposals. And second, we know how the great majority of that association, called the Big Seven, and I have already said it once that I do not quite understand why it is called the big seven: in terms of territory, population and contribution to the global GDP they are getting smaller and smaller. Well, it does not matter, they are our important partners anyway. In today’s situation I just cannot imagine how we can interact directly. Can you imagine it? Well, we've arrived, hello, and now we will be stare at each other, or what?

I believe that this should bring us to some normalisation. Maybe, if we implement all these proposals within the list that we have received from the US administration, maybe some conditions for bilateral or multilateral contacts will emerge, however, it is premature to speak about it.

Andrei Kolesnikov: And there was the second question …

Vladimir Putin: You know, I will tell you now very briefly, I think it will be clear at once what it is all about. We are still receiving proposals about ceasing hostilities there, there and there. When the Ukrainian troops leave the territories they occupy, then the hostilities will cease. If they do not leave, we will achieve it militarily. That’s that.

Yes, please.

Edmund Zhelbunov: Edmund Zhelbunov, NTV television company. A question on the progress of the special military operation.

Mr President, are the positive dynamics on the fronts continuing? If so, in which directions is the most active advance taking place? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The positive dynamics persist in all directions. Moreover, our troops’ advance in each of these directions continues to pick up the pace, and quite noticeably. I would refrain from citing the precise number of kilometres, because I could be mistaken, but month after month, the size of the territory, so to speak, returned by our forces in all key areas is steadily increasing. In other words, the pace of our advance is accelerating.

However, the main problem for the enemy lies elsewhere: the widening gap between their losses and the number of personnel they are able to bring to the line of combat contact. In October, I believe, they suffered over 47,000 casualties, or about 47,500. Through mobilisation, or more precisely – forced mobilisation, they raised roughly 16,500, and an additional 14,500 to 15,000 returned from hospitals. If one calculates this precisely down to a tenth, the net deficit comes to around 15,000. In the previous month, the deficit was 10,000. Thus, the gap is widening.

We must also add those who desert the army. The scale of desertion is significant, and this is evident not only from our media or from Defence Ministry reports, but is also widely covered in Western media, and it is virtually impossible for them to hide this information. Therefore, there is little they can do about it, as they say.

In short, the dynamics remain positive in all directions.

Yes, please.

Yegor Piskunov: Yegor Piskunov, RT television channel. Thank you very much.

Mr President, are you aware of the fact that phone conversations between Yury Ushakov, Steve Witkoff, and Kirill Dmitriev have been leaked to the press? What do you think about it? The West, particularly numerous Western media outlets, has blown it up to a scandal. Witkoff has come under attack. What do you think about this? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, speaking of leaks, that may be a fake claim, or maybe a conversation was actually eavesdropped on. Eavesdropping is a criminal offence. At least in our country, eavesdropping is illegal. You know how the joke goes, “they were instructed to spy, but they ended up eavesdropping.” Let them mind their own business. By the way, spying is a skill, too.

I will explain what I mean. I am not aware of what these wiretaps or leaks are all about. You see, we get up in the morning and work from morning till night. After the events ended, I joined you. Here is what I think the problem is all about. It is not about us. It is about the clash of opinions in the collective West and specifically within the United States regarding what is going on and what needs to be done to stop the war and to halt the hostilities.

I had a meeting with Mr Witkoff before the summit in Anchorage. After that meeting, I went to Alaska to have talks. Overall – I want to emphasise it – at least my impression was that we had an understanding of where we stood and what needed to be done to stop the hostilities.

Then we left because President Trump and I needed to return to our respective capitals, to think things over, to consult with our administrations, ministries, agencies, and allies. After that, we agreed to continue discussions.

[Sergei] Lavrov and [Marco] Rubio met in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and had a conversation. No conflict arose between Russia and the United States on these matters. We remained on the Anchorage platform. Suddenly, the United States imposed sanctions on two of our oil companies. Why? Frankly, I was not sure what was happening.

So, there is no reason for accusing Mr Witkoff of being overly polite with his Russian counterparts. I spoke with him, and then we had that meeting in Alaska, and then – boom – sanctions that undermine our relations were imposed on us. To reiterate, we are unclear what kind of message this is. That is the first point.

Second, Mr Witkoff is apparently travelling to Moscow on President Trump’s instructions to negotiate with us. It would be quite unusual if, in his conversations with [Yury] Ushakov, he had used cuss words to insult us, or said something extremely rude, and then reached out to us in order to improve his negotiating stance. That is nonsense. Not to mention that Mr Witkoff is, apparently, a well-mannered person; he knows he should create a proper environment for interpersonal communication. That much is obvious.

This brings me to the most important point. I have known Mr Witkoff for several months now. He and President Trump go back many years, maybe even decades. He is a US citizen, and he upholds the position of his President and his country. True, our dialogue is quite challenging. We are having a civil conversation. We are not spitting at each other. We are talking like civilised people do, but each one of us is upholding his own position. To reiterate, Mr Witkoff is upholding his position, the position of the United States and the interests of the United States as he sees them and as those who delegate him to negotiate with Russia see them. These people are not just President Trump. I think they also include people from the US military, diplomatic, and administrative spheres in the broad sense of the word.

Please go ahead.

Yelena Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.

Talks about confiscating Russian assets have intensified in Europe. I want to ask how Russia would respond to this. And do you agree with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s remark that the confiscation can lead to legal disputes, multiple lawsuits and the collapse of the euro?

Vladimir Putin: Hungary is an EU member, therefore, the Prime Minister of one of the EU countries knows better how this could affect the European currency. Clearly, this will have negative repercussions for the global financial system because confidence in the Eurozone will sharply decline, will plummet. And amid problems in the economy, where the locomotive of the European economy – the German economy – has been in recession for the third year running, I think this will definitely be quite an ordeal.

On my instruction, the Government of the Russian Federation is working on a package of retaliatory measures in case this happens. It is clear to everyone, and everyone says it bluntly, that it would amount to stealing someone else’s property. In this regard, I naturally have a question: who is teaching whom? Either the thieving elite of Ukraine, which steals the money of its taxpayers and the taxpayers of Western sponsors – we are now well aware of the corruption scandal in Kiev – is learning from the Europeans, or the Europeans are learning from the Ukrainian elite. In any case, both are theft. That is how we feel about it, and we are working on retaliatory measures. However, the Government will make them public later, if that happens.

Anton Vernitsky: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

After Donald Trump admitted the possibility for the United States to test nuclear weapons, you gave instructions, at the Security Council meeting, to the relevant departments and security services to explore the feasibility of testing Russian nuclear weapons. Has a final decision been made yet? If so, what is it? If not, when can it be made?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I issued instructions to collect additional information about the actions of the American side, analyse it and submit proposals to me on what we should do in this situation. One of the proposals that we have received is to work together on this topic, that’s what we take from what we see. And we are ready to think all the issues concerning strategic stability over together with the US administration.

Anton Vernitsky: Could it be at the next negotiations, in Moscow next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, if this issue arises. Actually, even if it does not arise, we will, of course, raise this issue, because both the United States and we are perfectly aware that preparations for real nuclear weapons tests need time. And we certainly cannot let ourselves get into a situation where the United States will have had a test whereas we will be preparing for it for another year and a half. Naturally, we have to think about it. It was not us who said that, but we must be ready for any possible scenario. And I assure you, we will be ready.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Right now, during this visit, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not accompanying you…

Vladimir Putin: Do you miss him?

Alexander Yunashev: A little. Although he is not away on vacation, he has not appeared on your international visits for two weeks now. The media claim he has fallen out of favour allegedly due to an unsuccessful conversation with Marco Rubio. What do you say?

Vladimir Putin: This is absolute nonsense. He has not fallen out of favour in any way. He has his own work schedule, he reported to me, informed me of his plans, and he is implementing them. He is preparing for a meeting with our American partners.

Yes, please.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, TASS news agency.

Allow me to return to the peace plan. There is an impression that the Western side, by proposing such swift, rapid meetings and insisting on them, is in some way pressuring Russia and you personally. Naturally, everyone wants to achieve peace as quickly as possible, but it seems such matters bear no haste.

In your opinion, is there a risk that if an agreement is railroaded or hastily assembled, there may arise a temptation later to interpret it rather loosely? You have just said that every word requires discussion. How long, in general, will this take?

Vladimir Putin: I deliberately drew your attention to the fact that every issue listed in the documents handed to us holds immense importance – each one is a key topic, do you understand? Therefore, this requires thorough consideration. Likely, some of our partners are eager to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Why? Colleagues here have asked me about the developments along the line of contact, about the position of American negotiators. Well, what is happening? Take, for instance, Kupyansk – I will return to it shortly. Let us begin with the area of responsibility of our Centre group of forces: where are the main operations taking place? On the Krasnoarmeysk direction and around the city of Dimitrov. Krasnoarmeysk and Dimitrov are entirely encircled – just as Kupyansk was in its time. Seventy percent of Krasnoarmeysk is under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. In the southern part of Dimitrov, the enemy grouping has been cut off, it is being split across the entire city, and our forces are proceeding to systematically eliminate it.

Well, what is next? If you look at the map, shift your gaze further east, northeast – there lies Komsomolsk, and north of Komsomolsk – Kupyansk, Slavyansk, and a little further north, northeast – Seversk. In Komsomolsk, combat is ongoing within the city, and a significant number of buildings have already been liberated by our troops, with further advances underway.

As for Seversk, which, as I said, lies further northeast, our forces have approached this city from the east, south, and north. Fierce combat is taking place in the city – I believe out of 8,000 buildings, 1,700 are under our control. Do you understand, if they have approached from the north, south, and east, where is this all heading? This is a very difficult question for the Ukrainian side, for the Ukrainian armed forces.

If you look north – the city of Seversk: 1,700 buildings out of 8,000, and beyond that, further north (where our North group of forces is operating) – Volchansk is almost entirely in our hands, that is on the Kharkov direction.

Now take a look at the developments in the Zaporozhye Region. There, the enemy has spent the past ten years constructing a fortified area – they began this work back in 2014 and have reinforced it ever since – which is now facing our Dnepr group of forces. It is a heavily fortified area, and our Dnepr forces are actively operating against it. In several important sectors, thanks to the heroism of our soldiers, defences are being broken. But that is not the point. The point is that our East group of forces has broken through the enemy’s defensive lines and is rapidly advancing in the north of the Zaporozhye Region, along the border between the Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk regions. I repeat: they are advancing very rapidly. They are already within 1.5–2 kilometres of Gulyaypole, an important logistics hub. Whether they take the city soon or somewhat later, they will undoubtedly continue their advance.

What does this mean? It means that the East group of forces is effectively enveloping the entire fortified area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the north. On one side, our Dnepr group is confronting them whereas the East group of forces is bypassing them from the north. This may lead to a collapse of the front in this sector.

Here lies the difference between those in the West who seek to achieve peace as quickly as possible, even at the cost of certain mutual concessions, including from the Ukrainian side, and those who prefer a different course. If the developments we witnessed in Kupyansk unfold in the areas I have just mentioned, the collapse of the front will be inevitable.

Some still choose to believe that Kupyansk… Let me remind you: on November 4, the head of the Kiev regime declared that the city would be in Ukrainian hands within five to seven days. We now know that the enemy forces there have been completely eliminated, the city is entirely under our control, and another 15 battalions – around 3,500 personnel – are encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River. According to some of our commanders, Ukrainian soldiers in that area now resemble homeless people. This is not a joke. Imagine trying to supply 3,500 people by drone: food, uniform replacements, ammunition. It is impossible. They have been stuck in these conditions for weeks and are now practically immobilised.

Those in the West who understand the implications of all this are the ones insisting on ceasing the fighting as soon as possible, even if it requires concessions from the Kiev regime. They understand: the front will begin to crumble in several directions, and then the Ukrainian armed forces will completely lose combat capability, including their most battle-ready units, as is currently happening near Krasnoarmeysk. “Enough: save at least the core of the armed forces and your statehood. That is what must be considered,” say those who hold this view.

And then there are others, those who still continue to believe that Kupyansk is somehow back under Ukrainian control and who insist on continuing the fighting until the last Ukrainian is killed. That is the difference in their approaches. The ones attacking Mr Witkoff are precisely those who align with this second point of view, those who want to join the Ukrainian establishment in siphoning off money while prolonging hostilities until the last Ukrainian dies. But I have already said publicly: in fact, we are prepared for this.

Please, go ahead.

Yekaterina Lazareva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.Ru agency. I have a follow-up question. Back to the peace plans. There is Trump’s peace plan, and there is an alternative plan advanced by Europe. Is there an understanding of who to talk to, to negotiate with, and to sign final documents with on behalf of Ukrainian political leadership, or perhaps, the military leadership now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless. I have mentioned this many times.

I believe the Ukrainian leadership made a fundamental and strategic mistake when it gave in to fear and chose not to hold presidential elections, after which the president lost his legitimacy. Russia is also amidst hostilities with Ukraine, but we held elections, presidential elections and, very recently, elections to municipal and regional bodies of authority. We did all of that, while they, for some reason, did not. As soon as a peace deal is signed, hostilities will stop, and the martial law will need to be immediately lifted. Once the martial law is lifted, elections must be announced immediately.

However, today, the current political leadership of Ukraine can hardly expect to be able to win the election without rigging it. It is almost impossible, I think. That brings to mind Stalin famously saying, “It does not matter who votes for whom; what matters is who counts the votes.” No one cancelled the use of the administrative resource. Still, they are facing a challenging situation.

Next, according to the Constitution, a referendum must be held on all territorial issues, after which the referendum must be confirmed by a Constitutional Court ruling.

What is happening with the Constitutional Court? I mentioned this earlier as well. As a reminder, when the political leadership requested that the Constitutional Court confirm the president’s powers, the Constitutional Court refused to do so and dodged the request. According to the Constitution, there is only one five-year term. That is it. It cannot be extended.

We could go into the legal details and intricacies, but extensions are not provided for even under martial law. Only the Rada can extend its own powers during wartime, not the president. So, as an officeholder, the president cannot sign it. He needs confirmation from the Constitutional Court. But when the Court was asked to confirm the president’s powers, and refused to do so, do you know what happened next? I am not sure I mentioned this before, but a funny thing happened next. The security service stopped letting him into his office. He came to work, and someone knocked on his door telling him to clear out. He ended by fleeing the country.

The Constitutional Court is not operational, and the President of the Supreme Court is doing time for corruption. Those in charge of anti-corruption activities are corruptionists of the first order themselves. The President of the Supreme Court was imprisoned on corruption charges. Meanwhile, the terms of the Constitutional Court members expired, and new members had to be elected. It is quite a lengthy procedure, you see?

So, as soon as martial law is lifted, presidential elections must be held, a referendum must be held, and a new Constitutional Court must be formed. That is a never ending story.

Well, of course, we want to work out a deal with Ukraine, but doing so right now is practically impossible, legally impossible. Whoever from their side can or is willing to talk, let them do so. What we need is for our decisions to be internationally recognised by the main global actors. That is all we need.

This matters, because there is a difference between decisions under which certain territories remain under Russian sovereignty have been recognised. If agreements get violated, it will constitute an attack on the Russian Federation, with all ensuing responses from Russia. Or, will it be interpreted as an attempt to restore law on the territory owned by Ukraine? These are different matters.

Without a doubt, we need recognition, but not from Ukraine as things stand today. I hope that in the future we will be able to work out a deal with Ukraine as well. There are enough right-minded people in Ukraine who are willing to build relations with Russia for the long-term historical perspective.

Kira Latukhina: Good afternoon. My name is Kira Latukhina, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Hungarian media have reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will arrive in Moscow tomorrow for talks with you. Could you confirm that such a meeting will take place, and what would be the purpose of his visit? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We are in contact with the Hungarian side regarding a possible meeting. And we are always pleased to welcome any of our partners to Russia, including our European colleagues, despite their generally aggressive attitude toward us. Especially Viktor Orban. We know his position well. In my view, it is quite objective. He is one of the few people who assesses the situation based on real circumstances on the ground and formulates his political stance accordingly.

We also have bilateral matters to discuss. Our cooperation in the energy sector is extensive, not to mention the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. There are issues there requiring further clarification and coordination. This includes nuclear fuel supplies. For example, they used American fuel in Ukraine. We have nothing against that in principle, but in practice the fuel assemblies malfunctioned: the rods began to warp, leading to an emergency situation. Therefore, everything in this sphere must be thoroughly calculated; this is a very serious matter. But beyond that, we have many other bilateral issues. If Prime Minister Orban finds it appropriate to accept our invitation, we will be glad to see him.

Valentin Alfimov: May I, Mr President?

Valentin Alfimov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

You have already partially addressed this, but I would like to clarify the legal aspect concerning Crimea and Donbas. In President Trump’s plan, it is stated that they recognise these territories as ours de facto but not de jure. How is that possible? As a lawyer, how do you see this distinction? How can something be recognised de facto but not de jure?

Vladimir Putin: This is precisely one of the issues that should be addressed in our negotiations with the American side.

Thank you for drawing attention to it. You are right, this is one of the key points.

Thank you very much.

All the best.

Press statements by President of Russia and President of Kyrgyzstan

2025-11-26T21:27:46+04:00

Vladimir Putin and President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sadyr Japarov made press statements following the Russian-Kyrgyz talks.

Earlier, the heads of state attended a ceremony held to exchange documents signed during the visit.

* * *

President of Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Japarov: Members of the press, ladies and gentlemen,

I once again cordially welcome President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on his state visit to the Kyrgyz Republic.

Mr President, it is symbolic that your visit is taking place in the year marking the 25^th anniversary of the Declaration on Eternal Friendship, Alliance and Partnership between Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyz-Russian relations are based on the centuries-old friendship between our nations, close cultural and humanitarian ties, and a shared history. I would like to once again assure you of the Kyrgyz Republic’s unwavering commitment to strengthening our allied relations and historical partnership with the Russian Federation.

I would like to emphasise that our partnership serves our long-term national interests.

During our informal meetings yesterday, Mr Putin and I discussed a broad range of current issues on our agenda. We noted with pleasure the high level of Kyrgyz-Russian cooperation and conducted a detailed review of the implementation of all our agreements reached during our meeting in Moscow in July 2025.

Today, we discussed a broad range of issues during an expanded-format meeting, which was attended by the heads of our countries’ key ministries and departments and held in a traditionally trust-based atmosphere. We noted progress in many spheres and issued instructions regarding certain issues. Overall, I would like to say that we have a highly positive view of our bilateral cooperation at almost all levels. Our government bodies have been instructed to build up joint efforts in order to add new promising spheres to our bilateral agenda and identify new points of convergence of our interests.

A new package of bilateral documents covering education, healthcare, migration, security, economic, and military-technical cooperation has just been signed in your presence. I am pleased to note that the legal framework between our countries now comprises more than 400 documents. There is probably no other foreign country with which we have signed such a large number of interstate, intergovernmental, and interdepartmental agreements.

Naturally, we regard the joint statement on deepening relations of alliance and strategic partnership, which defines the principal areas of our future collaboration, as a central achievement of the talks. We highly value the traditionally close cooperation between our countries within international organisations and integration associations, including the UN, the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the SCO.

Our two nations share similar approaches to many key issues on the international and regional agenda. I would like to express my gratitude to the Russian side for the fruitful joint work during our presidency of the CSTO this year. We look forward to comparable cooperation during the Kyrgyz Republic’s forthcoming chairmanship of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. We concur that the Russian air base in Kant is a vital component of the CSTO Collective Rapid Deployment Forces and a significant factor in maintaining regional stability in Central Asia.

Significant attention was also paid to trade and economic cooperation. I would like to underscore that Russia remains one of the Kyrgyz Republic’s principal trading partners, accounting for 22 percent of our total trade turnover. In other words, nearly a quarter of Kyrgyzstan’s foreign trade is conducted with Russia. We were pleased to note the progress being made towards our shared objective of reaching US$5 billion in mutual trade in the coming years.

Investment is of particular importance. Russian direct investment in the first half of this year alone amounted to US$110 million. We consistently welcome the interest of Russian businesses in the Kyrgyz market and are prepared to ensure a favourable operating environment for their success. According to our data, as of November 2025, more than 1,800 companies with Russian participation are operating in Kyrgyzstan, representing one-third of all foreign enterprises in the country.

In order to give this effort fresh momentum, we wholeheartedly support the initiative put forward by our Russian partners to establish an Association of Russian Investors in Kyrgyzstan. The association should become an effective platform for dialogue between our business communities, between Russian investors and the authorities of Kyrgyzstan.

We also discussed the results of the latest meeting of the Kyrgyz-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Humanitarian Cooperation, which was recently held in Bishkek.

We highly assessed the performance of the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund, one of the key drivers of our bilateral economic relations. Since its establishment, the Fund has invested over one billion dollars in Kyrgyzstan’s economy and has financed over 3,500 projects across all regions of the Republic. Taken together, its aggregate investment is twice as large as the Fund’s initial authorised capital. To date, the Fund is co-financing the construction of 14 hydropower and renewable energy facilities worth more than US$175 million.

We exchanged views on our cooperation within the Eurasian Development Bank and the Eurasian Fund for Stabilisation and Development.

We traditionally paid considerable attention to education, where we noted positive interaction as well. Over 16,000 Kyrgyz students are studying at Russian universities. The education of half of them is fully funded by the Russian side. We noted with satisfaction the large-scale plans for the scientific and technical modernisation of the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University, a leading higher educational establishment in the Republic. The agreement signed today to build a new campus of the university has launched this important project.

We are consistently implementing a major socially significant initiative, which we have formulated together with Mr Putin, to build nine [Russian-language] schools, three of which are scheduled to open in 2027.

We maintain a careful attitude towards the Russian language, the language of not only Pushkin and Tolstoy but also our great writer Chingiz Aitmatov. The humanitarian project Russian Teacher Abroad, under which teachers from Russia teach Russian in schools across Kyrgyzstan, has proved to be in great demand.

Many projects of great importance for our social development are being implemented with support from Rossotrudnichestvo and ANO Eurasia. Eurasia Park, the largest family recreation park in Kyrgyzstan and Central Asia, opened in Bishkek in August 2025 at the initiative and with full support from ANO Eurasia.

Acting on our instructions, Kyrgyzstan and Russia have started creating an educational space based on the integration of best practices of our countries’ educational systems.

We are actively developing and promoting cultural ties between our nations. Cross Culture Days were successfully held in Russia and Kyrgyzstan and were met with mutual admiration of the audiences. Kyrgyzstan’s House of Science and Culture in Moscow, which will open soon, will further strengthen our cultural ties. We are grateful to our Russian friends for their practical assistance in implementing this initiative.

We also discussed migration issues and reaffirmed our mutual interest in ensuring that our compatriots live in Russia legally and are guaranteed appropriate labour conditions and social benefits. We have also agreed to continue working in this vital sphere through our respective ministries.

Mr President, the results of your state visit to the Kyrgyz Republic allow us to look optimistically at the further development of Kyrgyz-Russian relations. I am confident that your visit has reaffirmed once again the special strength of the Kyrgyz-Russian alliance and strategic partnership and has given a powerful impetus to their further deepening.

It is with great pleasure that I am giving the floor to you, Mr President.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like, in turn, to thank the President of Kyrgyzstan for his invitation, and all our Kyrgyz colleagues for their hospitality and the warm welcome we have received. Special words of gratitude, Mr President, for yesterday’s informal evening, which afforded us the opportunity for a one-on-one discussion covering virtually all areas of our mutual interest and the development of our interstate relations.

I fully concur with Mr Japarov: today’s talks were highly productive and were held in a constructive spirit.

This is entirely consistent with the nature of genuinely friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

We held a detailed discussion on the entire spectrum of bilateral issues and exchanged views on pressing regional matters.

A significant outcome of this visit is the joint statement on taking Russian-Kyrgyz relations to a new, even more advanced level of deepened strategic partnership and alliance.

Furthermore, a package of intergovernmental and interagency documents was signed, aimed at expanding concrete, practical cooperation.

Naturally, priority during the talks was given to the further development of our economic cooperation. Last year, our bilateral trade reached a record high, exceeding US$4 billion. This year, the growth of mutual trade continues at a robust pace – around 17 percent. This is a commendable result.

We have all but ceased the use of foreign currencies in financial settlements and have established stable channels for credit and banking cooperation. The share of the ruble in commercial transactions has already reached 97 percent.

The Russian side is assisting Kyrgyzstan in enhancing its tax administration and system of goods marking. According to our estimates, this has already led to an increase in additional revenues to the Kyrgyz budget of more than US$1 billion.

Russia is a major investor in the Kyrgyz economy. Accumulated Russian investments amount to almost US$2 billion. Kyrgyzstan is home to around 1,700 business entities with Russian capital in key sectors such as energy, mining, agriculture, transport, and logistics. All this has been made possible thanks to the steady domestic policy pursued by the President of Kyrgyzstan and the nation’s internal political stability.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

I fully concur with Mr Japarov: today’s talks were highly productive and were held in a constructive spirit.

This is entirely consistent with the nature of genuinely friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and Kyrgyzstan.

We held a detailed discussion on the entire spectrum of bilateral issues and exchanged views on pressing regional matters.

A significant outcome of this visit is the joint statement on taking Russian-Kyrgyz relations to a new, even more advanced level of deepened strategic partnership and alliance.

Furthermore, a package of intergovernmental and interagency documents was signed, aimed at expanding concrete, practical cooperation.

Our countries maintain close cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union. Together with our fellow member states, we are building common markets for goods, services, capital, and labour. The advancement of Eurasian integration is delivering tangible dividends to all members, Kyrgyzstan included. To illustrate, in the decade since Kyrgyzstan acceded to the EAEU, its GDP has grown by 150 percent, while its exports to other Union countries have quadrupled.

As the President of Kyrgyzstan has just noted, Russia finances the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund, which has channelled approximately US$1 billion into Kyrgyzstan, supporting more than 3,500 joint projects in the real economy.

Energy represents one of the most vital sectors of Russian-Kyrgyz collaboration. Our country fully meets Kyrgyzstan’s demand for petrol and diesel and does so on preferential terms, without levying export duties – a measure that provides direct economic benefit to the Republic.

Furthermore, Gazprom is a key supplier of natural gas to Kyrgyzstan and has joined the nation’s public gas supply programme. The Russian gas giant has allocated over US$400 million for this purpose, which has already provided 42 percent of the country with access to the gas network. This work is ongoing.

Russia also supplies electricity to Kyrgyz consumers. Our companies are engaged in the design and modernisation of hydroelectric power plants on Kyrgyz rivers. We plan to jointly construct a large solar power plant in the Issyk-Kul Region and a new, modern combined heat and power plant in the north of the country.

Concurrently, Rosatom is executing a broad reclamation programme for former uranium mining sites. We are also exploring the possibility of constructing Kyrgyzstan’s first nuclear power plant, utilising advanced Russian small modular reactor technologies. I must emphasise that these reactors meet the most stringent international standards for safety and environmental protection.

Russian-Kyrgyz humanitarian cooperation remains traditionally rich and multifaceted, with ties between our citizens continually strengthening.

Our collaboration extends robustly across culture, sport, public and youth organisations, and certainly education. More than 10,000 students from Kyrgyzstan are currently pursuing their studies in Russia; half of them, as the President noted, are studying in state-funded places.

Kyrgyzstan hosts branch campuses of several leading Russian universities. The Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University in Bishkek alone serves approximately 7,500 students. The intergovernmental agreement signed today includes plans to construct a new academic building and other infrastructure on the university campus.

And, of course, it is encouraging that, alongside Russia, the Russian language, which holds official status under the Constitution, is widely and freely used in Kyrgyzstan. We greatly value this, and we welcome the support provided by the Republic’s leadership for its use across various spheres of life.

It is symbolic that on the eve of our visit, the Eurasian Centre for Russian Language and Culture opened in Bishkek, and a new Russian-language television channel, Nomad TV, began broadcasting in Kyrgyzstan.

I would like to emphasise that Russia will continue supporting efforts to improve the quality of education in the Russian language. We regularly supply schools and universities with teaching materials, and more than 150 educators have been sent to Kyrgyzstan under the Russian Teacher Abroad programme. I believe, and Mr President has also mentioned this in the course of our interaction, including in our informal conversations, that this is still not enough. I fully agree with you.

In addition, we are helping build new Russian-language schools in Kyrgyzstan. The first three institutions are scheduled to open in 2027, and in total, nine such schools will be built in different regions of the country.

Naturally, President Japarov and I also discussed in detail the expansion of bilateral cooperation in the military and military-technical spheres. We outlined plans for joint efforts in countering terrorism and extremism, combating drug trafficking, and fighting organised crime.

Both sides noted that the joint Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan makes a significant contribution to strengthening the Republic’s defence capability and, more broadly, to ensuring security and stability in Central Asia.

When discussing current foreign policy issues, we acknowledged that our approaches are similar or fully align. Our countries closely coordinate their positions within multilateral formats, including the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

We look forward to welcoming Mr Japarov in St Petersburg at the end of December for the traditional informal meeting of CIS leaders and the session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our Kyrgyz friends and Mr President for the constructive and productive discussions.

Our joint work with Mr Japarov will continue today, and tomorrow we will participate in the regular session of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation Council. As you know, Kyrgyzstan has successfully chaired the CSTO this year and will hand over this responsibility to Russia on January 1.

I am confident that this visit and our talks will contribute to the further development of the multifaceted Russian–Kyrgyz partnership, for the benefit of our peoples and our countries.

Thank you for your attention.

Vladimir Putin answered media questions

2025-10-11T01:06:22+04:00

Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.

I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.

You are welcome to proceed.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.

Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.

You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon – both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.

Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?

If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.

Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.

Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.

All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.

Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.

Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.

It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.

As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.

At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.

Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.

In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.

Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.

My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Two major international summits have been held – the CIS summit and the Russia – Central Asia summit yesterday. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it and what “added value” does it have?

Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.

Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.

It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.

Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.

People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.

This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.

Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.

The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.

Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.

Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.

This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?

I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.

It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.

I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.

But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.

The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.

I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.

Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.

Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.

Please.

Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.

Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.

Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.

We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.

Thank you very much.

Please.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?

One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.

Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.

We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.

These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.

Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.

There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.

Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.

I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.

The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.

If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.

But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.

Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.

You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?

Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.

Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.

You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.

And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.

Welcome.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.

As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.

Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.

Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.

Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.

And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.

Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?

Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.

Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.

Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?

Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.

In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.

Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?

Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.

Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.

I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.

Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.

If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.

Please.

Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.

My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.

My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.

Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.

However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.

All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.

Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.

But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.

Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.

Joint news conference by the President of Russia and the President of the United States

2025-08-16T15:13:29+04:00

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump held a joint news conference following Russia-US talks.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, ladies and gentlemen,

We held our talks in a constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, and they have proved substantive and productive.

I would like to once again thank my US counterpart for the proposal to come to Alaska. It is quite logical to meet here since our countries, albeit separated by oceans, are, in fact, close neighbours. When we stepped out of our planes and greeted each other, I said, “Good afternoon, dear neighbour. I am glad to see you alive and in good health.” I believe it sounds very friendly and neighbourly. Our countries are separated only by the Bering Strait — essentially, there are two islands, one Russian and one American, separated by a mere four kilometres. We are close neighbours, that’s a fact.

It is also important to note that our shared history and many positive events are largely related to Alaska. There is still an enormous cultural legacy preserved since the age of Russian America, with Russian Orthodox churches and more than 700 place-names of Russian origin.

During World War II, Alaska served as the starting point for the legendary air route that delivered lend-lease supplies, including military aircraft and other equipment. It was a dangerous and challenging route over enormous ice-covered territories. Nevertheless, the pilots and experts of both countries did everything they could to bring victory together. They risked and sacrificed their lives for our common victory.

I have just visited the Russian city of Magadan. A monument honouring Russian and American pilots stands there, adorned with the Russian and American flags. I know that here, too, there is a similar monument, and at a war cemetery a few kilometres away from here, there are graves of Soviet pilots who lost their lives in that heroic mission. We appreciate the efforts of US officials and citizens to preserve their memory. This is a dignified and noble undertaking.

We will always remember other examples from history when our countries stood together against common enemies in the spirit of combat camaraderie and alliance, rendering each other help and support. I am certain that this legacy will help us restore and develop mutually beneficial and equal ties at this new stage, even in the most challenging conditions.

As you know, Russian-American summit talks have not been held for over four years. That is a long time. This period has proved exceptionally difficult for bilateral relations, and, let’s face it, they have deteriorated to their lowest point since the Cold War. And this does not benefit either our countries or the world in general.

Obviously, sooner or later we had to remedy the situation, to move from confrontation to dialogue, and in this regard, an in-person meeting between the two heads of state was really overdue – of course, with serious and thorough preparations, and this work has been done.

President Trump and I have established very good direct contacts. We have had frank conversations on the phone multiple times. As you know, the US President’s Special Envoy, Mr Witkoff, has visited us in Russia several times. Our aides and heads of foreign ministries have maintained regular contacts.

As you are well aware, the situation around Ukraine is one of the key issues. We acknowledge the commitment of the US administration and President Trump personally to help resolve the Ukrainian conflict, and the President’s willingness to understand the root causes and its origins.

I have repeatedly said that the developments in Ukraine present fundamental threats to Russia’s national security. Moreover, we have always considered the Ukrainian people – and I have said this many times – a brotherly people, no matter how strange it may sound in today’s circumstances. We share the same roots, and the current situation is tragic and deeply painful to us. Therefore, our country is sincerely interested in ending this.

Yet, we are convinced that, for the conflict resolution in Ukraine to be long-term and lasting, all the root causes of the crisis, which have been repeatedly explained, must be eliminated; all of Russia’s legitimate concerns must be taken into account, and a fair security balance must be restored in Europe and the rest of the world.

I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine’s security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this.

Hopefully, the understanding we have reached will bring us closer to this goal and open up the road to peace in Ukraine.

We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.

By the way, under the new US administration, our bilateral trade has been on the rise. So far, it is a symbolic figure but still, the trade is 20 percent higher. What I am saying is that we have many interesting areas for cooperation.

It is obvious that the Russian-US business and investment partnership holds tremendous potential. Russia and the United States have much to offer each other in trade, energy, digital and high technologies, and space development.

Cooperation in the Arctic and the resumption of region-to-region contacts, including between the Russian Far East and the West Coast of the USA, also appear relevant.

Overall, it is crucial and necessary that our countries turn the page and get back to cooperation.

Symbolically, as I have already said, there is an international date line nearby, on the border between Russia and the United States, where you can literally step from one day into another. I hope that we can do the same in political affairs.

I would like to thank Mr Trump for our joint work and for the friendly and trust-based conversation. The main thing is that there was a commitment on both sides to produce a result. We see that the US President has a clear idea of what he wants to achieve, that he sincerely cares about his country’s prosperity while showing awareness of Russia’s national interests.

I hope that today’s agreements will become a reference point, not only for resolving the Ukrainian problem but also for resuming the pragmatic business relations between Russia and the United States.

To conclude, I would like to add the following. I remember that in 2022, during my last contacts with the former US administration, I tried to convince my former US counterpart that we should not bring the situation to a point fraught with serious repercussions in the form of hostilities, and I said directly at the time that it would be a big mistake.

Today, we hear President Trump saying: “If I had been president, there would have been no war.” I believe it would have been so. I confirm this because President Trump and I have established a generally very good, businesslike and trustworthy contact. And I have every reason to believe that, as we move along this path, we can reach – and the sooner the better – the end of the conflict in Ukraine.

Thank you for the attention.

President of the United States of America Donald Trump: Thank you very much, Mr President. That was very profound, and I will say that I believe we had a very productive meeting.

There were many-many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we have not quite gotten there, but we have made some headway. So, there is no deal until there is a deal.

I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I will, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today’s meeting. It is ultimately up to them. They are going to have to agree with [what] Marco [Rubio] and Steve [Witkoff] and some of the great people from the Trump administration who have come here, Scott [Bessent] and John Ratcliffe. Thank you very much. But we have some of our really great leaders. They have been doing a phenomenal job.

We also have some tremendous Russian business representatives here, and I think, you know, everybody wants to deal with us. We have become the hottest country anywhere in the world in a very short period of time. We look forward to that, we look forward to dealing, we are going to try to get this over with.

We really made some great progress today. I have always had a fantastic relationship with President Putin, with Vladimir. We had many tough meetings, good meetings. We were interfered with by the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. It made it a little bit tougher to deal with, but he understood it. I think he has probably seen things like that during the course of his career. He has seen it all. But we had to put up with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. He knew it was a hoax, and I knew it was a hoax, but what was done was very criminal, but it made it harder for us to deal as a country in terms of the business and all of the things that we would like to have dealt with. But we will have a good chance when this is over.

So just to put it very quickly, I am going to start making a few phone calls and tell them what happened. We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We did not get here but we have a very good chance of getting there.

I would like to thank President Putin and his entire team, whose faces, who I know, in many cases, otherwise, other than that, whose faces I get to see all the time in the newspapers. You are almost as famous as the boss, but especially this one right over here.

But we had some good meetings over the years, right? Good, productive meetings over the years, and we hope to have that in the future. But let’s do the most productive one right now. We are going to stop, really, five, six, seven thousand, thousands of people a week from being killed, and President Putin wants to see that as much as I do.

So again, Mr President, I would like to thank you very much, and we will speak to you very soon, and probably see you again very soon. Thank you very much, Vladimir.

Vladimir Putin: Next time in Moscow.

Donald Trump: Oh, that is an interesting one. I do not know. I will get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening. Thank you very much, Vladimir. And thank you all. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you so much.

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.

Press statements following talks with Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim

2025-05-14T20:46:25+04:00

Vladimir Putin and Anwar Ibrahim made statements for the press following the Russian-Malaysian consultations.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prime Minister, Ladies and gentlemen, friends,

The current official visit by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr Anwar Ibrahim, to Russia, and the talks we had today clearly show that Russian-Malaysian relations are on the rise. They are advancing steadily and consistently, with both sides sincerely interested in making our cooperation even more substantive and productive. We certainly have everything we need to achieve this.

Russia and Malaysia are bound by long-standing traditions of friendship and mutual understanding. We have always strived to consider each other’s interests, work as partners, and build cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit, and we continue to do so. In this vein, our countries maintain regular political contact and coordination between our foreign ministries, sector ministries, security councils and security services. Inter-parliamentary and interregional contacts are also expanding.

I would like to note that Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim is making a significant personal contribution to promoting equal partnership between Russia and Malaysia, and above all, its economic dimension. Let me remind you that last year, he took part in the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok as a guest of honour, and tomorrow, he will travel to Tatarstan to attend the International Economic Forum Russia – Islamic World: Kazan Forum.

Following up on today’s talks, I would like to emphasise that we covered all bilateral and international priorities and outlined concrete plans to strengthen Russia-Malaysia cooperation as we go forward.

Without a doubt, we prioritised advancement of trade and investment cooperation. At year-end 2024, trade between Russia and Malaysia exceeded US$3.2 billion. The Intergovernmental Economic Commission’s operation is unfaltering. We agreed to hold its next meeting in Malaysia in the autumn.

Energy is the key area of our bilateral cooperation. The Malaysian petroleum and gas concern Petronas is Rosneft’s shareholder, and Gazprom is developing partnership relations with this company. Our country supplies significant volumes of petroleum products and coal to the Malaysian market, and we see prospects for the implementation of joint projects in the gas sector and peaceful nuclear development.

A synthetic rubber plant built with Russia’s participation is successfully operating in Malaysia. Under long-term contracts, potash and nitrogen fertilisers are imported from Russia to meet the needs of Malaysian agriculture.

Mutual supplies of agricultural products – Russian grains and Malaysian foods – are on the rise. Russian producers are interested in scaling up exports of high-quality meat and dairy products, including those complying with the Islamic Halal standard, to Malaysia.

We maintain vibrant and productive cooperation in cultural and humanitarian areas and regularly hold joint film festivals, photo exhibitions, and concerts of musical groups.

Russia assists Malaysia in training highly skilled personnel. At the moment about 700 Malaysian students are studying in our country, including as part of the quota granted by the Government of the Russian Federation. Cooperation between the two countries’ universities relies on more than 80 agreements on scientific and academic cooperation and academic exchanges. Diplomas issued by Russian universities are recognised by Malaysian employers and no additional accreditation is required. Malaysia places great emphasis on studies of the Russian language which is taught at courses offered by the Malaysian Institute of Aviation Technology as part of a joint programme with the Moscow Aviation Institute, and at the University of Malaya which is that country’s oldest and most prestigious higher education institution.

Tourism exchanges are steadily expanding with Malaysian resorts gaining increasing popularity among Russian vacationers. Efforts are underway to establish direct air service between our two countries, which will, without a doubt, promote business and humanitarian ties.

Our discussions on regional and global issues showed that Russia’s and Malaysia’s positions are close or overlap. Both countries firmly uphold the principles of rule of international law, sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs of other nations, and continue to coordinate their efforts on key multilateral venues, including the UN.

A new category of BRICS partner countries was introduced last year during Russia’s BRICS chairmanship. Malaysia, among other nations, received an invitation to participate in BRICS activities as a partner. We are pleased that our Malaysian friends accepted this invitation, and we will do everything to help Malaysia swiftly and seamlessly join all BRICS partnership mechanisms.

We also thoroughly reviewed efforts to promote peace and sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region, taking into account Malaysia’s current role as Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). We explored opportunities for expanding the dialogue between these key international associations and Russia.

In closing, I would like to once again express my appreciation for the outcomes of today’s joint work with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. His official visit to Russia continues, and as I mentioned earlier, he will visit the Republic of Tatarstan tomorrow. I am confident that this event-packed visit will work to strengthen every facet of Russian-Malaysian partnership for the benefit of our respective nations.

Thank you.

Prime Minister of Malaysia Anwar Ibrahim: Thank you, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation.

On behalf of my delegation, I would like to express my profound appreciation for the wonderful hospitality of this great country with a great history, civilisation, culture and art, and the history of enduring struggle of the people who believe in dignity and independence.

I have said this to President Putin that my admiration extends beyond diplomatic engagements but, because of my understanding of the history and culture and the great contribution in the field of literature and art, and the ballet, which I happened to miss because of the hectic schedule.

We have had extensive discussions since the morning and later with the Prime Minister, and finally, of course, with the President and his team, covering a wide spectrum of issues from education to agriculture and food security to commodities and technologies, security, energy and defence, among others. That shows our commitment to enhancing bilateral relations beyond what we achieved before. It is true, as the President stated with such clarity, the relations have been good, but the potential for investment, trade and collaboration needs to be further enhanced, and that is precisely the reason why I chose to come first to Vladivostok as his guest, and now to Moscow and Kazan.

The joint commissions, various committees, including [on] oil and gas, petrochemicals, have to ensure that we make these changes and take necessary action speedily. Of course, we would appreciate this increasing support in terms of training, aerospace, STI [science, technology, innovation], digital, AI, in which the President and the team have been extremely kind to regard us as a trusted friend and a country where they can place a lot of support.

I think at this stage of development, however vigorous, in the semi-conductor and AI fields, we would certainly want to collaborate with the Russian Federation to enhance this.

There are some outstanding issues due to geopolitical dictates but we have taken a position of centrality in Malaysia and Asia to decide for ourselves what is best for Malaysia and its people. Therefore, we would like to request and suggest that Russian airlines, including Aeroflot, resume direct flights to Malaysia as soon as possible.

Thank you again, Mr President, for the support with our entry into BRICS. I recall our friends in China, Ethiopia and South Africa saying that you made that initial proposal and we, Malaysians, admire and, of course, appreciate it very much.

We did discuss a number of international issues. We are firm on these rules-based multilateral arrangements and, therefore, we have to proceed based on that principle. We do not accept unilateral action of countries because it would disrupt the arrangement, the peace and security of our region and the world.

So, once again, President Putin, I want to assure you that Malaysia places a lot of not only expectations but hope that this sort of a special relationship with the Russian Federation would be effected through meaningful exchanges and programmes.

I, on behalf of the government and people, would wish and think that it is a major and great prize for the people of Malaysia if we can have President Putin in Malaysia as soon as possible or, at the latest, during the ASEAN summit in October. We, I can assure you that your presence in Malaysia will be a major breakthrough not only in the relationship with Malaysia but also the region because many people in the region have high respect and expectations of your rule and your leadership.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Mr Prime Minister, I would like to thank you for this visit, which was very productive. You have more work to do, although you have been busy since early morning; you had a meeting at the Government, and a lengthy exchange of extensive amounts of information and opinions just now.

We have really developed a very good, trusting and friendly relationship. Mr Prime Minister said that he is interested in the history and culture of Russia. We appreciate this very much.

Just now, I was telling the Prime Minister about St Andrew Hall, where we are. The room has three thrones. And I asked, “Mr Prime Minister, you can see three thrones here. One is for the tsar; another for his wife, the tsarina. Who do you think was the third throne for?” Mr Prime Minister answered almost without hesitation, “For the second wife.” (Laughter in the hall.) I hope Mr Prime Minister will not be angry with me for telling you this. What he said was the response of a true Muslim, a representative of an Islamic culture. I must acknowledge that our traditional values may not coincide in some respects, but exchanging information is always useful for both parties.

Thank you very much.

Ahmed Ibrahim: I have to respond. I only have one wife, Mr President. But I feel, because Mr President tested me, it was a trick. He asked me before. He asked me: “There are three thrones, you see. Which one is on the right?” I said, “For the wife.” “And on the left?” “The second wife.” Then I knew that the second one on the left was for the mother.

(Laughter.)

Vladimir Putin: The second throne was for his mother. Exchange of information is useful.

Thank you very much.

Press statement by the President of Russia

2025-05-11T15:00:28+04:00

In conclusion to festive events dedicated to the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, Vladimir Putin made a statement for the media where he summarised the results of work on May 7–10.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening, or maybe good night already. I want to greet everyone. Ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues.

Allow me to once again congratulate all of you on the Great Victory Day! Thank our friends and foreign partners who have been with us in Moscow these days at the anniversary celebrations to bow to the generation of winners.

We honour all those who contributed to the common victory over Nazism, including our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition, Chinese soldiers, participants in the anti-Fascist resistance in Europe, fighters of the people's liberation movements in Africa, the Asia-Pacific region, and volunteers from Latin American countries.

Together with our friends and like-minded people, we share a common memory and respect for history, heroic deed of true heroes who fought for freedom, and of course, our responsibility for the future, for building a more just and safer world. The issues that directly affect the stable, sustainable development of the entire world community – Eurasia and other world regions – were at the center of the bilateral and the multilateral meetings held in Moscow.

Of course, they were held in a special, solemn, festive atmosphere, but at the same time they were extremely rich and informative, filled with topics of the political, economic and humanitarian agenda.

Summing up, and this is exactly what I would like to do now, I would say that in four days, from May 7 to May 10, we hosted official visits by the leaders of three foreign states: the People's Republic of China, the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Additionally, 20 bilateral meetings were held with the heads of the CIS countries, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Latin America. In total, 27 heads of state from the CIS, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, as well as about 10 heads of international organizations took part in the celebrations. Another six countries were represented at a high level.

We see inspiring evidence of genuine consolidation around the enduring ideas and values of our common Great Victory in such a wide participation of delegations from foreign countries and international organisations.

We are grateful to the leaders of the 13 states who sent units of the national armed forces to participate in the parade on Red Square. Their shoulder-to-shoulder march with our ceremonial units filled the common holiday with special energy and the spirit of military brotherhood, tempered during the Second World War.

I was pleased to personally thank the military leaders of the Korean People's Army and convey my warmest words to soldiers and commanders of special forces units of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, who, jointly with our servicemen, professionally, and I want to emphasise this, faithfully performed their assignments during the liberation of the Kursk Region border areas from the Kiev regime forces. I would like to emphasise: they showed courage and heroism, acted – I want to say this again – professionally, to the highest degree, showed good training and preparation.

And of course, it was a special honour for all state leaders to salute the main heroes of the Victory anniversary on the stands – WWII veterans from Russia, Israel, Armenia and Mongolia.

I would like to highlight that, despite threats, blackmail and obstacles caused, including the closure of airspace, the leaders of several European countries – Serbia, Slovakia, Bosnia and Herzegovina – came to Moscow. I would like to reiterate: we understand the massive pressure they faced, and therefore we sincerely appreciate their political courage, firm moral position, decision to share the holiday with us, to pay tribute to the memory of the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, World War II, who fought for their Fatherland and for deliverance from the brown plague of the whole world, of the entire mankind without any exaggeration.

It is important for us that millions of Europeans, state leaders that pursue sovereign policies, remember this. This gives us optimism and hope that sooner or later, based on the lessons of history and the opinion of our peoples, we will begin to move towards restoring constructive relations with European states. Including those who today still do not give up the anti-Russian rhetoric and clearly aggressive actions against us. They are still trying – we can see it right these days – to talk to us, in fact, in a boorish manner and through ultimatums.

Our comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction with the People's Republic of China can serve as a genuine example of modern equal relations in the 21st century. Chinese President Xi Jinping was the chief guest at the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory.

We have had exceptionally fruitful negotiations, we have adopted two joint statements at the level of heads of state, and we have signed a number of intergovernmental and interdepartmental agreements covering such areas as energy, trade, finance, science, culture and much more. As I have already said, it has been agreed that in September I will pay an official return visit to China for the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of victory over militaristic Japan.

It is deeply symbolic and natural that the principal, in fact the main commemorative events related to the 80th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe and Asia will be held in Moscow and Beijing – in the capital cities of the states whose peoples passed through the hardest trials and paid the highest price for the common Victory.

Colleagues, I think it is obvious to everyone that the talks and meetings held in Moscow also touched on the issue of resolving the conflict in Ukraine. We are grateful to all our guests, our friends, for the attention they are paying to this conflict and for the efforts they are making to bring this conflict to an end. In this connection, I believe it is necessary to dwell on this topic separately.

So, I want to say that, as it is known, Russia has proposed ceasefire initiatives on several occasions, but they, these initiatives, have been repeatedly sabotaged by Ukraine. For example, the Kiev regime defiantly violated about 130 times the 30-day – I want to make it a point – 30-day moratorium, from March 18 to April 17, on strikes against energy facilities, which was declared in accordance with our agreement with US President Donald Trump.

The Easter truce initiated by Russia was not observed either: the ceasefire regime was violated by Ukrainian forces almost 5,000 times. Nevertheless, for the celebration of Victory Day – and we consider this to be a sacred holiday for us as well, just imagine that we lost 27 million people – we declared a ceasefire for the third time on this holiday, which is sacred to us.

Incidentally we conveyed to those of our colleagues in the West who, in my opinion, are sincerely looking for ways to settlement, our position on this issue, on a ceasefire on Victory Day, and that in the future we do not exclude the possibility of extending the terms of this truce – but, of course, after analysing what will happen in these several days, based on the results of how the Kiev regime will react to our proposal.

And what do we see? What are these results? The Kiev authorities, as you can see for yourself, did not respond at all to our ceasefire proposal. Moreover, after the announcement of our proposal – and this happened, as you remember, on May 5 – the Kiev authorities launched large-scale attacks in the early hours of May 7. As many as 524 unmanned aerial vehicles and a number of Western–made missiles participated in the strike, and 45 unmanned boats were used simultaneously in the Black Sea.

Actually, during these three days of the ceasefire that we announced – on May 8, 9 and 10 – happened what you also saw from the media, in fact, from your reports, it was clear: during this time, five targeted attempts were made to attack the state border of the Russian Federation in the area of the Kursk Region and at the junction with the Belgorod Region, precisely during the days of the ceasefire we announced. Additionally, another 36 attacks were made in other areas. All these attacks, including attempts to enter the territory of the Russian Federation in the Kursk Region and the Belgorod Region, were repulsed. Moreover, our military experts believe that they had no military significance, were conducted solely for political reasons and the enemy suffered very heavy losses.

As I have already said, the Kiev authorities not only declined our ceasefire proposal, but also, as we all saw, tried to intimidate the leaders of the states who gathered for the celebrations in Moscow. You know, when I met with colleagues here in Moscow, a thought occurred to me. I'll share it with you: who were they trying to intimidate among those who came to Moscow to celebrate the Victory over Nazi Germany? Who were they trying to frighten? Those who have come to us are leaders not by position or a post, they are leaders by character, by their beliefs and willingness to stand for their beliefs. And who was trying to intimidate them? Those who stand at attention and salute, applaud former SS soldiers? And elevates those who collaborated with Hitler during WWII to the rank of national heroes? It seems to me that this is an attempt with obviously unsuitable means and those who are trying to do this do not correspond to the scale they expect themselves.

I will repeat: we have proposed steps towards a ceasefire on many occasions. We have never refused to engage in dialogue with the Ukrainian side. Let me remind you again: it was not us who interrupted the negotiations in 2022; it was the Ukrainian side. In this connection, despite everything, we propose that the authorities in Kiev should resume the negotiations that they interrupted at the end of 2022 and resume direct talks. And, I stress, without any preconditions.

We suggest starting without delay next Thursday, May 15, in Istanbul, where they were held earlier and where they were interrupted. As you know, Turkish colleagues have repeatedly offered their services to organise such talks, and President Erdogan has done a lot to organise them. I recall that as a result of these talks a joint draft document was prepared and initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiating group, but at the insistence of the West it was simply thrown into the basket.

Tomorrow we are going to have a conversation with the President of Turkiye, Mr Erdogan. I would like to ask him to provide such an opportunity to hold talks in Turkiye. I hope that he will confirm his desire to contribute to the search for peace in Ukraine.

We are set on serious negotiations with Ukraine. Their aim is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term lasting peace for a historical perspective. We do not rule out that in the course of these negotiations it will become possible to agree on some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire. And a real ceasefire that would be observed not only by Russia but also by the Ukrainian side and would be the first step, I repeat, towards a long-term, sustainable peace, rather than a prelude to continuing armed conflict after the Ukrainian armed forces have been rearmed, re-equipped and frantically digged trenches and new strongholds. Who needs such peace?

Our proposal is, as they say, on the table. The decision is now up to Ukrainian authorities and their supervisors, who are seemingly guided by their personal political ambitions, rather than the interests of their peoples, want to continue the war against Russia at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists.

Let me reiterate myself: Russia is ready for talks without any preliminary conditions. There are combat actions and war going on now, and we propose to resume negotiations that were not interrupted by us. Well, what's wrong about it?

Those who really want peace cannot but support this. At the same time, I would like to express my gratitude once again for the mediation services and efforts aimed at a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis undertaken by our foreign partners, including China, Brazil, African countries, the Middle East, and recently the new Administration of the United States of America.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank everyone who shared with us the festive celebrations dedicated to the 80th anniversary of the Victory over Nazism. I am sure that the spirit of solidarity and harmony that united us in Moscow these days will continue to help us build fruitful cooperation and partnership in the name of progress, security and peace.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note the tremendous role of journalists, representatives of international information agencies, TV channels, and the press who covered the anniversary events and the many-hour programme of current negotiations and working meetings. Much has been done to ensure that people in different countries of the world experience the unique atmosphere of the current holidays in Moscow. Of course, I thank you for this meeting as well, as it is held quite late and, of course, everyone is already tired.

Thank you very much for your attention, as it's almost half past one in the morning, or even later than half past one in Moscow, God be with you.

Thank you very much for your attention. Goodbye.

Press statements following Russian-Vietnamese talks

2025-05-10T21:53:18+04:00

Following Russia-Vietnam talks, Vladimir Putin and To Lam made statements for the press.

Before making the statements, the heads of state were present at a ceremony to exchange the documents signed.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Comrade To Lam, Ladies and gentlemen,

Comrades,

We are delighted to welcome our Vietnamese friends to Russia, led by General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee Comrade To Lam.

Yesterday, together with many other foreign leaders, we attended the celebrations marking the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. A unit of 68 cadets from the First Army Officer Training School of Vietnam marched across Red Square shoulder to shoulder with the ceremonial units from Russia and other countries.

I consider the visit of our Vietnamese friends, timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Great Victory, as yet another evidence of the time-tested friendship, military comradery and mutual support between our nations. Russia remembers Vietnamese internationalist volunteers who fought heroically alongside Red Army soldiers in the Battle of Moscow in 1941–1942. Last year, a sculpture was erected in the Patriot Park near Moscow to honour their deeds.

In turn, the Soviet Union put significant effort into helping the emerging Vietnamese state to continue its struggle for freedom and independence, contributing to the country’s economic and social progress, infrastructure development, and personnel training. Undeniably, the Soviet Union also made a significant contribution to the liberation of southern Vietnam and the country’s reunification. April 30 marked the 50^th anniversary of those important historical events.

This year also marks the 75^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. Over the years, our bilateral ties have grown stronger, evolving to a comprehensive strategic partnership, and continue to expand in the spirit of equality, mutual respect, and consideration of each other’s interests.

The talks we have just had with Comrade To Lam serve as a clear proof of all this. We substantively discussed Russian-Vietnamese cooperation across all sectors as well as the international agenda in a warm and constructive atmosphere.

As you have seen, an impressive package of documents has been signed following the talks. We have adopted a Joint Declaration, in which we reaffirmed the key principles of our bilateral partnership and mapped out specific guidelines for our further work.

First and foremost, these agreements are aimed at expanding our mutually beneficial economic cooperation. As of the end of last year, Russia-Vietnam trade grew by more than 20 percent, reaching US$6 billion. There is still more to achieve, as back in 2021, our mutual trade was slightly higher than that. But we know what steps are necessary to reach this prior level and go beyond that.

The steady increase in our mutual trade flows is largely a result of the Agreement on Free Trade signed by Vietnam and the Eurasian Economic Union. This document not only secured concessional terms for our goods and services to reach the respective markets but also facilitated a noticeable increase in investment and intensified technology and innovation exchanges.

It is important to note that Russia and Vietnam are shifting to financial payments in national currencies and seeking to develop reliable channels for cooperation in banking and lending.

Vietnam-Russia Joint Venture Bank plays a key role in servicing our trade transactions. The bank has been successfully operating for almost 20 years, steadily providing Vietnamese and Russian customers with a broad range of financial and lending services.

Our cooperation in energy is expanding. I will not list everything that has been done in this sector but I want to note that this cooperation has been developing for many years, and the progress is clear. Today, we approved new agreements in the context of implementing mutually beneficial Russian-Vietnamese projects.

In addition, Zarubezhneft plans to build a marine wind power station with a capacity of 1,000 MW in southeastern Vietnam. Russian companies are interested in joining the construction of new and modernisation of the existing hydropower generation facilities in the republic.

The agreements signed just now on peaceful atom are opening doors to providing Vietnam with affordable and environmentally safe energy. This project will become a good stimulus for the further growth of the Vietnamese economy, for the creation of thousands of new jobs, and the training of highly qualified local workforce.

This work is already underway. Moreover, as we have heard today from Rosatom CEO, certain Vietnamese specialists have joined the teams at Russian nuclear facilities in third countries. This means that the level of their training corresponds to all international standards.

A centre of nuclear science and technology in Vietnam is also on the agenda.

Among the examples of mutually beneficial industrial cooperation, I would like to note the facility that manufactures Gazelle cargo and passenger minibuses in Da Nang. Russia’s Kamaz is expanding its presence in the Vietnamese market, with a chain of dealerships and service centres now established across the country.

Russia and Vietnam are implementing a number of joint infrastructure projects. Regular container cargo transportation is maintained through the Vladivostok – Ho Chi Minh City maritime transport corridor. The logistics hub in the Ho Chi Minh City port consolidates cargo from Thailand, Malaysia and other countries of Southeast Asia for further shipment to Russia.

Bilateral partnership in agriculture is advancing steadily. Livestock farms are being built in several Russian regions, including Bashkortostan, the Tyumen Region, and the Moscow Region, with the participation of Vietnamese investors.

I know that a dairy plant will be launched in the Kaluga Region tomorrow, with the Vietnamese company TH Group participating in the project. The new facility will supply products to Asia-Pacific markets, among others.

In humanitarian sphere, Russia and Vietnam have a good tradition to hold mutual Days of Culture on a regular basis, a practice that effectively brings our nations together. National cinema weeks, art exhibitions, and touring music and theatre productions are popular in both Russia and Vietnam.

More than 3,000 Vietnamese citizens study at Russian universities; overall, about 75,000 Vietnamese people have been educated in our country. It goes without saying that we intend to continue to promote student exchanges and new joint educational projects and university programmes in every possible way.

I met with people who had graduated from our universities when I was in Vietnam last year. I must tell you that this is a very active group of our Vietnamese friends who are vigorously promoting the Russian language and Russian culture. This is certainly a reliable resource for expanding bilateral ties.

We greatly appreciate Vietnam’s attention to the study of the Russian language. It is included in the secondary school curriculum as the first foreign language. Work is underway to open a Russian gymnasium in Hanoi. A branch of the Pushkin Russian Language Institute has been operating in the capital of Vietnam for years. Under the intergovernmental agreement signed today, it is going to provide a platform for the Regional Centre for Russian Language Learning for citizens of all countries of Southeast Asia.

The Joint Vietnam-Russia Tropical Research and Technology Centre in Hanoi serves as an effective platform for Russian and Vietnamese specialists to conduct joint research in such important fields as ecology and nature conservation, medicine, combating infectious diseases and epidemics, and so on.

I certainly cannot fail to note the recent noticeable increase in tourist traffic between Russia and Vietnam, which nearly doubled last year. The direct air service is expanding, with several new flights added this year, connecting Moscow and other major Russian cities with Hanoi and Nha Trang.

Naturally, during the talks, we also discussed important issues on the global and regional agendas. I would like to emphasise that Russia’s and Vietnam’s respective stances on these issues largely coincide or are closely aligned.

Our countries firmly uphold and support the rule of international law, the sovereignty of states and non-interference in internal affairs. They coordinate their efforts at key multilateral platforms, including the Russia-ASEAN dialogue, and jointly advocate for the peaceful and sustainable development of the Asia-Pacific region.

In conclusion, I would like to once again express my gratitude to Comrade To Lam for the productive joint work. Today’s talks will undoubtedly serve to further strengthen the Russian-Vietnamese comprehensive strategic partnership, which benefits both nations.

I already expressed our gratitude to Comrade To Lam for his direct and personal involvement in the development of Russian-Vietnamese ties, and I would like to emphasise this once again. Since Comrade To Lam became General Secretary, we have seen rapid progress of Russian-Vietnamese relations and cooperation in many fields. Comrade To Lam, we greatly appreciate your contribution.

Thank you for your attention.

General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam Central Committee To Lam (retranslated): Mr President,

Colleagues, members of the media,

I am glad to be again in great and beautiful Russia at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin, a loyal friend and comrade of Vietnam, in order to attend the celebration of the 80^th anniversary of Victory of the Soviet and Russian people in the Great Patriotic War.

I would like to begin by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to the President and Russia’s senior officials for the warm and comradely welcome extended to the high-ranking delegation and me. We congratulate Russia on the very successful and solemn celebration of Victory Day which is a particularly important event that will forever go down in history of humanity and forever glorify the great contribution of the Soviet Red Army, including those who laid down their lives for independence of their country and allied countries in fighting against Nazism, defending and bringing freedom, independence and peace to humanity. This victory makes the younger generations aware of the value of peace and the heroic traditions of the nation.

We also marked the 50^th anniversary of liberation of the South, which went down in history of our people as one of its most outstanding chapters, a glittering symbol of the complete victory of revolutionary heroism and human reason, which went down in world history as a great feat of the 20^th century. The two events become even more significant if you think about close ties and mutual support between our countries in the past.

President Vladimir Putin and I held very productive talks in an atmosphere of openness, sincerity, and mutual understanding. We discussed a whole range of bilateral issues. The President and I reiterated that the leaders and peoples of Vietnam and Russia have always cherished the long-standing traditional friendship between our two countries, which has been tested by time and gets ever stronger in the name of long-term interests of our two peoples and for the benefit of both nations.

President Putin and I have aligned our agendas on the main areas of comprehensive strategic partnership in the new era.

First, we will work to strengthen the foundations of high political trust and traditional friendship that have been laid by many generations of the leaders and peoples of our two countries, and to strengthen political exchanges and dialogues at all levels between our respective parties, states, governments, parliaments, and regions. We will also focus on improving traditional education of the two countries’ younger generations.

Second, we will create breakthroughs in economic, trade and investment cooperation, maximise the use of the existing potential, and eliminate all difficulties and obstacles. We will promote innovative areas of cooperation such as clean energy, support for the manufacturing industry, and the closed-cycle economy. We agreed on pursuing concrete projects symbolising our friendship in the new era.

The sides support energy and oil-and-gas companies to promote cooperation, to expand investment and to work in each other’s territories in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, in particular, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Third, we will work to develop new, substantial, and effective breakthroughs in scientific research and technology, nuclear energy, biotechnology, and the semiconductor industry. We also agreed to promote the implementation of joint research projects.

Fourth, we will deepen cooperation in defence, security, and military technology, jointly respond to non-conventional security and cyber security challenges and prevent and oppose high-tech crimes.

Fifth, we will strengthen cooperation in education, professional training, and labour. We agreed to step up the training of specialists to promote the Russian language studies in Vietnam and the Vietnamese language studies in Russia.

Also, we will work to expand direct air service between our two countries. I would like to take this opportunity to announce that yesterday the Vietnam Airlines national airline resumed direct flights between the capitals of the two countries, and the privately owned VietJet Air airline is about to launch flights connecting the two countries as well.

The President and I discussed ways to step up the efforts to maintain peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Vietnam appreciates Russia’s efforts and hopes that Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, will continue to play an important role in maintaining peace and stability in the region, ensuring safety and freedom of navigation and air navigation, and peacefully resolving disputes in the region, including the East Sea, in accordance with international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

We welcome and support Russia’s initiatives to advance cooperation within ASEAN in order to build a strong and united ASEAN community.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Russian President and Government of Russia for their continuous support and assistance to the Vietnamese diaspora. We hope that the Russian side will continue to assist the Vietnamese diaspora so that they can live, work and integrate into Russian society in a peaceful and stable way, and continue to act as a bridge of friendship between our countries.

Thank you again to Mr President and media representatives for the full and truthful coverage of my visit.

I invited President Putin to visit Vietnam, and he gratefully accepted the invitation.

I wish good health to President Vladimir Putin and every media member present here.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Mr To Lam, our dear friend and comrade, mentioned another area of our cooperation. He said we plan to strengthen defence and security cooperation. I did not mention that in my remarks, but I confirm that we have such plans. Bearing in mind the famous line from a Russian song, “From the taiga to the British seas, the Red Army is the strongest of all!” we have every reason to believe that all our plans in this area will come to fruition.

Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin

2024-12-25T20:07:28+04:00

Vladimir Putin summed up the results of the year and answered questions from journalists and the people of Russia in a live broadcast.

Channel One war correspondent Dmitry Kulko and VGTRK presenter Alexandra Suvorova moderated the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin.

* * *

Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: Good afternoon everyone.

The President will be here within minutes to review the results of the outgoing year. I would like to remind you that this year we combine two events, the news conference and Direct Line.

Please show respect for your colleagues when I give the floor to journalists and make your questions as concise and clear as possible. This will allow the President to answer more questions.

Our moderators this year are Alexandra Suvorova and Dmitry Kulko, who will talk with the President. They worked hard to personally read extremely many questions from our people, possibly tens of thousands of them. They understand what the people of Russia are talking about and will help the President outline the subjects that are at the top of the agenda throughout the country.

Please.

Alexandra Suvorova: Good afternoon. This is the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin. As usual, questions can be submitted in a number of ways until the end of our programme. Our colleagues continue working with the incoming questions.

First, you can submit your questions by calling 8 (800) 200 4040 or sending an SMS or MMS message to 04040. Questions can also be submitted via the programme’s official accounts on Vkontakte and Odnoklassniki. You can also use the website and mobile app called москва-путину.рф.

We have already received over 2.2 million questions, including 1.2 million via telephone, about 43,000 via SMS messages, and over 140,000 via the website. We can see that the number of questions is increasing in real time.

Let me share some interesting facts and figures on the Results of the Year with Vladimir Putin programme since this format was created. There was a time when the Direct Line and the news conference were two separate events and formats. This is the third time we are having it in a hybrid format. The first time it happened was before the COVID pandemic, the second was a post-COVID event in 2023, and now we are in 2024. Once again, the programme is taking place in a hybrid format, which means that both the people of Russia and, of course, journalists get to ask questions.

Here are some interesting statistics. For example, the event with the biggest number of questions took place in 2015 when the President received 2.25 million questions. This year, we have not reached this number. However, I believe that this could be attributable to the fact that regions hold their own direct lines, with governors answering questions from their people at the regional level. Therefore, some questions get resolved on the ground.

One thing to note here is that if we add up all the time Vladimir Putin has spent answering questions during events of this kind, the total already exceeds 64 hours. People have been tuning in from the regions since 2001 when the very first programme of this kind took place. It goes without saying that there will also be people joining us via videoconference from the regions today. Throughout the years when we had the Direct Line and the Results of the Year, people have been proactively contributing to these events not only by raising various issues with the President, sharing their concerns or asking for something, but also by expressing their gratitude. This year, considering that we are holding this event on December 19, we also received New Year greetings. This is another trend I wanted to mention.

Of course, social matters are in the spotlight today, judging by the submissions we have selected. Many questions deal with the special military operation. International matters are also high on the agenda, of course. So let us get started.

Dmitry Kulko: President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

For the third year in a row, volunteers from the Russian Popular Front have been helping prepare our programme and process the messages and calls. This year, they were also joined by veterans of the special military operation. For ten days since the free telephone line opened, they, too, have been taking phone calls. However, the Russian Popular Front’s work does not end today. In fact, we can say that it is only just beginning, because the moment the broadcast ends, the Popular Front volunteers will continue to work on the appeals people made to ensure that none of them is left unattended.

Alexandra Suvorova: I would like to add that some of the appeals have already been processed during the preparations for the Results of the Year programme, and some of the issues have been addressed by Popular Front volunteers and regional and federal authorities.

There is one more aspect that is different this year. GigaChat, an AI model provided by Sber, has helped us process people’s appeals and questions. Mr President, I know that you have already seen it.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I have.

Dmitry Kulko: Yes, GigaChat has drawn conclusions. This technology can do more than transcribe audio files into text – it can also extract the message and the essence of the problem, which has significantly accelerated the processing of requests this year. You will be able to see GigaChat’s insights on the screen throughout the programme. You will see the key subjects of people’s appeals, across the country and in each region. We will be using this virtual assistant during the programme today.

Anna Suvorova: Before we start taking questions from our people and our colleagues, journalists, I would like to ask the first general question.

In recent time, everyone has been feeling a disturbing sense that the world is going crazy, or already has, because the potential for conflict is off the charts in every part of the world, and the global economy is struggling. How does Russia manage not only to stay afloat, but also to continue growing in this situation?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when all is calm and life is measured and stable, we get bored. This amounts to stagnation, so we crave action. When action begins, time starts whistling by – or bullets do, for that matter. Unfortunately, bullets are what is zipping past our heads these days. We are scared, yes – but not as “all get out” kind of scared.

Our economics are the ultimate measure of things. As is traditional, I will start with the economy. Although your question was a bit provocative, I will turn to the economy anyway. The economy is number one; it is the cornerstone. It has an impact on living standards, general stability, and the country’s defence capability. The economy is everything.

The economic situation in Russia is generally positive and stable. We are growing in spite of everything, in spite of any external threats or attempts at outside influence.

As you know, last year Russia increased its GDP by 3.6 percent, and this year the economy is expected to grow by 3.9 percent, or possibly even four percent. However, we will have to wait and see the final results, as the year-end figures will be de facto factored into these projections in the first quarter of next year, which will be 2025 in this particular case. It may well be that this indicator reaches four percent. What this means is that our economy will have grown by eight percent over the past two years. After all, the tenths and hundredths of a percent make for a negligeable difference. This is what experts have been telling me – we exchanged views this very morning. About eight percent over the past two years, compared to a growth rate between five and six percent for the United States, one percent for the Eurozone, and zero for Germany, the EU’s leading economy. It seems that next year that country will also have zero growth.

International financial and economic institutions ranked Russia as Europe’s biggest economy in terms of volume, in terms of purchasing power parity, and the world’s fourth largest economy. We are behind China, the United States and India. Last year, Russia surpassed Germany and this year, we left Japan behind. But this is not the time for us to be complacent. We will definitely keep moving forward.

There is development everywhere you look and so much positive momentum across the board. If the Eurozone has fallen asleep, there are other centres of global development that are advancing. The situation in the Eurozone and the United States has been changing too. We must maintain the momentum we have gathered and transform our economy at its core, from a qualitative perspective.

There are other general performance indicators which have been quite satisfactory, to say the least. Unemployment is the first such indicator. All countries around the world, and all economies, pay a great deal of attention to this figure. For Russia, it is at its all-time low of 2.3 percent. We have not experienced anything like this before. This is my first point.

Second, there has been growth in specific manufacturing and industrial sectors. In fact, industrial output increased by 4.4 percent, while the processing sector reported a growth rate of 8.1 percent, with some of its sectors achieving even higher growth rates.

Of course, inflation has been causing some concerns. Only yesterday, while preparing for today’s event, I talked to the Central Bank Governor, and Elvira Nabiullina told me that the inflation rate has already reached about 9.2–9.3 percent year-to-date. That said, salaries have increased by nine percent, and I am talking about an increase in real terms, minus inflation. In addition, disposable incomes have also increased. So, the overall situation is stable and, let me reiterate, solid.

There are certain challenges with inflation and with the economy heating up. Therefore, the Government and the Central Bank have been seeking to ensure a soft landing. Estimates may vary for next year, but we expect the economy to grow at a rate of 2–2.5 percent. This soft landing would enable us to keep improving our macroeconomic performance.

This is what we must aspire to. I think that we will probably raise these matters during today’s meeting. Overall, the economy can be described as stable and resilient.

Alexandra Suvorova: I have a follow-up question, given the numerous questions surrounding price growth, to which we will return. You have cited Germany and Japan as examples. I wish to focus on Germany having a zero percent growth rate, which you mentioned as a case previously known for its economic expansion.

Do you believe this is perhaps linked to politics and sovereignty? Not long ago, at the VTB Forum Russia Calling!, you reminisced about Gerhard Schroeder's birthday celebration, remarking how all the songs were in English, with none performed in German.

Vladimir Putin: There were. It's an interesting episode. Quite some time ago, it was Gerhard Schroeder's birthday, he invited me and I attended. There was a small concert, and, as it happened, all the companies performed in English. I remarked at the time, “Even the Hannover girls' choir sang in English.”

There was, however, one ensemble that performed in German: the Kuban Cossack Choir, which accompanied me. Moreover, this was entirely unexpected on my part. I inquired, “How did you come to know these songs?” They replied, “Out of respect for the Germans, our hosts, we learnt these songs en route and performed them in German, including those from the local region where we are now.”

During the intermission, numerous attendees approached me (I recount this as it truly unfolded) and expressed, “We are embarrassed, truly, that only Russian Cossacks performed in German here.”

I recounted this to a colleague who was present at the event, which has now been recalled. You see, sovereignty is a crucial concept; it must reside within, in one's heart. In the post-war era, I believe this sense – of homeland and sovereignty – has been somewhat eroded among the German people.

Who are the Europeans, after all? They are proud to be European, yet they are foremost French, German, Italian, Spanish, and then European. There is a tendency to smooth out things, to homogenise. Ultimately, this affects everything, including the economy.

I previously spoke about our economic growth – this is largely attributable to the reinforcement of sovereignty, which extends to the economic realm.

Many foreign manufacturers have exited our market. What has been the consequence? Our entrepreneurs have started producing these goods domestically, necessitating further research and the engagement of institutions, including those focused on development. All of this – what we are discussing – is the enhancement of technological sovereignty.

Sovereignty manifests itself in various forms: defence, technology, science, education, culture. This is of paramount importance, especially for our nation, because should we lose sovereignty, we risk losing statehood. That is the crux.

Economic growth is also an effect of bolstered sovereignty.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we move on to questions from our citizens.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, let us begin.

Dmitry Kulko: You spoke about economic growth. It is true that a look at our economic indicators, which do look good, shows that the majority of Russian enterprises are working to capacity and wages are rising, yet they cannot keep pace with price increases.

Many Russian citizens have written about this, and AI has analysed all the requests and compiled a list of regions where more questions concerned price growth. These are eastern regions, such as the Kamchatka Territory and the Sakhalin Region, and also our westernmost territory, the Kaliningrad Region. Also, the majority of questions from the Irkutsk Region concern price growth. In short, it is a topical issue.

Alexandra Suvorova: It is topical indeed. I will cite the figures which have also been provided by GigaChat, which we are using.

The most frequent questions have to do with the rise in prices of bread, fish, milk, eggs and butter. People also write about the growth of fuel prices. This file contains some of the citizens’ questions about price growth.

If we look at the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), we got it last night, we will see that the prices of fruits and vegetables have increased by 3.4 percent over the past week. For example, the price of cucumbers has grown by ten percent after rising by 43 percent in November.

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to apologise to the audience, especially those who are following this event via various media platforms, including online. When I said that price growth or inflation was slightly above nine percent this year, at 9.2–9.3 percent, and that people’s wages and real disposable incomes have grown as well, I cited average figures. Of course, our country is very big, and some people might ask me what I was talking about, that their well-being has not improved but remained at the same level. And some might even say that their well-being has deteriorated. Yes, this can be so and it is so, in some cases. I cited average figures, because when we make plans, we need to have figures to rely on, and we can only rely on average figures.

As for the growth of prices, there are both objective and subjective reasons for that.

What is more important is that the supply in our market should correlate with people’s incomes, or rather, people’s incomes and their purchasing capacity should correlate with the volume of goods produced in the country. Wages and incomes have been growing faster than the mass of commodities and the rate of production.

I will explain. Let’s say, food production in our country is constantly growing. I will talk about this later. There will certainly be questions on agriculture. In fact, I can tell you that it adds three percent every year. We are fully self-sufficient when it comes to meat. One hundred percent.

It is a good indicator. Why does this happen? In Russia, the annual consumption of meat is about 80 kg per capita while in other countries, it is about 42 kg on average. It may seem enough and yet, meat consumption has doubled recently, you see? Doubled.

Now, milk. Milk production grows every year, but consumption grows as well, and there is not enough milk to produce butter. I know that the butter prices have grown by 33–34 percent in some regions, and possibly higher in others.

Simply, the amount of products has not grown as much as consumption has. This is the first reason. The solution here would be to develop industries. And I will talk more about it later.

The second objective reason is harvest.

The third objective reason is that some products have become more expensive on world markets.

Of course, the external restrictions, sanctions and so forth are affecting the prices to a certain extent. They do not play a key role but still, they take a toll as they make logistics more expensive, in addition to other things.

There are also subjective reasons or things we could improve on our side. For example, some experts believe that the Central Bank could have used certain instruments other than raising the key rate, more efficiently and at an earlier stage. Yes, the Central Bank started doing it around summer. But again, these experts believe that it could have and should have been done earlier. There are many instruments. I will not list them now and will not tire our audience with these considerations about the Central Bank and its regulation methods.

The Government works efficiently and does a lot when it thinks about the future – and the future should always be considered. In our country, we always thought about the future even during the harshest times of the Great Patriotic War. We know these examples. There were efforts made and, as it turned out later, correct efforts.

Our Government does think about the future: it formulates tasks, national development goals and national projects. It is wonderful but it would also be great to take timely efforts with respect to industries and consider the development of certain sectors, the production of mass products. I will not list them now – perhaps, there will be questions on specific industries later. Timely decisions should have been made.

Growing prices are not something to enjoy and they have adverse impacts. But I hope that overall, as we preserve macroeconomic indicators, we shall address this issues as well because macroeconomics is the basis for a healthy economy in general.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we are holding today’s event in a combined format, a direct line and a news conference. I now suggest that our journalist colleagues ask a question.

Alexandra Suvorova: We can sense that those present in the hall are eager to ask their questions.

Dmitry Peskov: Indeed, the audience is quite eager. Allow me …

A question from the audience.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, if we behave this way, it would be disrespectful towards everyone else.

Vladimir Putin: Nevertheless, let us refrain from acting this way, and let us begin. What is your name?

Alina Khastsayeva: My name is Alina Khastsayeva, I represent the 15^th Region information website in North Ossetia.

Vladimir Putin: Alina, go ahead, please.

Alina Khastsayeva: The issue of professional service personnel has become increasingly important. Multiple schools, including the North Caucasus Military Institute of Interior Troops in North Ossetia, used to train military specialists in the North Caucasus.

Quite literally, a legendary institute: seven of its graduates became Heroes of the Soviet Union, and 14 more received the title of Heroes of Russia. To this very day, its graduates are successfully carrying out missions set by our state. Its graduates include former Interior Minister Anatoly Kulikov, and Sergei Khairutdinov, a recent graduate, became Hero of Russia while taking part in the special military operation.

Is it possible to reinstate this institute at a time when the North Caucasus and the whole of Russia need it so much? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Alina, thank you for this question. This is a good point, and do not be angry with Alina; here is why.

First, North Ossetia has always been Russia’s outpost in this region, in the Caucasus, and it has always justified its lofty designation. We know how the republic’s residents feel about their region and about Russia, our large common Motherland. They have always defended it and have fulfilled this role worthily and admirably.

You have noted that the number of schools has been reduced. This is not linked to a decision to close them in Ossetia alone. It is related to the fact that, according to military specialists and agencies, there were too many military schools, and the Russian army did not need so many specialists and so much service personnel at the time. Due to various circumstances, we are now increasing the strength of the army, security and law enforcement agencies to 1.5 million people. I cannot say that we will achieve this tomorrow, but I promise you that we will certainly analyse this issue.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: We continue working with the audience. Let us go back to the centre after all.

ITAR-TASS, please.

Mikhail Petrov: Mikhail Petrov, Editor-in-Chief, TASS.

Mr President, before I ask my question, I would like to thank you.

This year, TASS is celebrating its 120^th anniversary. We are this country’s oldest news agency. Earlier this year, in August, you signed an Executive order on awarding TASS the Order for Valiant Labour. On behalf of our large team and at their instructions, I want to take a message of many thanks to you. This is a high praise for our work.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Mikhail Petrov: As for the question, I think this issue is of concern for all of us today. Incidentally, TASS correspondents sent reports from the fronts during the Great Patriotic War. Today, too, our men are working in the special military operation zone, and they are concerned as well.

How do you assess the progress in the special military operation, which has lasted for nearly three years now? Is the victory nearer?

Vladimir Putin: I certainly hoped for questions of this kind. There are many of these within the bulk [of messages] that came in during the previous days. Moreover, I am grateful to you, too, for [asking this question], because this enables us to show what is going on and what our troops are doing at the battle contact line.

You know, the fighting men, with whom I am in regular contact, send souvenirs, chevrons, some weapons, and so on. Not long ago, men from the 155^th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet gave me a copy of their colours.

Who can I ask to assist me? Come over to me, please, and someone from that side. I have a big favour to ask. You take a position here and you – there, and unfold this banner, please, at both ends.

Dmitry Kulko: Pacific Fleet marines.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

I have brought it along on purpose.

First, I wanted to thank the men for this gift.

Second, let us consider than this banner of the 155^th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet represents all the combat banners of our soldiers, who are fighting for Russia, for the Motherland, along the entire line of contact.

I must say that the situation is changing radically. You know this well and I just want to reaffirm this. The drive is on along the entire frontline every day.

As I said, the advance is not by 100, 200, or 300 metres. Our fighting men are regaining the territory by square kilometers. I want to stress – every day! Why is this happening?

First, last year, and this basically is the classical course of hostilities, the enemy attacks, sustains a heavy defeat, loses a lot of equipment, ammunition and personnel, and then the other side starts to push forward. In our case, this is happening exactly in this way. Combat operations are a difficult thing. So, it is hard – and makes no sense – to think far too ahead. But it happens precisely in this way. And we are advancing, as we said, towards achieving the priority goals that we outlined at the start of the special military operation.

As for our troops, they are acting heroically. I say this regularly and will repeat it, because there is every reason for saying so. Right now, the 155^th Brigade is fighting in the Kursk Region and pushing the enemy out from our land. Of course, they are not alone. Fighting alongside them are the 810^th Marine Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet, the 76^th and 106^th divisions of the Airborne Troops, and motorised infantry of the Sever Group. All of them are fighting heroically in the direct sense of the word. And they are involved in an engagement right at this moment. Let us wish them all success, victory and safe homecoming, meaning those fighting in the Kursk Region and along the entire frontline.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I have just returned from the Kursk Region. We have been working with the units and formations you mentioned, which are currently undertaking the noble duty of liberating our homeland. For several weeks, we have been on the front lines, filming reports. Notably, the 155^th brigade has liberated several residential areas, and we have discussed this.

Our reports illustrate that once the enemy is expelled from a residential area, they begin bombarding these streets with drones and artillery, almost as if in retaliation. We visited the recently liberated Borki, Snagost, and Lyubimovka. The footage clearly shows the houses intact initially, only to be targeted by Ukrainian shells afterwards. Consequently, the residents of this border region now find themselves with nowhere to return to and are striving to build new lives somehow.

I propose we connect with Tatyana Zibrova by telephone. She is currently residing in temporary accommodation in the Kursk Region. Ms Zibrova, can you hear us?

Tatyana Zibrova: Yes, I can hear you.

Dmitry Kulko: Please direct your question to the President.

Tatyana Zibrova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Hello.

Tatyana Zibrova: I am a resident of the Kursk Region, Bolshesoldatsky District.

I have a question on behalf of all residents of the Kursk Region. When will our region be fully liberated? When will the Ukrainian armed forces be pushed back so far that they will not even dare to show themselves or look in our direction? When will we be able to return to our homes or have our own accommodation somewhere?

Additionally, will the small villages that were destroyed be rebuilt, and will infrastructure be restored? The residents of Bolshesoldatsky District are particularly concerned: will we be included on the list of those eligible to receive housing certificates? Currently, we are not receiving them, as the Ukrainian armed forces have not directly invaded us and we are not on the list for certificates.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Zibrova, rest assured. I cannot and do not want to provide a specific date as to when they will be driven out. Our troops are engaged in combat right now, and the battles are intense. As I have mentioned before, there was no strategic military reason for the Ukrainian armed forces to enter the Kursk Region or to hold their position there as they are, deploying their elite assault groups and units to no avail. Yet, this situation persists.

We will undoubtedly drive them out. There is no alternative. Concerning a precise date – I am afraid I cannot specify one at this moment. I have an understanding of the plans, which are regularly reported to me. However, it is not possible to declare a specific date. The troops can hear me now; if I were to specify a date, they would go to great lengths to meet it, potentially disregarding casualties. We cannot allow that. While a day or two may not make a significant difference, but we will undoubtedly expel them, the damage assessment will follow, and, most importantly, everything will be restored. There is no doubt about that.

We will rebuild the road network, restore utility infrastructure, and reinstate social facilities such as schools and kindergartens. Community centres and housing will be rebuilt, and housing reconstruction certificates will be issued.

We will assist those who wish to relocate to other regions. Currently, about 108 billion rubles have been allocated for this purpose, if I remember correctly. I know that the first funds have already been received. The Administration will work throughout the holidays, meeting with people and addressing their issues, including providing certificates.

I understand that what is happening is incredibly challenging for you: people are experiencing heavy losses, inconveniences, especially families with children. But rest assured, we will do everything in our power to restore everything. Everyone in need of housing assistance will be fully satisfied; everyone will receive what they are entitled to.

I genuinely hope that the new head of the region, who has been appointed to the Kursk Region, is experienced and capable of effectively working with people. That is why I chose him, he has a long history of working in the State Duma and directly with his voters, so he knows how to handle it. I expect that he will work with every person on an individual basis.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, our military personnel who are currently liberating the Kursk Region do not have the status of a participant in the special military operation.

Vladimir Putin: Pardon?

Dmitry Kulko: They don’t have the status of a participant in the special military operation.

Vladimir Putin: Why?

Dmitry Kulko: Because they are participants in the counter-terrorism operation. This also affects the payments they receive.

We received several requests, mostly from the wives of the military personnel: “My husband serves in an assault company in the Kursk Region and is carrying out combat missions. In October and November, he received a pay allowance of 42,000 rubles, even though he is on battle positions. Many soldiers have not received combat daily payments for three or four months. It has been argued that they are in the zone of a counter-terrorism operation, not the special military operation.”

Another appeal: “In the Kursk Region, they are paid a monthly salary of 25,000 rubles, not the 210,000 rubles promised in the Ministry of Defence contracts.“

Can this situation be corrected?

Vladimir Putin: It can and should be rectified. This is a mistake on our part. That is no news to me. I understand what you are talking about.

Our servicemen who fought in other parts of the front are recognised as combatants. If they have been transferred to the Kursk Region, they should receive all the payments they are entitled to. I will look into this.

There might be a category of individuals who had not previously participated at all or had not been on the front lines and were deployed to the Kursk Region from the very beginning, so they were not classified as participants in the special military operation.

To be honest, it never occurred to me, and I apologise for that. This will be corrected. It is unfortunate that the military department did not pay attention to this either; after all, it primarily falls under their responsibility.

We will correct everything, and all servicemen who are carrying out their duty to the Motherland on the line of contact will receive all payments due to them. We will recalculate retroactively.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely, without a doubt.

Dmitry Kulko: I personally know a few soldiers who are eager to get an answer right now.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I want the fighters to hear me. Please, do not worry, and do not let your families worry about it: everything will be recalculated, and all the due payments, including the benefits for combat action, every payment to which you are entitled will be made.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, you have already said today that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are sending their special forces for slaughter in the Kursk Region. Indeed, their losses are enormous; this much is quite obvious. To be honest, I have never seen so many abandoned enemy bodies – indeed, all the local forests are littered with them. I do not even have to mention all the destroyed NATO equipment, including Abrams, Bradley, Leopard vehicles. They say the Kursk Region, its soil, is now the world’s biggest burial place of NATO equipment, and that is actually true.

Vladimir Putin: Possibly.

Dmitry Kulko: However, there is one small point to make here.

Vladimir Putin: As far as I know, the number of armoured vehicles destroyed in the Kursk Region has now exceeded the number of vehicles destroyed on the entire line of contact last year – in any case, these are comparable figures.

Dmitry Kulko: Please, could I ask, could I put in a word for the fighters, for those who destroyed that equipment: will they receive the promised reward?

Vladimir Putin: For the damaged equipment?

Dmitry Kulko: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, they should. Are there any problems with this?

Dmitry Kulko: To be honest, they are facing some difficulties.

Vladimir Putin: That is surprising. I know that the Defence Minister is listening to our conversation now, and this will definitely be done. No one should have any doubt about this.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Shall we move on to questions from the audience?

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Dmitry Peskov: Since we are talking about military issues, let’s start with the Zvezda television channel.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov, Zvezda TV channel.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: I cannot but ask you about the statements that we have heard over the past few weeks concerning the footage of the first combat tests of the latest Oreshnik missile, which has been shown all over the world. One gets the impression that it really has no drawbacks, but the West continues to refer to Oreshnik as a modification of old Soviet weapons, claiming that this missile can be shot down by air defence even at the launch stage.

How would you comment on this? Does it have any shortcomings?

If you do not mind, I have a clarifying question: what meaning did the creators of the Oreshnik put into the name – hazel tree? There are several versions.

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding how old or new and modern this weapon is. It is a modern, a brand new weapon. All new achievements in any sphere are based on the designs and achievements made in the past, which people use to move forward. This is also true about the Oreshnik system.

Yes, it is based on previous designs, but these designs were made in the contemporary Russian period. Our scientists, designers and engineers used that basis to create something new, coordinating their activities with the Defence Ministry as the contractor. When I was ultimately informed about that system, I joined the discussions on whether to make it or not, in what quantities, when and how.

It is a new system. As I have said, it is an intermediate- and shorter-range system.

You have said that some Western experts believe that this missile can be easily shot down and destroyed, especially in the boost phase of the missile trajectory.

What would I tell those experts? There are several types of air defence systems, as you know being from the Zvezda TV channel, such as Patriot and the more modern THAAD systems. I do not know if Ukraine has them, but I do not think so. If the Americans want, they can send its THAAD systems to Ukraine. These are more modern systems similar to our S-400 systems. The Patriot systems are comparable to our S-300s, while THAAD is similar to our S-400 systems, if only slightly inferior.

Let them send these systems to Ukraine, and we will ask our people in Ukraine to tell us about the modern solutions of these systems which we could use. I am not joking when I say “our people,” because there are people in Ukraine who you can talk to, there are many of such people who are dreaming, together with us, about liberating their country from the neo-Nazi regime.

There are also other strike systems such as the ballistic missile system (BMD), which used to be a hot topic of our discussions. We once asked the Americans not to deploy that system so that we would not have to create weapons that would be able to avoid it.

We have eventually done that. We have created the Avangard glide vehicle, which does not fly by a specific trajectory but hugs the terrain, without going up into space, because it is not a ballistic missile. We have done a great deal to evade air defence systems.

Overall, this whole story is an expensive product for the American taxpayers that can do little to ensure national security. However, that system has been created and produced in large quantities.

Two missile launching areas have been established in Romania and Poland, respectively. Around 24 missile interceptors are already deployed at each site. I don’t remember but I think they are called Standard Missile-3 systems. Standard Missile-3 Block 1B missiles are deployed in Romania. They have an effective range of 300 kilometres and can hit targets 80 to 250 km above the ground.

Even more formidable weapon systems are deployed in Poland, with a range and altitude of 1,000 and 500 km. However, our medium-range Oreshnik missile system can strike targets located 1,000, 1,500, 3,000-plus and up to 5,500 km away. Such is its range.

Supposing our system is located 2,000 km away, the missile interceptors on Polish territory would be unable to hit it. Yes, they say that the missiles are quite vulnerable during the initial boost phase. First, nothing will reach those missile bases, even if they are unprotected. And, of course, we are shielding them. Nothing can hit them. There are no systems capable of reaching these bases.

Second, it takes time to travel this distance, while our missile needs a few second to start dispensing warheads, and that’s it, the ship has sailed. There is almost no chance of shooting down these missiles.

If the Western experts you mentioned think otherwise, they should suggest to those in the West and the United States who are paying them for their analytical services to conduct a certain technological experiment, a high-tech 21^st-century duel.

Let them choose a target in Kiev, deploy all their air defence and missile defence forces there, and we will hit that target using an Oreshnik missile. We shall see what happens.

We are ready to conduct this experiment. Is the other side ready? In any event, we do not rule this out. What I want to say is that all of their air defence and ABM systems are operating.

It would be interesting for us. I am telling you what engineers, scientists and military specialists are telling me. They are also telling some things at the level of the US political leadership.

Let us hold this experiment, this technological duel, and see what happens. This would be interesting and I believe it would be useful for both us and the US side.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Why this name?

Dmitry Peskov: Why this name?

Vladimir Putin: Honestly? I do not know.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take one more question from the audience. Let’s go over there. I can see. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. A question on peace perhaps?

Aisel Gereikhanova: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Aisel Gereikhanova.

Mr President, you signed an executive order changing the nuclear doctrine recently. Do you think the West correctly took the signal and understood it properly?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know how they took it. You should ask them about it. I know what constitutes these changes – and it is not a new doctrine but actual changes. I will name some key aspects. We are talking about some new military hazards that may grow into military threats. They include missile defence systems and some other things that we list.

Then we speak about increasing the responsibility of non-nuclear states that may participate in an aggression against the Russian Federation alongside the countries that have nuclear weapons. If, like their allies, these countries also pose a threat to our sovereignty and Russia’s existence, then we imply that we have the right to use our nuclear weapons against them.

Finally, another component related to nuclear arms management, and another, fourth important aspect is that we declared that, if similar threats are posed to Belarus, our ally and member of the Union State, the Russian Federation will consider these threats as threats to Russia. And we will do everything to ensure the security of Belarus. We do this upon agreement with the Belarusian leadership and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. I believe it is a very important component of the updated nuclear strategy of the Russian Federation.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Peskov, let’s take one more question from the audience. I can see that you are holding the microphone.

Dmitry Peskov: Sure.

Darya Shuchalina: Mr President, please give the floor to the Arctic.

Dmitry Peskov: We agreed not to shout out questions and respect each other.

Vladimir Putin: Right, let’s not shout and please be respectful. But we will listen to the Arctic. Let’s do what the boss says.

Darya Shuchalina: Good afternoon, Mr President, Darya Shuchalina, Republic of Komi, Respublika newspaper.

First of all, thank you very much for returning our fellow Komi man, Rostislav Goldshtein. He is now Acting Head of Komi and let’s just say he immediately got down to business because he knows the region very well. Thank you for your choice.

Vladimir Putin: He is a good manager and an empathetic person, stable and organised. I hope he will succeed.

Darya Shuchalina: Thank you for your choice.

Now, to proposals. In the Russian Arctic territories, in the Far East and in the Far North, as well as in the Republic of Komi, there are many residential areas with up to 2,000 residents. Unfortunately, these residential areas are not eligible for a very good state programme on construction of cinemas.

We know that people in the North are dedicated to their home regions; they are not moving to bigger cities and instead serving their country in their towns and villages. There are not many entertainment opportunities in the North. At this moment in time, when the patriotic film industry is growing in Russia, it would be great to have this criterion amended in the law and ensure that northern residential areas with a population of up to 2,000 residents be eligible for this programme. So that residents would be able to go and see films in comfortable modern cinemas.

As for the poster I am holding, you worked in our region as a member of a student construction brigade in your younger years, so you know that this Soviet-era mechanism was very effective. Unfortunately, today there is no legal framework for it.

Would it be possible to amend Federal Law No 44 regarding state and municipal contracts for budget-funded construction projects so that these student construction brigades can carry out at least 10 to 15 percent of contractual work? This way, young people can gain valuable work experience and earn some money. Companies could also benefit from these human resources, and this could serve as a development driver for the regions since they would be able to build social infrastructure they need.

Vladimir Putin: Could you repeat, please: where do these 10 percent come from?

Daria Shuchalina: I was talking about municipalities and regions reserving a specific share in construction contracts for student construction brigades.

Vladimir Putin: I see. You mean allocating some of the funds from the construction sector to these mechanisms?

Daria Shuchalina: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: I will discuss this with Mr Khusnullin. I think it is quite possible. We are currently working to revive this movement, it is re-emerging. I think this has already happened – I am referring to the student construction brigades as a movement.

The funding mechanism you described could probably be an option, and I think it has already been adopted, but let me check with Marat Khusnullin. I will raise this issue with him. Agreed?

Daria Shuchalina: I also had a question about cinemas.

Vladimir Putin: Right. Was it about gyms or cinemas?

Daria Shuchalina: I was talking about cinemas.

Vladimir Putin: What a surprising question, at least for me, you know.

Regarding the Arctic zone, let me tell you, first, that we have kept subsidised mortgages at a rate of two percent for this region, as well as for Russia’s Far East. The Arctic can still benefit from two percent mortgages, and I believe this is something that matters a great deal for people there who have been eager to use this subsidy. We have also kept this two percent mortgage rate for the new territories. This is my first point.

Second, we have an entire programme for specific communities in this zone – I think that it covers 25 cities and metropolitan areas – and we will expand it to a nationwide effort covering 200 cities.

We are talking about small communities here. They may fall through the cracks of the initiatives to develop these 25 metropolitan areas and cities. Of course, we will try to come up with additional measures for these smaller communities and for the Arctic zone in general. It goes without saying that this is very important since most of them have a rather small population.

It could be that there was an idea that providing them with broadband internet and so forth would suffice. That said, I do agree with you that watching a film in a movie theatre creates a different kind of atmosphere, a special mood, if you will. I will look into this issue. Note taken.

Daria Shuchalina: Especially considering that we now have all these great Russian patriotic films…

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. But this is a separate topic. Many producers are leaving Russia, and we wish them well, nonetheless. But this has served as a development driver, including for the film industry. This is a fact.

History-themed films are very important too, considering the enthusiasm we are witnessing in our society and its unifying potential. We are witnessing a revival of our fairy tales, epic sagas and alike. I enjoy watching these films sometimes together with the small children in our family.

You are right. Note taken. We will try to find a way not to leave your request without a response.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s take another question from the audience and continue.

Dear friends, with all due respect, by asking two questions in a row, you are depriving some of your colleagues of the opportunity to ask their questions.

Vladimir Putin: Do not mind Mr Peskov, go ahead with your question.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s proceed this way, then.

Krasnoyarsk.

Dmitry Novikov: Good afternoon.

I am Dmitry Novikov with Yenisei TV channel, Krasnoyarsk.

Mr President, you once referred to Krasnoyarsk as the centre of Russia. The city is now preparing to celebrate its 400th anniversary.

Vladimir Putin: Sorry to interrupt, please do not take offense. I did not call it that way; it is, in fact, the geographical centre of Russia.

Dmitry Novikov: Yes, of course. The city is going to mark its 400th anniversary in 2028, and we would like to take this opportunity to invite you to join us in Krasnoyarsk for the celebration.

My question is this: the headquarters of RusHydro is currently relocating to Krasnoyarsk, following your initiative. Wouldn’t it be logical to extend this approach to other companies, not only state-owned but also private businesses? For the region, this would mean additional tax revenues and new opportunities for development. Are you considering this possibility?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Firstly, I believe this is a very appropriate approach. Relocating certain entities, including federal bodies, to various regions of the country can stimulate development.

For example, we are working to consolidate the judicial branch in St Petersburg. This approach is common in some countries and serves to separate the judiciary from the Presidential Executive Office and the Government, making it more independent geographically. In this case, it also enhances St Petersburg’s role as a functional capital city.

Other regional centres, such as Krasnoyarsk, certainly benefit from having a stronger tax base tied to local production. Ensuring that taxes are paid at the site of economic activity provides a boost to regional development.

We are committed to advancing this initiative, though the process is complex.

Regarding RusHydro, when Viktor Maryin was being considered for the leadership role, I asked him directly if he was prepared to relocate to Krasnoyarsk. His response was, “Yes.” I followed up with, “What about your wife?” to which he replied, “She will agree.”

This process takes time, as you can understand. The necessary personnel need to be in place. Relocating people from Moscow is challenging, not because they are lazy or unwilling to move to Siberia, but due to other considerations like children, schools, kindergartens, universities and other family matters. It is indeed a difficult process. Personnel need to be trained on site. However, efforts are underway, and RusHydro is in the process of relocating.

We will also work hard so that major corporations and, I repeat, certain other government bodies move to other regions of Russia. This is a vast country – the world’s biggest, in fact. Of course, we must ensure that major manufacturing hubs, corporations and government institutions are spread out across its territory. However, there are also certain limits here, since the President and the Government must be close to one another as they must work closely together.

Nevertheless, we must pursue this path, and this is what we will try to do.

Thank you very much for the invitation.

Alexandra Suvorova: There were business leaders who went as far as to suggest moving the capital to Krasnoyarsk. This is something they have discussed.

Vladimir Putin: There was Krasnoyarsk, and Irkutsk too. In fact, remember Peter the Great? What did he want to do? He wanted a capital in the south, and was choosing between St Petersburg and Taganrog, a southern city. He wanted to move the capital to Taganrog. At the outset, he wanted to have the capital of the Empire in Taganrog.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, excuse me, but I spotted Andrei Rudenko, our war correspondent from Donetsk. I feel that I must give him the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, Andrei.

Andrei Rudenko: Mr President, I have been working as a war correspondent in Donbass since 2014. Today, I am heading Donetsk State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company.

Here is my question, and it is quite a serious one. There is a massive reconstruction effort underway across Donbass, as well as in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. However, the war continues in our region. Our troops are gaining ground, while the enemy keeps destroying cities and villages. Do we have the strength and the resources we need for rebuilding and restoring our historical territories after recovering them?

Vladimir Putin: We do. Make no mistake about that. We have a large-scale programme for rebuilding and developing these territories until 2030. We have already embarked on this effort, and it will carry on across several domains, which include rebuilding roads, housing, putting utilities back into operation, as well as social and cultural infrastructure.

Speaking of roads, our plan consists of bringing the entire road network in these regions in compliance with Russia’s national standards within three years. You come from this region, and you know that this effort is already underway. There is a very useful and feasible initiative to build a ring road circling the Sea of Azov, which is now part of Russia’s internal waters. It will be just as good as the Tavrida motorway in Crimea, with four lanes and all the amenities a highway of this kind must offer.

Part of this road has already been built, even if it is just the beginning. It is quite short, just 40 kilometres, and runs from Taganrog to Mariupol. However, our plan consists of extending it to create a full circle around the Sea of Azov. There is also another road linking Mariupol to Donetsk. It is almost 100 kilometres long, or 97, to be more precise, if I am not mistaken. We will restore the road network in its entirety.

As I have said, the funds have been earmarked. Some social facilities have been finished and put into operation, like a world-class perinatal centre in Donetsk and a medical centre in Mariupol. A large children’s hospital is to be built in the south of the Zaporozhye Region. Local residents have submitted that request, and the governor insisted that they need it. I believe that this project is at the design stage. We will certainly build it.

Overall, we have big plans in these spheres until 2030. We have rebuilt 21,000 facilities, 11,000 of which have been financed from the federal budget and 10,000 from the budgets of regions across the Russian Federation that are overseeing these projects.

I would like to use this occasion, and looking directly into the camera, to express gratitude to the heads and people of these regions for their selfless and tremendous assistance. It is a national mission. I mentioned the projects that have been completed, but we need to restore and rebuild another 20,000 facilities within five or six years, and we will do so.

Andrei Rudenko: Mr President, I would like to say the following about the Lugansk People’s Republic, which never had good roads under the Ukrainian government. Today, the roads are ideal throughout the Lugansk People’s Republic. Our people are extremely grateful for this.

Vladimir Putin: This is the basic thing, which we can and must do. We will do more.

As for individual regions, I would like to address people in these regions and throughout Russia, so that everyone in the country knows that these regions have good development potential and large tax potential. I believe that tax collection in the Lugansk People’s Republic has increased by 97 percent. The relevant figure for Donbass as a whole is 69 percent. The tax collection in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions has increased several-fold. The figures themselves are smaller there because their tax base is smaller, but the collection of taxes has increased manyfold, by more than 200 percent. In other words, their tax base is good, their revival is rapid, and these regions are approaching the level of self-sufficiency.

It is true that we need to support people, providing assistance and giving a helping hand at the right time. Our country is doing so and will continue doing so until these regions’ complete incorporation into Russia not only in legal terms but also in terms of social and economic development.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr Putin, I have a follow-up question. Did you mean tax collection when you spoke about taxes in these regions?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I meant the collection of taxes.

As I have said, I could be wrong but the collection of taxes has increased by about 79 percent in Donetsk, over 90 percent in Lugansk, and over 200 percent in Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. The absolute figures are smaller in the latter two regions because the tax base is smaller there, but it is an upward trend, and it is stable.

Alexandra Suvorova: Incidentally, we are receiving a lot of different questions from the new regions, particularly concerning the calculation of pensions.

The point is that often, the length of work in Ukraine is not being taken into account. People simply don’t have the supporting documents.

Let us now turn our attention to a video message from pensioner Leonid Shipilov.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Leonid Shipilov: My name is Leonid Shipilov, I am a pensioner from Krasny Liman. I have an employment record spanning 45 years. Currently, I live in Donetsk with my daughter, due to the ongoing hostilities in Krasny Liman.

In May 2022, my home was destroyed in a shelling, resulting in the loss of my employment record book. Consequently, I am unable to secure a fair recalculation of my pension. The only document that could verify my employment history is the OK-5 certificate.

In July of this year, I submitted this certificate to the Pension Fund in the Kalininsky District of Donetsk, yet I still have not received a response.

I appeal to you for assistance in clarifying this matter.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Shipilov, these may appear to be everyday issues, yet they have great importance to people. I fully understand this, as it is essential to validate one's employment history. Previously, it was challenging to do so, but a recent legislative change has been enacted, recognising all prior employment records, even from years or decades past. I believe the pertinent federal law was enacted in November. Therefore, there are now regulatory and legal frameworks in place to address your concern.

All such matters, even in the absence of documents, can be resolved through witness testimonies and the decisions of interdepartmental regional commissions. I urge the republic's authorities to streamline their work in a way that ensures that these issues are resolved without unnecessary red tape.

I recently spoke with Denis Pushilin, the head of the Donetsk People's Republic. He mentioned hosting a delegation from Africa. We are delighted to welcome our friends and guests, and he himself is planning a visit to Africa, which is commendable and necessary for maintaining relations. However, I would like to remind him of Mr Shipilov, who also requires attention. I trust that the interdepartmental regional commissions will be duly organised. I reiterate, especially since a legal foundation for this is now in place: the relevant federal law has been adopted.

Alexandra Suvorova: Indeed, there are numerous queries regarding the loss of documents. This issue extends beyond pensions to include education and property titles. I would like to share a few more messages.

Vladimir Putin: As I have mentioned before, these matters are resolved through the decisions of interdepartmental commissions and based on what is termed witness testimony. We are not talking about legal proceedings, but rather obtaining reliable information from neighbours, former colleagues, and so forth.

Alexandra Suvorova: Housing is another major issue in this region.

We have numerous appeals and calls that came from Mariupol from people who expected to receive housing as compensation, but so far, that has proved problematic. I will quote a few of them.

“Mariupol needs help in building the compensatory housing,” this text message says. “The new buildings were completed last spring, but they have not been open for occupancy yet,” Alexei Tsygankov writes – this is one of the appeals.

In fact, there are many of them – these are just a few that we have selected.

Vladimir Putin: We are paying a lot of attention to Mariupol, which it certainly deserves, as it is a large city. Before the outbreak of hostilities, it was home to about 430,000 people. Local authorities are telling me there were even more people than that, closer to 470,000. More than 3,000 apartment buildings [may be needed] there. I have visited Mariupol; I know this, and my colleagues from the Government report to me regularly. About 1,700 multifamily houses have been rebuilt, but not all of them have been commissioned yet. Paperwork needs to be completed on more than 500 projects, but the buildings are already there.

What is the situation there? Residential buildings are being repaired or rebuilt. Where a building cannot be repaired, local authorities make the decision to demolish it and allocate the land for commercial development. Once developers build new housing there, buyers can purchase apartments with a mortgage at 2 percent.

Home loans with 2-percent interest continue to be available in Russia’s new regions. In fact, that has triggered quite a construction boom there. According to our estimates, at least 300,000 people have returned to Mariupol, and its population continues to grow rapidly.

We are also working to improve local roads, schools, social and cultural facilities, and healthcare – a large medical centre has recently opened there – and educational institutions. We will certainly continue this work. As for housing, again, many projects have been allocated to commercial developers. However, the local residents are entitled to new housing as near as possible to the place where they used to live. Better still, if their building has been repaired, they should be given apartments there. If a development company is building a new multifamily house in its place, they need to ensure that former residents receive new housing in the area, not on the outskirts or even outside the city boundary. There are 5,000 ownerless apartments in the city. Local authorities need to stop holding them, but to distribute them among people – legally, of course. It is important to bear in mind that people are still returning, so we need to give some thought to the procedure. But these issues must be addressed.

One thing I can say for sure: everyone who has the right to compensation will receive a compensation. If not, please contact the relevant authorities at the local or federal levels. I believe there are decision-making centres at both levels; they have been created. If my memory serves me correctly, the relevant agencies are located on Marata Street. Marat Khusnullin has reported this to me.

Alexandra Suvorova: It is easy to remember.

Vladimir Putin: It is easy to remember. If I am mot mistaken, I think they are there.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, speaking of the southern regions, I would like to highlight the environmental impact caused by the sinking of two tankers during a storm in the Kerch Strait.

The petroleum products were washed ashore, onto a beach near Anapa. Currently, the pollution is spreading in the direction of Gelendzhik.

The situation is worsening. Currently, the Emergencies Ministry staff, volunteers, and local residents are involved in the cleanup effort. They are making videos, posting footage on social media, and have sent a few to our programme. Let us take a look.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

(A video clip rolls.)

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, these harrowing images come from a beach resort. I am aware of the fact that you ordered to clean things up as soon as possible. Is there any way to speed up this process and minimise the impact?

Vladimir Putin: First, this is, of course, an environmental disaster. This is absolutely clear. Law enforcement agencies are in the process of assessing the ship captains’ actions. I was informed that, in their opinion, the captains violated certain rules and failed to seek shelter in time. Other ships found safe spots before the storm and are doing just fine, but these did not and dropped anchors in the wrong places. Let the relevant services within the Ministry of Transport and law enforcement agencies deal with it. That is my first point.

I am not sure what is happening right now, but the 4- to 5-point storm raged on yesterday, posing a challenge to relief efforts. I think, by Saturday, the sea will calm down, and cleanup operations can proceed more effectively.

Second, the reason I call this a major disaster is because almost 40 percent of the fuel spilled, which is an established fact. Some tankers have submerged, some have sunk, and others remain partially submerged near the shore. We need to address this.

Various services are at work, including the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Transport, and the Emergencies Ministry. This work must be coordinated. I asked the Prime Minister to set up a working group headed by Deputy Prime Minister in charge of transport Vitaly Savelyev. All services are at work, and I receive regular updates on the developments.

We need to study the tankers’ condition. We also need to think about the steps we need to take in the near future. This issue must be addressed in stages.

Stage one: Right now, we must contain the spill with containment booms to prevent the spill from spreading further.

Stage two: The fuel that has washed ashore must be removed. Governor (of the Krasnodar Territory) Veniamin Kondratiev reported to me yesterday or the day before yesterday saying that he had about 4,000 people working in the area. According to him, no additional measures are needed at the moment. However, we will, of course, deploy more Emergencies Ministry teams, if needed.

This is the task at hand. We are dealing with fuel oil, which displays specific properties at certain temperatures. It is a solid material that washes ashore and must be removed. However, a portion of this fuel oil has already settled on the seabed, and by May, when the water temperature rises, it could resurface and wash ashore again. We must get ready for that now. One way or the other, we need to remove the semi-submerged tankers from the water. These tankers need to be secured now to prevent further leakage. We will need to use containment tools, known as “towels,” and later draft a project which is a major undertaking, and to pull the tankers with fuel on the shore.

This is a major effort. The Government is working on it, and I very much hope that no time will be wasted in addressing it.

Mr President, if you don’t mind, I see American journalists over there.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: I can see NBC News. Please.

Keir Simmons: Mr President, Keir Simmons, NBC News.

Two questions in English, if you don’t mind. Sorry, Mr Peskov.

The first one is about President-elect Trump.

Mr President, you have failed to reach the objectives of your special military operation. Large numbers of Russians have died, including a general assassinated here in Moscow this week. And the leader of Syria, who you supported, has been overthrown.

Mr President, when you face President-elect Trump, you will be the weaker leader. How do you propose to compromise? What are you going to offer?

And my second question, Mr President, is this: the mother of an American journalist who is missing in Syria, Austin Tice, has written to you and asked for your help to try to find him because, she says, you have such connections with the Syrian Government and former President Assad.

Are you prepared to ask President Assad for information about what happened in Syria to try to find the missing, including this American journalist?

Vladimir Putin: Could you repeat the part of your question about the journalist? Where did the journalist disappear? When and what happened to him there?

Keir Simmons: I have a letter here sent to you this week by the mother of an American journalist who is missing in Syria. He has been missing for 12 years. He is called Austin Tice. In this letter, she is asking for your help to try to find him because she says you have such close connections to the former Syrian Government, to President Assad.

Will you ask President Assad for information about the missing in Syria and about Austin Tice, this woman’s son? She says she is prepared to come to Moscow if it will help to find out anything she can about her son.

Vladimir Putin: I see. Please sit down.

Frankly, I have not met with President Bashar al-Assad after his arrival in Moscow. But I plan to do it and will certainly talk to him.

We are adults and understand that the person disappeared in Syria 12 years ago. Twelve years. We realise what was happening in Syria 12 years ago. The country was caught in active military action, on both sides. Does President al-Assad know what happened to this American citizen, the journalist who, as far as I understand, was working in the zone of hostilities? Nevertheless, I promise that I will definitely ask him this question just like we can forward this question to the people who are controlling the situation on the ground in Syria today.

You asked what we can offer or what I can offer to newly elected President Trump when we meet.

First of all, I don’t know when we will meet because he has not said anything about it. I have not talked to him for more than four years. Of course, I’m ready to talk any time; I will be ready to meet with him if he wishes. You said that this conversation will take place with me in some kind of weakened state.

Esteemed Mr Simmons. Why did I say “esteemed”? Because, despite all the persecution of Russian media, we allow you to continue working in Russia and you can do so freely. It is good enough. You and the people who pay your salary in the United States really want to see Russia in a weakened state.

My opinion differs. I believe that Russia has become significantly stronger in the past two or three years. Why? Because we are becoming a truly sovereign country, and we barely depend on anybody. We are capable of firmly standing on our feet when it comes to the economy. I have already talked about economic growth rates.

We are strengthening our defence capability. The combat readiness of the Russian Armed Forces is the highest in the world today. I assure you it is the highest.

The same is true of our defence industry. We are increasing the production of everything our army and navy need now and will need in the future. We are doing so confidently and quickly, unlike our opponents.

I have already spoken about the successes of our armed forces, which are due in large measure to production growth in the defence industry of the Russian Federation. As I have said, we are doing this confidently and quite rationally.

It has been said that our forces are advancing along the front line. One explanation for this is the existence of the equipment I have mentioned. Yes, in fact all NATO countries are fighting against us.

We spoke about our inflation. And what is the situation over there? Take a 155 mm shell, which cost 2,000 euros two years ago and now costs four times more, 8,000 euros. If this trend persists, two percent of GDP spending on defence in NATO countries, which President-elect Donald Trump always insisted on, will not suffice. Even three percent will not be enough. The training and combat standards and the morale of the Russian armed forces are higher than those of any other army in the world.

That is why I believe that Russia has largely achieved the state we wanted to achieve. It has grown stronger and become a truly sovereign state, and we will make decisions without looking at other people’s opinions, only with our national interests in mind.

You have mentioned Syria. You and, as I said, those who pay your salary would like to present the current developments in Syria as Russia’s defeat. I assure you that this is not the case, and here is why. We came to Syria ten years ago to prevent the creation of a terrorist enclave there, like the one that we saw in some other countries, for example, Afghanistan. We have achieved that goal, by and large.

Even the groups that were fighting against the Assad regime and the government forces back then have undergone internal changes. It is not surprising that many European countries and the United States are trying to develop relations with them now. Would they be doing this if they were terrorist organisations? This means that they have changed, doesn’t it? So, our goal has been achieved, to a certain degree.

Next, we did not deploy any ground forces in Syria; they simply were not present there. Our presence consisted solely of two bases: an air base and a naval base. The ground operations were conducted by the Syrian armed forces and, as is widely known, there is no secret here, certain pro-Iranian combat units. At one point, we even withdrew our special operations forces from the area. We were not engaged in combat there.

So, what transpired? When armed opposition groups advanced towards Aleppo, the city was defended by approximately 30,000 personnel. However, when 350 militants entered the city, the government forces, along with the pro-Iranian units, withdrew without resistance, demolishing their positions as they left. This pattern was observed across nearly the entire Syrian territory, with only minor exceptions where skirmishes occurred. In the past, our Iranian friends requested assistance to move their units into Syria; now they have asked us to help withdraw them. We facilitated the relocation of 4,000 Iranian fighters to Tehran from the Khmeimim air base. Some pro-Iranian units withdrew to Lebanon, others to Iraq, without engaging in combat.

The current situation in the Syrian Arab Republic remains challenging. We sincerely hope for peace and stability to be restored. We maintain dialogue with all groups controlling the situation there and with all regional countries. An overwhelming majority of them have expressed interest in retaining our military bases in Syria.

I do not know, we must reflect on how our relations will evolve with the political forces currently in control and those that will govern this country in the future – our interests must align. Should we remain, we must act in the interests of the host nation.

What will those interests entail? What can we do for them? These questions demand careful consideration on both sides. We are already capable of offering assistance, including utilising our bases – we have extended this proposal to our partners within Syria and neighbouring nations. For instance, we suggested employing the Khmeimim air base for the delivery of humanitarian aid to Syria, and this was met with understanding and a willingness to collaborate. The same applies to the Tartus naval base.

Therefore, for those who wish to depict Russia as weakened… since you are an American, I would like to remind you of a well-known writer who once remarked: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Should there be an opportunity for a meeting with the newly elected President, Donald Trump, I am confident there will be plenty to discuss.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I would like to remind you of another question that my colleague asked about the murder of General Kirillov.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, about the murder of General Kirillov.

You have mentioned this was an “attempted assassination.” I thank you for this, because you have indirectly acknowledged that it was a terrorist attack. Why? Because the modus operandi used by the perpetrator for this murder endangered the lives of many.

The regime in Kiev has repeatedly committed similar crimes, acts of terror, and terrorist attacks against many citizens of the Russian Federation, let alone what they are doing in Kursk now, firing at civilians – I mean in the Kursk Region – and in other regions of Russia. They have killed journalists, your colleagues – committed terrorist attacks against journalists.

However, we have never heard – I am not referring to you personally – anyone from the Western journalistic corps openly condemn such attacks. But I am grateful to you for remembering this at least.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s engage with the audience some more.

Alexandra Suvorova: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: They are showing great interest.

I see a ‘Tatars. BRICS’ poster. We were in Kazan just recently.

Vladimir Putin: I am sorry, I would like to address your American colleague. Can you hear me? If you have any more questions, please ask.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s go back to Kazan now.

Vladimir Putin: All right.

Do you need some time to think? You can gather your thoughts while we talk to the Tatars. After that, we will talk with the Americans.

Dmitry Peskov: Go ahead, please.

Keir Simmons: My question is, are you prepared to compromise in anyway over Ukraine? You say that Kiev should compromise, the Ukrainians should compromise, but what are you prepared to offer in the potential negotiations potentially led by President-elect Trump?

Vladimir Putin: I apologise for missing this part of your question, which is very important.

Politics is the art of compromise. We have always said that we are ready for both negotiations and compromises. The problem is that the opposing side, both literally and figuratively, rejected negotiations. We, on the contrary, have always been willing to talk, and talking always leads to finding a compromise.

We did reach an agreement in Istanbul in late 2022. I repeat for the umpteenth time: the Ukrainian side initialled that document, which meant that generally, it agreed with what it contained. Suddenly they wanted out. It is clear why. Because your ally, Mr Johnson, the man with an iconic hairstyle, told them they were to fight to the last Ukrainian. This is what they are doing. They will soon run out of Ukrainians who want to fight. I believe there will soon be no one left who wants to fight.

So, we are ready, but we need that country to be ready for both negotiations and compromise.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

Kazan, please.

Vladimir Putin: We have talked with the Americans, now we will talk with the Tatars.

Artur Khalilullov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Thank you for the opportunity to ask my question. I am Artur Khalilullov from Tatar Inform.

BRICS has obviously been taken to a fundamentally new level after the Kazan summit. In fact, I cannot even remember that dozens of world leaders, including Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi, gathered in Moscow.

Have your expectations regarding opposition to the Western world order materialised? That was my first question.

I also have a follow-up question. Last year, you told me personally in response to my question that Tatarstan is an example of peaceful coexistence of different cultures, nations and religions. The same can be said about BRICS, because BRICS is a group of widely different countries. This brings me to my question. Do you think that Kazan could become the seat of the BRICS headquarters? Of BRICS as a whole or its Russian part?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Artur, you have said that so many world leaders have never met in Moscow. This is correct, they did not, but they have met in Kazan. So, we are grateful to Kazan for giving us this opportunity. This is the first point.

Second, we are not planning to establish a headquarters now. There are several instruments that have been created and are working in the interests of our group. But we will certainly make use of the possibilities offered by the capital of Tatarstan, which have been created there over the past decades.

Kazan has made an astonishing leap in its development. I believe, and it is not an exaggeration, that Kazan is one of the best cities in Europe. I am pleased to say so. We are proud of Moscow, which is one of the largest and best mega-cities in the world, but Kazan is developing very rapidly and actively.

I remember visiting it with Mintimer Shaimiyev. I have told before that we entered a mud hut on the outskirts of Kazan, a real mud hut where people lived. It was a deep hole with a roof above it. However, as is typical of the Tatar culture, it was very clean, and there was tasty chak-chak fried dough dessert on the table.

You will not see anything like this in Kazan now. The city is developing. It is beautiful, and it even has a metro system. I talked with Mr Shaimiyev back then that this needed to be done, and it has been done. Your new leader, Rustam Minnikhanov, has taken over the baton and is working very effectively.

Overall, people in Kazan and Tatarstan as a whole are talented. They come from different ethnic groups, but they live in peace and accord with each other, respect each other and their traditions, and I know that they attend each other’s religious feasts. You are doing this very well. I congratulate you on this.

There is another aspect that I would like to highlight.

You said that BRICS has evolved into a tool for countering the West. This is not true; you are mistaken. BRICS is not a tool for countering the West. Our work is not aimed against anyone. We focus on our own interests and the interests of the group’s member countries. Giving BRICS any kind of a confrontational agenda is not what we are after.

This group has grown within a very short period of time and expanded its ranks. As you know, and we have mentioned this many times, so I will not repeat it to save time, many countries have expressed interest in developing the BRICS format.

Why? Because ensuring reciprocity, mutual respect and respecting each other’s interests have been our core guiding principles in this effort. We adopt all decisions by consensus, which is a very important point. There are no small or big countries within BRICS, no countries that are more or less developed: this is a group based on common interests. And there is one common interest: development. We try to identify available tools and create new ones for generating more economic growth and transforming the structure of the economy in order for it to be in step with the global development agenda, ensuring that BRICS countries and the group as a whole are at the forefront of this progressive movement. This is the way we will be operating.

Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: I suggest that we take another question from the audience.

I see an unconventional media outlet. It is quite new and rather popular too. Readovka, please go ahead with your question.

Vladimir Putin: What was the title again?

Maxim Dolgov: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Maxim Dolgov, Readovka.

Here is my question. Many countries have been facing the issue of ageing and population decline these days, and Russia is no exception. It is interesting that there have been all these measures to increase the birthrate, and you have recently signed a law establishing the Council for Demographic and Family Policy. But if these laws fall short of their promise, what will we do?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We will improve them.

Take your seat, please.

This is an extremely important matter. In fact, this is one of the key issues for Russia, and not only for our country. You were right to say that demography has become a matter of grave concern not only for Russia, but also for many countries around the world.

The Soviet Union was able to achieve replacement-level fertility of two points. What does the fertility rate mean? It stands for the number of children per woman. There was a time in the history of the Soviet Union when the fertility rate was equal to two. And there was a time in Russia’s recent past when we reached a rate of 1.7. Unfortunately, it fell to 1.41. Is this a lot or a little? Of course, it is very little. However, there are other countries facing a similar situation and located in a similar region. This includes Finland, where the birthrate is even lower, and I think Norway is at the same level. The fertility rate in Spain is lower, and this is also true for many other countries. In some developed countries, for example, in Japan, it is even lower than that, and South Korea has a fertility rate as low as 0.7. This is terrible. We have a slightly better situation in Russia, but just to reach the replacement fertility rate we must have 2.1 children per woman, and we need at least 2.3 for our population to grow.

I have said many times before what happened during the previous decades. There was a sharp decline in birth rate during the Great Patriotic War, especially in 1943–1944, and then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the birth rate sank again similarly.

What happened next? I will take a couple of minutes to explain. When a low-numbered generation reaches the reproductive age, it reproduces in similarly low numbers. These two birth rate decline trends – the trend of the Great Patriotic War and the trend after the collapse of the Soviet Union – later converged, continuing in similar fluctuations to this day. The number of women of reproductive age has gone down 30 percent. We need more girls, young women.

What are we doing to improve the situation? An entire programme was developed. We address this matter continuously, improving the available instruments. Once again, it works differently in different periods of time.

First, there is a benefit for families with children that is quite effective. We pay this benefit from the moment a woman becomes pregnant and until the child reaches 18. This benefit is now available to over 10 million children and around 320,000 pregnant women.

Second, we invented a unique tool that no other country offers – maternity capital that we continue to replenish.

Next, family mortgage rates with 6 percent interest are still available. I suppose we will talk more about mortgages and construction later. In essence, family mortgage is still available.

We pay 450,000 rubles to families who have a third child, specifically to pay their mortgages.

We are developing the system that encompasses healthcare, childhood and maternity, and we will continue to do everything and improve these instruments further. These matters are very important.

I want to take this opportunity and address the heads of all Russian regions: this is what your working day should begin with and end with because it is a challenge for many countries, Russia included. The population is what makes a country. One territory is good, but it must be populated by the citizens of this country.

Perhaps we are doing a lot, but it is perfectly clear that these measures are not enough. We will be able to say that yes, we are doing something useful when we can overturn this trend and achieve the indicators I mentioned earlier.

Alexandra Suvorova: In fact, we have received many messages on this subject, including from large families. We have a whole selection of those.

The problem is as follows. You have mentioned the uniform allowance, but when the average per capita income in a family exceeds the regional subsistence minimum, the family does not qualify for the benefit. However, in many cases, this is due to a long streak of inaccuracies, or that income is literally just a few kopecks or rubles above the required level, but they fail to qualify anyway.

Now we are about to be joined by Anna Shenkao from Surgut, the mother of five.

Ms Shenkao, good afternoon. Please ask the President your question.

Anna Shenkao: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Anna Shenkao. I was born and live in Surgut, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, and I am a mother of five. One of my children also has a disability.

I have been applying for the relevant benefits every month since July 2023, but all my applications have been turned down because our per capita income exceeds the regional minimum subsistence level. In some cases, it was only 78 rubles above that level, but I was rejected anyway.

This is what I would like to ask. Is a child’s disability pension considered to be family income? Why are they counting the previous year’s income? And there is something else: my husband is officially employed, which implies full compliance with the tax laws. However, when they evaluate the per capita income, they use his gross pay, including tax, which the employer in fact deducts. We do not receive this money, so I would like to ask why it should be considered part of our income.

And, if you do not mind, I have one more question – about holidays.

How can a large family – or not necessarily a large family – afford a holiday in this situation? We really want to go somewhere, but when we analysed airfares a few days ago, most of them hovered around 140,000 −150,000 rubles one way.

I would really like to hear an answer to my question.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Shenkao, you said that you have five children, didn’t you?

Anna Shenkao: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: I congratulate you on this. This alone makes you a happy person.

Anna Shenkao: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I am sure of that. I want our viewers and listeners to join me in celebrating your family, and follow your example, first of all.

Secondly, this is the usual formula for evaluating someone’s income. They take into account everything, and they do use the previous year’s figures. I cited evaluating economic growth as an example – in any case, it is recalculated only the following year. Therefore, they consider the previous year’s income.

Certainly, we can deliberate on this matter. I will ask Ms Tatyana Golikova and the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection to examine the issue. However, that is not the most important point – what truly matters is that the issue you mentioned might arise for other reasons, namely a small excess of income over the threshold at which payments under the flat-rate allowance are still provided. That is purely a procedural approach.

We have given a lot of thought to how we can avert the situation that you and your family are experiencing. In principle, the decision has already been reached – we should recalculate personal income tax and subsequently refund at least seven percent of the tax your family has paid.

We will see how this unfolds. Hopefully, it will offset your loss from not receiving the respective money under the allowance you mentioned. We will see how it all pans out.

The Government’s assumption was that this measure would reimburse you the amount that was underpaid as part of the allowance you receive. That decision was made recently. I reiterate my hope that this issue will be resolved. That is the first point.

Secondly, with regard to holidays and travel, you are right – such a problem does exist. I have already spoken to the relevant executives on this matter.

By the way, our air transportation industry is operating steadily and quite successfully. Last year, they carried, I believe, 105 million passengers, and this year they are set to transport 111 million passengers. What is going on there?

There is a provision – it is stated in the code – that multi-child families, families with children, are entitled to a 50 percent discount, I think, on fares. This applies to the standard fare.

What do the airline companies do? They introduce their own discounts – minor, insignificant, but these are not standard fares. Then they claim, “We have a discounted fare, we already have a non-standard fare, so we will not give a 50 percent discount.”

This practice must be curtailed. I fully agree with you and urge the Government, together with the airlines, to address this problem no later than January 14 next year. We will solve this problem.

As for excess income, the refund of seven percent of the personal income tax, we will also observe how it works.

Anna Shenkao: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, I saw there were more questions about demographics.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: It says here, “Chechnya, important.” It is also about demographics.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please. Where are you?

Ruzana Veselayeva: Vainakh State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, Chechen Republic.

Mr President, you often emphasise the importance of demographic growth and have used the Chechen Republic as an example in this regard.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Ruzana Veselayeva: Perhaps, it is worth launching a dedicated programme?

Vladimir Putin: I have mentioned the Chechen Republic and Tuva. In Chechnya and Tuva, demographics are good.

Ruzana Veselayeva: But would it not make sense to introduce a separate programme for regions that are most efficient in this area?

If I may, a second question. Last year, you approved the high-speed railway strategy, which includes three stages. One of them – the third stage – covers the Moscow-Adler route.

According to most experts, including Grozny and Makhachkala in the Moscow-Adler Railway would make the project more cost-effective and efficient. What is your opinion on this? Do you see it as a practicable solution?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

You mentioned that demographics are in good shape in Chechnya.

Please take a seat.

Yes, demographics are indeed in good shape in Chechnya and Tuva. These are two federal constituent entities where the demographic situation is favourable.

In this regard, are additional measures needed? I would say we should simply say thank you, provide support, and encourage others to follow your example.

For regions where the birth rate is below the fertility rate of 1.41, there is a clear need for a dedicated programme to support them.

This is precisely what we are planning to do for these regions. There are about 35 of such regions, if memory serves. A separate support programme is being developed for these areas, with a funding of 75 billion rubles over the next few years. That is what we are going to do.

Now, regarding the Moscow-Adler-Grozny-Makhachkala railway. We have several questions in this regard. First, we need to ensure traffic along the Black Sea coast, provide proper access to Sochi, and eliminate traffic jams that tend to snarl traffic near Adler, especially during the tourist season. The congestions often leaves people stuck for hours.

This situation arose because, during preparations for the Olympic Games, a bypass road for Sochi was built, which created a bottleneck. It is, in fact, an old road that was slightly renovated, but two traffic flows – the old traffic flow and the Greater Sochi bypass flow – are merging there, creating a single congested access to Adler. This bottleneck needs to be broken up to make sure vehicles are not stuck in traffic. By the way, Chechen construction companies will be involved in this work near Adler, though I am not sure about the details.

With regard to Grozny-Makhachkala, this is also an important consideration which should be addressed in the future. It is a good idea.

Not to hurt anyone’s feelings, let’s take “Chechnya. Magistry” (masters). Did you want to say the same thing or not?

Khamzat Batukayev: Khamzat Batukayev, Grozny Chechen State Television and Radio Company.

My colleague has already asked the question we had for you and you answered it. Thank you very much. However, when you were talking to my colleague from Tatarstan, you shared the way you view Kazan.

By the way, I was also at the BRICS Summit. And this reminded me that you had visited the Chechen Republic not that long ago. So I am asking you: Is Grozny a beautiful city?

Vladimir Putin: It is great. You know, it is a miracle, a present-day miracle for Russia.

You know, I flew over Grozny during the harsh years when we were still fighting terrorists there, primarily international terrorist groups. The city was one big ruin, and you could hear machine gun rounds targeting the helicopter from these ruins.

At the time, there were quite a few people in Chechnya who talked about moving the capital to Gudermes. However, both the first President of the Chechen Republic, and the incumbent President spoke out against these proposals arguing that Grozny had established itself as Chechnya’s historical capital, a capital of the Chechen people, and that it would be rebuilt at whatever cost.

What has been achieved in Grozny over the past two years is a true miracle. Of course, credit for these achievements primarily goes to the current President of the Republic. Even more importantly, this is something the people of Chechnya achieved together. Their hard-working nature and their talent played an instrumental role. I am not even talking about the mosque. What a beauty! And look at all these new buildings and architectural solutions. We cannot fail to feel pride for what has been achieved in Chechnya and in Grozny over the recent years.

I would like to commend and congratulate you on these achievements.

Khamzat Batukayev: Mr President, I remember what you said during your visit to the mosque when you were talking to Chechnya’s mufti. You made an important point when you said that in terms of their spiritual and moral principles, Islam, the Orthodox faith, and all the traditional religions in general, share a common denominator and foundation.

I would like to ask you about the Russian Special Forces University. You have visited this institution. It has recently been given your name, to honour you as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief. What do you think about this training centre? Should it be expanded? Could you share your vision or your assessment? What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: It is great. We really need it. The National Guard has been using it all the time. After all, it trains not only people from Chechnya, but from across the country.

When I talk to some fighters who are currently fighting in the combat zone and who do not come from Chechnya, I ask them: “Where are you from?” And they tell me that they got their training at this centre. This centre plays an important role in enhancing our national defence capabilities.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take a couple of more questions from the audience. I see our Chinese friends from Xinhua, the sector right in front of me.

Huang He: Mr President, good afternoon. My name is Huang He, and I represent the Xinhua News Agency of China. I am delighted to pose a question to you today. I have just two questions.

The first question is this: How do you evaluate the current state of China-Russia relations? Please share with us the main outcomes of cooperation between our two countries.

The second question: Next year, China and Russia will jointly celebrate the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Second World War and the 80^th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations Organisation. In your view, what role do the interaction and coordination between China and Russia play in upholding global strategic stability and international justice?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: We often discuss cooperation between Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Next year, we will celebrate 75 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. A great deal has transpired in our relations over these years, but in the past decade, the level and quality of our relations have reached unprecedented heights in our history.

I will address the economic aspect now, but first and foremost, it is about mutual trust. Everything we do in relation to each other and how we do it is based on absolute trust to policies of both sides. We engage in nothing that contradicts our interests, and we do much that benefits both the Chinese people and the peoples of the Russian Federation.

I have already mentioned the economy: according to various estimates, it stands at US$220–230 billion, and according to Chinese statistics, up to $240 billion in dollar terms. The trade turnover is impressive. Over the past year, despite such a solid foundation, growth continues. It is moderate, with an expected three percent increase, but growth is present. That is the first part.

The second part concerns investment. We have nearly 600 joint investment projects amounting to US$200 billion. What does this indicate? It suggests that the future is secure.

Lastly, a very significant component, in my opinion, is the humanitarian aspect. We regularly hold cross years: the Year of Culture, the Year of Youth Exchanges, and so forth. This is crucial for the people of both countries. It forms the basis for developing economic ties and political cooperation.

The most critical aspect is regional cooperation. Regional leaders engage with one another: Maotai and vodka, of course, play a part there. But everything is in moderation, as far as I understand. This personal vibe is important, and there are exchanges between students, between higher education institutions, and so on.

Now, regarding the Great Patriotic War.

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are the countries that suffered the most and achieved victory in the Second World War at the cost of the heaviest losses. We used to say 20, then 25, and now some historians estimate 27 million dead. The toll is even higher in China. It is not widely discussed, but in China, it exceeds 30 million.

What the Japanese militarists did on Chinese soil was horrific, a dreadful ordeal. The Chinese people endured that trial. We stood together then, and we stand together now, which is the most important factor, I keep emphasising it, for stability in global affairs.

An instrument of stability, originally created for this purpose, is the United Nations Organisation: Russia and China, as founders of the Organisation and permanent members of the Security Council.

We very often, almost always, coordinate our actions on the international stage, and this is a very significant element of international life. We will continue doing so. I extend my very best wishes to the leader of the People’s Republic of China, a man I consider my friend, President Xi Jinping.

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, I kindly remind you to keep your questions brief and to ask one at a time. I see Kuban, please pass the microphone.

Marina Smirnova: Good afternoon. I am Marina Smirnova, representing the Ogni Kubani newspaper, Kavkazsky District, Krasnodar Territory.

My question concerns the current discussions about migration issues and potential solutions. The Krasnodar Territory is large, welcoming, diverse, and strong, but the challenges related to migrants persist. We have tight restrictions, such as patents that give the right to work only in the construction industry. What is your perspective on such restrictions? There is a labour shortage in various regions. How does Russia plan to address this issue? What is your vision for resolving these challenges?

Vladimir Putin: This is a highly sensitive and pressing issue, not just for us, but even more so for Europe. On the one hand, we face a significant shortage of workers. As I have mentioned before, our unemployment rate is just 2.3 percent, which is effectively negligible. Business leaders and government officials consistently report substantial shortfalls, particularly in the construction and industrial sectors, with the demand reaching into the hundreds of thousands. This is an undeniable fact.

What is the solution? First, to reduce reliance on labour migrants, we need to focus on increasing labour productivity. This involves introducing and utilising technologies that minimise the demand for large numbers of unskilled workers. By shifting the emphasis toward high-tech sectors, we can achieve desired outcomes without the need to bring in significant numbers of migrants for unskilled labour. That is the first step.

Second, if the influx of labour migrants is unavoidable, we must collaborate with partner countries, particularly those in Central Asia, to prepare individuals effectively. This includes expanding a network of Russian-language schools, promoting the study of Russian, and familiarising prospective workers with our traditions, culture, and legal requirements. And of course, we need to tighten requirements to migrants that are already in Russia, ensuring that they respect the communities in which they live and work. This responsibility falls on law enforcement agencies. In essence, the solution requires a balanced approach, integrating both economic and law enforcement measures.

There were extensive discussions about whether we should establish a separate agency (which we once had) or keep it within the Interior Ministry.

I believe that today, we need to strengthen this area of work within the Interior Ministry. We should establish a dedicated and robust division or centre either within the Interior Ministry or under its auspices, which should comprise representatives from economic departments to ensure that all decisions are made holistically, in close coordination with other ministries, departments, and regional authorities.

A significant volume of regulation exists and it should primarily be handled at the regional level. However, all of this should be coordinated from a single centre. As the system matures and gains the necessary competencies, there may be a need for a separate agency in the future. This agency should incorporate both a law enforcement and an economic component.

Certain steps in this direction have already been taken, with the State Duma passing a law that grants the right not to accept migrant children who do not speak Russian into schools. This makes sense since it is impossible to teach a child if they do not understand the language. There needs to be separate instruction in Russian for these children, but who will bear the cost of this additional language training?

We need to ensure that, on the one hand, the people who arrive have equal rights, that they have guaranteed access to healthcare and social security, but on the other hand, this should not be an additional burden on the local population in the host region. It is essential that everyone is comfortable.

There are many issues involved. And of course, the Government should pay great attention to this. How could this be developed? I just said that initially, this could be done within the Interior Ministry, and later, perhaps, if the situation requires, we will create a separate agency, which will employ both representatives of law enforcement bodies and economic agencies.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we have been specially monitoring migration issues. This is indeed a very sensitive and complex problem.

A significant part of these questions has come from people who come to our country and not always in search of employment. Many of them are Russian-speakers who wish to return to their homeland, obtain a Russian passport, and become full-fledged citizens of the Russian Federation. We have received such requests from a range of countries, including the CIS and Ukraine – as you said today, there are many Russians there.

We have also received such questions from Germany. For example, we were contacted by Leo Seibel, our compatriot, who left for Germany in 1990 and returned in 2006. He currently resides in Tarusa [Kaluga Region], and says that, although he has a residence permit, he has not been able to obtain Russian citizenship for years, with the authorities always giving him the same answer: you are not entitled, there is no such law. A verbatim quote: only Putin can give you citizenship.

Here is a small detail though. After he told the officials that he had written a letter to Putin, their tone changed, and they gave him a list of documents he needed to bring. The process seemed to have got off the ground, but he would like to bring it to its logical end.

Vladimir Putin: Look, Russian citizenship is indeed granted by Presidential executive orders. But this is a purely formal act that must be prepared locally, by relevant agencies, commissions and committees.

The issue you just raised is part of what we call working with compatriots, meaning individuals who feel that they belong to Russia. They speak Russian, they consider themselves part of our culture, part of the Russian world, and as a rule, they are also highly qualified specialists. We are truly interested in attracting such professionals to Russia; we would like them to work and live here. We actually have a state programme for this. Well, apparently, it is not working as effectively as it should. Clearly, we need to improve these mechanisms.

You mentioned Ukrainians. It is quite possible that there are as many Ukrainians already living in Russia as in Ukraine; maybe even more. I am not kidding – this is quite possible, I mean, if we take into account the people living in our new territories, Crimea as well as those who have moved to Russia, there are millions of people. This suggests we have about the same number of Ukrainians living here as in Ukraine now. Speaking of which, they are welcome in Russia, the door is open to them. These people are part of our culture; they are part of our nation.

As I said, these mechanisms certainly need to be improved. We are interested in qualified workforce, including people who simply – well, not “simply,” as this is not a simple thing at all – who uphold our traditional values. This is difficult to assess. We need to work on this to be able to do this effectively. We will certainly continue doing this.

As for the specific case you mentioned – please send me this person’s details, will you? We will definitely help him.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Alexandra Suvorova: At the very beginning of the programme we told you that we also used artificial intelligence in our work. GigaChat helped us select most frequent topics in the queries.

Among the top queries, of course, is housing and mortgages. You also said at the beginning of the programme that we are going to revisit this issue more than once. If we look at our monitors now, we will see that this topic is at the top of the list. Actually, the number of queries is also significant.

Let us now bring up a video question from a young family from

Krasnodar.

Question: For three months we’ve been trying to take out a family mortgage. The banks are constantly running out of limits, or they increase the down payment from 20 to 50 percent.

Please, tell us how things will be with the family mortgage in general because at present it is very difficult to get it. Also, in addition to the family mortgage, it is next to impossible to get a rural and IT mortgage. That is, banks are constantly running out of limits, plus they do not want to approve it. They keep changing mortgage plans every day, when you apply.

Banks have recently introduced a so-called “combo-mortgage” plan, when they add their interest, and the mortgage rate goes up from six to 13 percent. In other words, banks simply do not want to issue mortgages for families. What are we to do?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for this question and for highlighting this problem. This is an outrage, first of all, because there should be no limits, and the Government and I have already discussed this topic. I was promised – and I will check how well this promise is being fulfilled – that there will be no limits.

Because at the end of the day, this is all about subsidies from the state. Banks should enjoy receiving six percent from those who use family mortgage loans, while the difference between the bank rate and this six percent should be reimbursed by the state. And there should be no limits on the part of the state.

This difference ends up in banks, by the way, it is income for them, and not a small one. So if they refuse to approve a family mortgage, it means that the Government does not send this subsidy to the bank in time, probably. I will check, I promise you, I will definitely check. But we have agreed that there will be no limits. This is the first point.

Second, this refers to family mortgages at three percent and to rural mortgages. Family mortgages are issued at six percent, rural mortgages at three percent. This is a very important tool in housing construction. Why? Because of the total volume of housing built – which last year was 110 million square metres, a record high since the Soviet Union, nothing like this had ever happened before – 50 percent were private houses, mostly in rural areas. Moreover, such mortgages are taken out by people under 40 or a little older, they move to rural areas, live there, take out mortgages, and build families. This mortgage plan should not have any limits either. It amounts to a few tens of billions for the budget, which is absolutely uncritical, and it should be preserved.

The same goes for IT mortgages. How much do we have? Six or five percent. In any case, it is a preferential mortgage, and there are not that many people who take it out. We discussed it just recently, and someone suggested that it should be terminated but there is little sense in doing it so as to save budget funds.

Family mortgages are definitely staying, and rural mortgages are definitely staying. I ask the Government to provide the necessary subsidies. We will put things in order here.

Alexandra Suvorova: This also refers to Far Eastern regions and new regions.

Vladimir Putin: Far Eastern mortgages at two percent are staying, so do the Arctic mortgages – two percent, and the new regions – two percent.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we now address an issue that, unfortunately, remains pressing year after year – the problem of phone scammers.

We warn people daily about this on television.

Vladimir Putin: By the way, sorry to interrupt, 110 million square metres of housing were built last year. This year, it will be slightly less – around 105 million – but that is still a very good figure.

Dmitry Kulko: Phone scammers. The severity of this problem can be understood from just one number: 250 billion rubles –that is how much scammers stole from Russians this year, according to Sberbank estimates.

These miscreants call and say all sorts of things: they claim to represent the Central Bank or the Federal Security Service (FSB), warn that deposits in all banks will be frozen, and demand that people transfer money to other accounts, or even take out loans. Yelena Markelova from Kazan found herself in such a situation. Let us watch her video appeal now.

Yelena Markelova: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Yelena Markelova. I am a pensioner from Kazan, 63 years old.

Recently, I fell for a scam. My account on Gosuslugi (public services) portal was hacked, and as a result of their actions, I now owe two banks 1.9 million rubles.

My appeal is a cry for help. How is it possible that the banks, where I am a client and receive a pension of 18,770 rubles, approve such loans without requesting any income documents, without asking for any of my contacts who could act as a guarantor for me, and for such large amounts with monthly payments that exceed my monthly income?

Given the large number of pensioners being targeted by scammers, is it not time to take more serious measures and require banks to more thoroughly monitor the actions of their employees and rigorously verify applications, especially from elderly people?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you are right. What is your name?

Dmitry Kulko: Yelena Markelova.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Markelova, you are absolutely right.

There is not much I can add to what you said. Indeed, banks have become adept at issuing loans quickly – practically instantly – but they must assess the borrower’s solvency. There is even a specific rule stating that if more than 50 percent of a citizen’s income goes toward servicing a loan, issuing such a loan becomes more costly for the bank, and the burden on the bank’s capital increases. This rule comes from the Central Bank. However, what is happening now is deeply concerning, because the scale of this fraud is off the charts.

At a recent Sberbank event, German Gref briefed me on this issue. He explained that across the entire banking system, scammers from the territory of Ukraine alone, where fraudulent activity has essentially been elevated to the level of state policy, where entire centres operating under the control of special services are dedicated to swindling money from Russian citizens, have stolen over 250 billion rubles from our citizens’ accounts.

Of course, these practices have reached a substantial scale. In fact, Nazi Germany acted in a similar fashion by printing banknotes of our World War II allies, including the UK. They printed pound sterling notes and placed them into circulation in order to undermine the British economy.

We are witnessing a similar trend in present-day Ukraine as far as these fraudulent practices are concerned. Of course, we need to make sure that there is discipline in this sector, so this is something that deserves our serious attention.

For example, let them grant loans under 50,000 rubles, and let them do this online and instantly. As for the loans between 50,000 and 200,000 rubles, people definitely need at least several hours to carry out additional checks and take a final decision. As for the loans exceeding 200,000 rubles, this process must definitely take at least several days.

I know that both the State Duma and the Central Bank have been discussing these matters and are committed to further improving the decisions dealing with the capital burden with respect to the banks granting unsecured loans of this kind. I hope that these efforts will enable us to achieve the desired outcomes.

There is another problem, as reported by both the Central Bank Governor and the Interior Ministry. Credit cards are opened for people who are not taking part in this fraud, or so it seems. The scammers get money out of their victims by first transferring it to the so-called intermediary cards, and then take hold of the money from these cards.

Meanwhile, those who open these credit cards pretend that they are not involved in any way. There is a proposal to strengthen controls in this regard and to tighten liability for these people, since they are accomplices in these crimes and are taking part in these scams. They may not be doing anything from a formal point of view, but they know why someone is opening a credit card in their name.

The proposal consists of making this a criminal offence. I am not saying that this decision is approved, but we will definitely have to move in this direction.

Alexandra Suvorova: Do you know anyone who has suffered from phone scams?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know anyone in my entourage who suffered from these practices, but there are certainly those who told me that they got calls from scammers.

Alexandra Suvorova: It seems that these phone calls will keep coming.

Vladimir Putin: Maybe so, but as soon as they hear an unfamiliar voice making any kind of proposals to them dealing with doing anything along these lines, they hang up immediately.

And this would be my advice for all people of Russia.

Dmitry Kulko: Quite often, these unfamiliar voices come from call centres in Ukraine. There were reports that the number of phone calls from scammers declines whenever the Ukrainian energy system suffers a strike. It seems that these call centres simply lose their power supply.

Vladimir Putin: They do not have enough electric power capacity.

Dmitry Kulko: What about adding these call centres to the list of our priority targets?

Vladimir Putin: No. The priority targets include military sites and defence industry manufacturing facilities. The list can also include decision-making centres. As for these call centres, we will not waste our munitions on them. There is no reason for doing so. We must take the necessary measures here in Russia and to work through the relevant institutions, including the Central Bank and the federal Government, as well as the Interior Ministry’s departments.

Alexandra Suvorova: Dmitry, Mr Peskov seems to be casting rather unfriendly glances our way.

Dmitry Peskov: Let’s shift our focus back to the audience for a moment.

Ukraine has been mentioned. I see the sign “Other Ukraine.”

Galina Merkulova: Mr President,

My name is Galina Merkulova, I am a deputy head of media resources for Other Ukraine, an international public movement that represents the interests of millions of Ukrainian citizens both within Ukraine, regrettably still under the control of the Kiev regime, and in Russia, Europe, and across the globe, where we have 55 offices in operation.

The Other Ukraine public movement believes that the sole means of rescuing Ukrainians from Zelensky’s criminal illegitimate regime, which has usurped the executive, legislative, and judicial powers, is through the reunification of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

Now, here is our question: under what conditions are you prepared to commence negotiations with Kiev? If not with Zelensky, then with whom?

Additionally, one more crucial aspect: in Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church is not merely under attack; it is virtually expelled. What is your stance on this matter, and do you believe that the position of the Russian Orthodox Church has been undermined?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed. Firstly, regarding the illegitimacy of the regime, I have previously addressed this issue. I understand that the leader, the mastermind behind this movement, this organisation… Is it the Other Ukraine organisation?

Galina Merkulova: It’s a movement.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is, apparently, Viktor Medvedchuk, isn’t it?

We rarely see each other, but I am aware that he shares this view. So, what constitutes the illegitimacy of the regime? Allow me to reiterate: there is no provision in the Constitution of Ukraine to extend the powers of the President, even under martial law. There is only one representative body of power, the Council, or the Rada, whose powers can be extended without elections under martial law. I repeat, this is the Rada.

What is the challenge for Ukraine? I understand that you are cognisant of this: the state system in Ukraine is structured in such a way that a plethora of government bodies are appointed by the president. This includes regional governors, leadership of all law enforcement agencies, and so forth. However, if the head of state is illegitimate, then everything else loses its legitimacy in terms of executive bodies and law enforcement agencies. And everything they do, following his instructions, makes them aware that they are complicit in this unlawful activity. This is the first point.

Now, regarding the conditions for starting negotiations: We have no preconditions. We are ready to engage in dialogue without any preconditions. However, as I have mentioned numerous times before, based on the agreements that we reached during the negotiation process in Istanbul at the end of 2022 and proceeding from the current realities on the ground.

Our positions were clearly outlined, including in my June speech to the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Everything that needs to be said is already there. There is no point in repeating.

If the head of the regime is illegitimate, then with whom? You know, if someone were to go through elections and gain legitimacy, we would talk with anyone, including Zelensky.

If Ukraine truly wants a peaceful settlement, they have the ability to organise this process within their country as they see fit. We can only sign agreements with those who hold legitimate authority, such as the Verkhovna Rada and its Chair, who are fully subordinate to the head of the regime. This is simply a formal legal matter.

They can organise it as they see fit within their country. But if we ever get to the point of signing a document, it can only be done with the representatives of legitimate authorities, that is the bottom line.

Alexandra Suvorova: There was also a question about the Russian Orthodox Church.

Vladimir Putin: You know, what is happening with regard to the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is a unique situation. This is a gross, blatant violation of human rights, the rights of believers. The church is being torn apart right before everyone’s eyes. This is like execution by firing squad, and yet the world seems to ignore it.

I think those who engage in such actions will get it back. You mentioned that they are tearing things apart, and that is exactly what is happening. These people are not even atheists. Atheists are individuals who believe in the idea that there is no God, but this is their faith, their convictions and worldview.

But these are not atheists; they are people without any faith at all. They are ethnic Jews, but who has ever seen them in a synagogue? They are not Orthodox Christians either, since they do not attend churches. And they certainly are not followers of Islam, as they are unlikely to be seen in a mosque.

These are individuals without kith or kin. They do not care about anything that is dear to us and the overwhelming majority of the Ukrainian people. Eventually, they will run away someday and go to the beach rather than to church. But that is their choice.

I believe that someday the people in Ukraine, and the majority of Ukrainians are still connected to Orthodoxy, will evaluate their actions accordingly.

Dmitry Peskov: Let us take a couple more questions from the audience. I would be remiss not to give Radio Purga a chance to ask a question.

Anastasia Lavrentyeva: Good afternoon.

Radio Purga, Chukotka Autonomous Area. My name is Anastasia Lavrentyeva. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

I am looking at the monitors showing the relevance of topics for various regions, and I see confirmation that my question is indeed important and concerns many residents of our region. It is about connectivity and internet access.

Mr President, in Chukotka, high-speed internet is available only in the regional capital, the only city. All other residents of the region are deprived of the benefits and opportunities the internet has to offer. Beyond entertainment, essential services like the Gosuslugi portal, banking services for the business are inaccessible to most of Chukotka residents. Could you help address this issue of digital inequality, if possible?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there is no need for lengthy discussion, because we already have a programme for developing internet connectivity, including high-speed internet, as well as communication infrastructure in general. This involves satellite constellations, particularly those focused on communication systems.

All of this will certainly be implemented. I will not go into the details since they are widely known and publicly available. We are working in this direction, with corresponding resources allocated and plans in place. There will be no disruptions, and we will proceed according to the plan.

I very much hope that residents of remote regions too, including Chukotka, will fully enjoy the benefits of modern civilisation. For a country like ours, this is extremely important, as more and more people work remotely and receive education online. High-speed internet is critical in this regard. We will undoubtedly achieve this. There is no doubt about it.

Dmitry Peskov: Alexander is one of the patriarchs of Russian journalism. Please.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you very much.

Komsomolskaya Pravda website, radio, and newspaper. And “Putin’s team.” I am sitting here today with young ladies, Yulia and Marina, who welcomed me into their group.

This has not been mentioned yet, but I would like to congratulate all of us, and you, Mr President, because, by my estimates, today marks the 20^th news conference, even though some colleagues argue that it is the 21^st conference. There is no other format like this elsewhere in the world, and I hope it continues for as long as possible.

Now, my question. Contrary to sceptics’ predictions, the presidential programme “The Time of Heroes” has not become a fleeting project or a mere formality. It is working. What hopes did you personally have for it? Have they been realised? What hopes do you have for it now?

In the past few days and hours, a question has increasingly occupied my mind: why do we not adequately care for and protect our heroes? I am speaking not only about the death of General Kirillov, which was briefly mentioned here today, but also about numerous instances where participants in the special military operation have been insulted. Fortunately, law enforcement agencies have been vigilant, and justice has prevailed, as was extensively reported.

As concerns the Time of Heroes programme. I represent the heroic newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, which served as a frontline publication during the Great Patriotic War and continues to do so today. Our war correspondents work with courage, and since 2014, we have been publishing KP in Donetsk, Donbass.

Next year, we will be celebrating our 100^th anniversary on May 24, 2025. My colleagues have asked me to extend an invitation to you. Mikhail Petrov shared with us how the TASS agency commemorated its 120^th anniversary with great ceremony and was honoured with an order. We look forward to welcoming you on May 24 at about noon. Will you attend, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: I will make every effort to be there.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much for the invitation. The Komsomolka newspaper has been an integral part of the lives of many generations of our citizens. People would begin their day with it and continue to rely on it throughout the day. The newspaper is evolving into a modern media platform, operating across all information environments. It remains a stable, reliable, and objective media outlet. I would like to congratulate you on the success of your work and express my gratitude for the invitation.

Regarding the Time of Heroes platform, I have previously mentioned that the idea occurred to me after meeting in St Petersburg with young participants, mainly students, involved in the special military operation. Observing them, I thought: here they are – the future of our country, the future workforce. This is how the concept for such a platform was conceived. I will not conceal that after returning to Moscow and presenting the idea, I requested my colleagues in the Executive Office to bring it to fruition. They are the ones who came up with the name The Time of Heroes, which I believe is an excellent choice.

The first round attracted 43,000 applications. Naturally, the selection process is quite rigorous: we chose only 83 individuals from these 43,000. And understandably so, as we require individuals with experience in administrative work, those who are educated and meet the criteria necessary for future roles as leaders of major companies, municipalities, entire regions, ministries and agencies, among others.

I stated this at the United Russia party congress, and I would like to reiterate it now: certainly, all are worthy – every one of our men and women fighting for their Motherland, risking their lives and health, is deserving. However, there is the matter of their suitability for the professional path they aspire to pursue. Once again, education and experience are prerequisites.

In general, it is one thing to fight for the Motherland and quite another to work with people. You must possess a certain talent and aptitude for it, you know? These are distinct types of activities. We must select the right individuals from this group who are both willing and able to excel in these areas. Thus far, there have been no missteps: they are truly outstanding individuals.

The second enrolment campaign is currently underway, and the number of applications has already exceeded 15,000. It will continue next year until mid-January or February, I think. This is to say that this effort is gathering pace.

As for the first class, its participants continue their training, even though many of them have already received offers, and quite a few are already working in new positions. Some of them went as far as become heads of regions. This genuinely makes me happy. Some are working in the private sector, while others have taken up jobs in government institutions and administrations at all levels, including regional, local and federal agencies, as well as major corporations.

I would like to reiterate what I said at the United Russia congress. During my recent visit to a rehabilitation centre, I met with young men who had suffered severe wounds. Some had lost a leg, or an arm. But here is what I wanted to tell you: there was fire in their eyes. They want and are ready to work and to make a difference. And they have everything it takes to succeed. Thanks to the latest rehabilitation methods – I am talking about the most advanced and recently developed treatments – they can do anything without any health restrictions or limitations. All we need to do is help them get there.

Let me reiterate that one of these men – I remember his face – told me: “I understand that I need an education and experience, but I do not have either an education or any experience; still, I want to do it.” These are the kind of people we need. We need people who want to work. All we need to do is help them. We must find them and support them.

You know, it just occurred to me that when I applied to join a judo club, our coach, Anatoly Rakhlin, told us: go ahead and do as many pull-ups as you can. For some reason, several of those who did more pull-ups than I did were not accepted. Several years later, we asked him: Mr Rakhlin, how come you refused to accept these young men, but decided to take us on board despite the fact that we could not do as many pull-ups? You know what his answer was? He was a wise man, you know. He said, this is because you put in all the effort you had until your arms were shaking, but you still kept trying to reach the bar with your chin, while those who did more pull-ups than you, they did it without any stress, and they could have done more, but they did not put in all the effort they had and did not give it their all.

These men have given all they have, they are willing to go the whole nine yards, and we must help them. They need our support.

Alexander Gamov: There was also a question about protecting our heroes.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important question, indeed. You are right.

What can I say? First, this has happened before, and we have already seen these attempts and understand what our adversary is after. Unfortunately, this was not a standalone, isolated assassination attempt. In fact, people outside the military have also been targeted. I have already told your American colleague that there have been assassination attempts against journalists and public figures before. Do you remember how Dugina lost her life?

What does it mean? This demonstrates the Kiev regime’s terrorist nature. At the same time, of course, it indicates that our competent law enforcement agencies and intelligence services failed to prevent these attacks and allowed these blows to reach their targets. What can I say in this regard? We must further improve their work and prevent these failures, which come at such a huge cost to us. That is all there is to it.

Alexander Gamov: Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, I have caught sight of a very popular young blogger. He is getting up.

Vlad Bumaga: Mr President, good afternoon.

My name is Vlad Bumaga, and I am a popular video blogger. I have over 80 million subscribers on social networks, mostly young people.

As we know, young people spend a lot of time online – an average of five to eight hours per day, with half of that time devoted to watching video content. For my part, like many other creators, I am actively involved in developing our Russian platforms, such as VK Video. Of course, these platforms are not yet very large, but they demonstrate good and confident growth and provide high-quality services.

My question in this connection is this: why block YouTube if our platforms are coping well as they are? They are competitive and offer excellent terms and alternatives for creators? Moreover, we can upload content there and transmit our ideas and messages to audiences that extend beyond the Russian-speaking community.

There is another important issue. As I mentioned before, practically all children in this country know and watch me. I will add that I became a father myself earlier this year.

Vladimir Putin: My congratulations!

Vlad Bumaga: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please congratulate your wife on my behalf, it is her due.

Vlad Bumaga: I will do so without fail.

I would like to ask what values I, as a person whose videos nurture an entire generation, should communicate to the audience. Or, perhaps, what messages I should not communicate to the audience. What is your personal opinion on the ideas and messages that should be prioritised when it comes to young people? Give us a direction, so to speak. We will take note and start working.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding the YouTube slowdown. Here, there are more questions for YouTube than for us.

Sorry, let me first ask whether Vlad Bumaga is your pen-name?

Vlad Bumaga: No, it is my real name.

Vladimir Putin: I see, excellent! Paper (bumaga), in a well-known game, is stronger than stone. Therefore, I congratulate you: 80 million subscribers, did you say? This is certainly a unique achievement. This means the content you create meets the expectations of these 80 million people. This is the result of your creative work, and I congratulate you on that.

As for the slowdown, YouTube is owned by Google. When it started operating in Russia, it created its Russian subsidiaries, the legal entities on its payroll, as well as the services it should take care of. It worked with the subsidiaries it had created, but when the West started introducing various restrictions and sanctions, Google stopped or reduced the financing of these subsidiaries and the provision of the necessary equipment, thereby creating problems for itself. This is the first point.

Second, YouTube and Google must comply with our laws and avoid dishonest online activities. In other words, they must not use online resources for promoting their governments’ political goals.

Here is what I mean. Suppose you search for some information online, for example regarding culture or music, but instead, you are offered information that has nothing to do with culture or music but promotes a certain political platform. They are also removing the names of our artists, bloggers, politicians and the like from their services.

All this amounts to a violation of Russian laws. As a result, Roskomnadzor and other relevant authorities present their claims, and rightly so. Therefore, the perpetrators face a choice. They can choose to respect our laws, which would expose them to restrictions in their own country, forcing them to limit their operations to their own territory, or they can choose to work in Russia, in which case they must respect our laws.

As for what you have said, nature abhors a vacuum, and competition is growing here with the development of VK, Telegram and Rutube. If Google and YouTube, being aware of that, change the mode of their operations, they will have no problems here.

Regarding the subjects that can be used to enhance the awareness of our young people, how this can be done and what should not be done, I am sure that there is no need for my advice. People like you, especially now that you have become a father, have a growing sense of responsibility. It is a responsibility to your children, their future and the country where your children will live. This feeling of responsibility is a better guide than I could ever be about what would be useful for our children in the future, what is dangerous and unacceptable, and what you should fight against, not on my instructions but at the call of your heart.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you.

I believe I have overlooked TV-3; they certainly do not deserve this.

Vladimir Putin: May I interrupt you for a second? We were just talking about children, and I see a young woman over there with a “Families with children deceived” sign. How were they deceived?

Anna Suvorova: Apparently, this is not about child benefits, because we have already discussed them.

Vladimir Putin: I could have mentioned them. I think I did.

Yelena Usmanova: I can explain.

Good afternoon, Mr President.

Yelena Usmanova, Business Online newspaper from Tatarstan – this is Tatarstan again.

First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of Kazan for the honour of hosting the BRICS summit, but my question is about something else, as you can see from the poster.

A group of scammers deceived hundreds of families in Tatarstan who wanted their own homes. Each of them took out a preferential mortgage for individual housing construction under the state support programme, but the houses were never built.

Will the authorities help the defrauded borrowers under that programme, as they once helped the unfortunate co-investors in apartment block projects who were subsequently cheated out of their property? These people continue to pay mortgages for hot air, while the government continues to transfer state support to banks for houses that were never even built. When will they start helping people, not banks?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please, listen to me. It is not about the banks at all. We have created a system of escrow accounts, where people transfer their money when they take out a mortgage. The money is then frozen in those escrow accounts until the new owners receive their housing. Where have they transferred the money?

Yelena Usmanova: No, this is about the individual housing construction programme. Houses, not apartments.

Vladimir Putin: There is no difference.

Yelena Usmanova: Apparently, that arrangement was not yet in place at the time.

Vladimir Putin: Individual housing construction qualifies for preferential mortgage programmes. As I said, the interest is 3 percent in rural areas. Single-family homes account for 50 percent of the 110 million square metres built in 2023 and 105 million this year. Fifty percent is a breakthrough. But the money should be in escrow accounts. Where have the people transferred this money and why did they do it, if those were not escrow accounts? I really do not understand what you are talking about.

Yelena Usmanova: This is what happened in Tatarstan. Hundreds of families have indeed found themselves in this predicament.

Vladimir Putin: Can you tell me where they transferred the money?

Yelena Usmanova: I am not sure about the details. I know that they took –

Vladimir Putin: Listen, please, what is your name?

Yelena Usmanova: Yelena.

Vladimir Putin: Yelena, these details matter.

Yelena Usmanova: There were definitely no escrow accounts there.

Vladimir Putin: How could this have happened? This may be another fraudulent scheme, like the ones scammers use to steal money from people’s accounts.

We will need to look into this, because this particular case may give us leads on other possible cases of this kind and help prevent this kind of fraud.

Right now, I cannot make heads or tails of what you are saying. Please provide us with more information. All right, Yelena? This is extremely important.

Why? Because the main point here is that we still have numerous unfinished housing projects. However, the total amount we now have in the escrow accounts is about 7 trillion rubles, or maybe even a little more. This is more than 65 percent of the amount needed to complete the projects co-financed by the people in 2025. I can almost guarantee that this housing will be built. And no one will be cheated out of their apartments, because part of the work is already done. The money is in these accounts; it is protected. If you are referring to cases where no escrow accounts were used, please provide this information – this needs to be sorted out.

Thank you.

Dmitry Peskov: Yes, we will request this information.

We wanted to give the floor to the TV-3 channel.

Vladimir Putin: I see someone from Turkiye.

Dmitry Peskov: All right, let it be Turkiye then.

Vladimir Putin: Do not worry, we will get back to you.

Ali Cura: My name is Ali Cura, Anadolu news agency.

Mr President, Israel is violating international law, killing tens of thousands of people, including children, in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is using the current situation to occupy Syria and is infringing on its sovereignty. What can you say about Israel’s actions? Have you spoken with President Erdogan about the region as a whole? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I maintain regular contact with President Erdogan. I do not remember when we last spoke, but we certainly discussed the situation in the Middle East.

Everyone is aware of President Erdogan and Turkiye’s attitude to the developments in the Middle East, as well as our stance on Lebanon and Palestine. It does not depend on fluctuations. We have always believed, and continue to do so, that the Palestinian problem can only be settled if the reasons for its existence are eliminated. There is a well-known UN Security Council decision on the establishment of two states – Israel and Palestine. Israel has been established, but the state of Palestine has not been created to this day. That is the problem.

Moreover, Israel continues to implement its illegal settlement policy. I am not aware of Israel’s ultimate goal in the Gaza Strip, but its activities deserve to be censured. We have done this on many occasions and at nearly all levels, from public venues to putting forth our position at the UN Security Council. There is nothing more to add.

The same goes for our stance on Lebanon.

As for Syria, frankly, I believe that Turkiye is doing everything in its power to ensure its security along the southern borders in light of the situation in Syria, to create conditions for the movement of refugees from its territory to other areas, most of which are located in the Turkiye-controlled territories in Syria, and possibly to push the Kurdish forces from the border. All these goals can and possibly will be achieved, to a certain degree. And yet, I believe that the main beneficiary of the developments in Syria is Israel.

You may hold any opinion about Israel’s actions, but Russia condemns the seizure of Syrian territories. Our position on this matter is clear and unchanging. At the same time, Israel is addressing its own security concerns. For instance, in the Golan Heights, Israel has advanced along the front by 62–63 kilometres and to a depth of 20–25 kilometres. They have occupied fortifications originally built for Syria by the Soviet Union, strong defensive structures comparable to the Maginot Line.

We remain hopeful that Israel will eventually withdraw from Syria. However, at present, it is deploying additional troops there. It seems there are already several thousand personnel stationed there. It appears not only that they have no intention of leaving, but they may also be planning to further reinforce their presence.

Moreover, the local population has already expressed a desire to be incorporated into the Jewish state, which could create further complications down the line. If the ongoing developments ultimately result in the fragmentation of Syria, these matters will need to be addressed by the local population in line with the United Nations Charter and the principle of self-determination. It is a complex issue, perhaps best reserved for future discussions.

We are well aware that Turkiye has faced longstanding challenges with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party for decades. While we hope for no further escalation, some European politicians recently remarked in meetings that, after World War I, the Kurds were promised their own state but were ultimately deceived.

The Kurdish population in the region is substantial, numbering in the tens of millions across Turkiye, Iran, and Iraq, where they live in concentrated communities. Estimates suggest there are at least 30 to 35 million Kurds. This underscores the gravity of the Kurdish issue. The Kurds are formidable and resilient, known for their fighting spirit. For instance, they withdrew from Manbij, but only after putting up fierce resistance.

The Kurdish issue requires a resolution. This should have been addressed within the framework of Syria under President Assad. Now, it must be resolved with the authorities currently in control of Syrian territory, while Turkiye must also find a way to ensure its security. We understand the complexity of these matters. However, this is a topic for another discussion, so as not to take up time today.

I want to emphasise that while challenges remain, our position firmly aligns with international law and the sovereignty of all nations, including respect for Syria’s territorial integrity. This extends to supporting the stance of the current authorities governing the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In this regard, we stand with them. Furthermore, we maintain communication with these authorities as well as with all major groups currently exerting control in Syria.

Dmitry Peskov: We’ve promised to call on a TV-3 war correspondent.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I am sorry.

Alexander Malkevich: Alexander Malkevich, Itogovaya Programma, TV-3.

A brief message to begin with: our soldiers asked me to thank you. Last week, you met with members of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights and supported their idea of creating a federal museum of the special military operation. Preserving historical memory, particularly in creative formats, is our media Oreshnik in the information war that the West is attempting to wage against us.

The fighters from St Petersburg convey their special thanks for awarding our legendary Leningrad Regiment the honorific Guards title.

Now, my question is about the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation. Created in April 2023 by your Executive Order, it has operated for one and a half years. How do you assess its performance in 2024 on a five-point or ten-point scale? What main goals have you set for the foundation for next year? What is the chief criterion of its efficiency, as you see it?

Vladimir Putin: As for the work done by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation… I think it was created in June, not April, but this is unimportant. It started operating in June.

It was established after I had a meeting with mothers and widows of participants in the special military operation. I realised that the usual methods of support for the soldiers who needed assistance or had been heavily wounded or handicapped, for the families of our fallen heroes, were not sufficient and it was necessary to create a special mechanism, a special tool for those, among others, who were losing their connection with the Armed Forces. The Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation was created precisely for this purpose, to support the men who are leaving military service and yet require a caring attitude from the state; they need attention that is not formal or superficial but implies an individual approach to each person in every family. The foundation was created with this objective in mind.

What is on its agenda? Addressing social issues, processing various allowances and payments on behalf of those who need prosthetic care or have been registered as disabled, and arranging prosthetics for them.

We must give credit to the foundation: they are doing good work. They not only order an item but provide a comprehensive service. This includes training the men and selecting a facility that offers prosthetic care. They also plan for further care, ensuring that it is straightforward and does not require patients to travel across this country for treatment. Ours is a huge country after all. This problem still exists, but they are working to resolve it. This was their task.

I spoke to Anna Tsivileva not so long ago. She says the requests are now amended with… Do you know what? I was quite happy to learn that the men were sending requests for jobs. This is one of the most important areas of their work, by the way. Increasingly more people are sending requests for engagement in sports and participation in cultural events. And this is a positive development. You see, this means a trend towards better options; it exists, it has emerged. And this is very encouraging.

But employment is certainly the most important aspect. I have already mentioned this – they are young men with shining eyes, and they have received excellent training, something many can only dream of. In today’s conditions, they could certainly continue their service in the Armed Forces – a relevant decision has been made. What I am saying is that their further careers should not be limited to military enlistment offices, where they are unlikely to earn much, as they offer a rather modest level of income. They can work in IT, or in medicine. They can work anywhere, or they could engage in sports – military sports or civilian sports.

There are various ways to achieve fulfilment, and there is a growing number of opportunities, thanks to modern technologies and with due account of personal preferences. They are working on this, and they are generally doing very well. You know, no big project is implemented without a hitch. In this case, however, we have many people working on this who have some connection with the special military operation: the widows of unfortunately fallen soldiers, the mothers of our fighters who are still there at the frontlines, or just people who care. In this sense, and perhaps because of this – incidentally, many veterans who have returned from the front are working there, too – this is probably the key reason the work is going well.

I was reluctant to let the head of the foundation, Anna Tsivileva, go to work for the Defence Ministry, but I finally consented to Minister Belousov’s proposal when he told me that he thought it would be a good idea to build a seamless support system, which would encompass those who continue to serve in the Armed Forces, with the Defence Ministry, those who are still fighting, but need some support measures, as well as those who are now beyond the scope of the Defence Ministry. I thought we needed someone to do this.

Just recently, last summer, I think, the Defence Ministry created a social centre. So today, this social centre and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation are working as a one-stop shop, which helps people who are part of the Defence Ministry system and those who are not. This system seamlessly combines both spheres. They are probably struggling with many problems, but overall, the work is improving.

They have actually participated in decision-making on compensation rules for wounded soldiers. Until now, all wounded soldiers in our country received 3 million rubles regardless of the severity of their case – a small scratch, a minor injury, or a serious injury that led to disability – everyone received 3 million. In fact, servicemen themselves have asked the Ministry of Defence and the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation to change this system, and we did. Now the fighters who are seriously injured, receive 4 million.

But when this was reported to me, I immediately saw that the fighters who had been seriously injured and received disabilities before that, had been paid 3 million. And now, we have started paying four, meaning they have been left out. So, I had a simple idea: those who had earlier received 3 million, need to be given an additional million retroactively. This means the government has underpaid them. So, now all of them are receiving an additional million each, and the payments are being processed quickly.

This work is also organised by the Defenders of the Fatherland Foundation.

Dmitry Kulko: I suggest we return to the concerns of Russian citizens. You've probably seen them.

Vladimir Putin: Excuse me, Ksenia has been raising her hand for a while. Please, Ksenia.

Ksenia Sobchak: Mr President, Ksenia Sobchak, Ostorozhno Media.

You touched on a very important topic regarding the one-stop shop concept and the capabilities of the Ministry of Defence. I would like to discuss this issue from a different perspective.

Many of us – journalists, celebrities and concerned citizens – are involved in various initiatives. For example, for the past two years, we have been running a large-scale project to help residents of Belgorod and Kursk regions – our fellow citizens affected by attacks from the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This year alone, we have managed to help over 600 families.

I believe there are many other compassionate individuals out there. Would it be possible, in your opinion, to create a one-stop shop for these civic initiatives as well? This could help integrate public and volunteer efforts with social workers and existing state structures. Such a platform could function on a voluntary basis but provide a unified mechanism for coordinating assistance across a wide range of needs.

For example, we often encounter challenges like finding employment in new locations or securing spots in kindergartens and other institutions for families with children that are temporarily relocating. Could such a one-stop shop be established to support these civic initiatives?

Vladimir Putin: First, let me thank you for what you are doing. Providing direct assistance to people is extremely important.

Second, I want to express gratitude to all volunteers. Their work is invaluable, but it also comes with risks. Sadly, there have even been losses among volunteers. Their efforts often reach individuals more directly and sometimes reveal where state mechanisms are effective and where they fall short.

As for your suggestion, we do have programmes in place. For instance, there is a recovery programme for the Kursk Region, with allocated funding that is already practically in place. Similar measures are being implemented in other border regions, including Belgorod and Bryansk regions. No one will be left without support. You probably perceive these needs more acutely, given your involvement.

I will personally consider how this can be organised and will consult with the relevant agencies, including the Ministry of Defence and regional governors, to explore how these efforts can be coordinated – whether through a one-stop shop or some other mechanism. We will definitely think it through. Thank you, Ksenia.

I do not have an immediate answer right now, but the question you have raised is absolutely valid, and we will work on a solution.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I suggest we continue the topic of the special military operation and the support for the military and their families.

You must have seen that among the inquiries we received for this programme, there were also requests for assistance with payments and benefits that are supposed to be allocated for the military and their families. There were also requests for assistance with finding people who are reported missing or with whom there is no contact, or who, according to their families, are being held captive.

Mr President, is it possible to issue an instruction to the Defence Military specifically to deal with these cases? The families are struggling without knowing for certain what has happened. Is it possible to improve the notification system for the families of the military?

Vladimir Putin: It is a very sensitive issue for many.

It is one thing when a person is fighting and, God willing, everything turns out well.

There are different forms of benefits. In general, they are quite decent: there is battle pay, sometimes also called detached-duty allowance, for those who found themselves in certain regions before the start of the special military operation and it was considered a tour of duty. There is also pay for participation in offensive and storming operations, and in organising defence. There is a slight difference, but the grounds for pay are real.

When a person disappears from the radar, the matter of family support arises. We discussed this, and the Defence Minister is aware of this issue. There are at least two things that need to be done.

First of all, it is necessary to expedite final decisions. When information is lacking, families stop receiving corresponding benefits because the person is not there; he is not involved in any offensive or defensive operation; he is not receiving battle pay, and so forth. As a result, the scope of family support diminishes.

Here, the Ministry of Defence and the Government must take a different decision – on what can substitute these payments at least partly. There are different ideas: to develop a form of child benefit, or find another solution. But a decision is necessary on temporary measures, and this matter must be resolved promptly. I will not go into details now. Overall, the Ministry of Defence is aware of this problem and is working on it.

Alexandra Suvorova: Meanwhile, we have been working for more than three hours; almost three hours and ten minutes.

We have many questions, and they are different. I propose a a quick round of questions. Dmitry, what do you think? Shall we begin?

Dmitry Kulko: Let’s start with a question from Georgy Arefyev from the Smolensk Region: Why do high-ranking officials have to ask for your instructions at the meetings you hold so that they can start doing something?

Vladimir Putin: There is no need to scold officials.

Why is that so? The decision-making process is difficult; and when it reaches me, there are this kind of questions and problems. There are various ways to approach the solution: some of my colleagues believe it should be done one way, and others think differently. When there is a dispute or a fork, as they say in the Government, as they are deciding on an issue, then my colleagues come to me asking to make the final decision, as the commander. They ask for instructions so they won’t forget anything; the final decision is turned into instructions, and they get down to work.

There are many bureaucratic subtleties; sometimes everyone agrees on something, but it must be put on paper and implemented as a regulation.

Alexandra Suvorova: The next question is: “Who would you like to have a cup of tea with from among currently living or deceased people?”

Vladimir Putin: Considering the living, I would like to meet with my friends and relatives more often, to have tea and talk with them.

As for the deceased world leaders, I was in touch with German Chancellor [Helmut] Kohl, though not very personally, but for a long time.

He was a person of the global scale, and not just because he was a big man but because of his actions and convictions. He came to visit me right after our first meeting in 1993 and continued to do so for a very long time, not very often but regularly, even after his term ended. I had the pleasure – let me stress this – to talk to him.

It was a big political figure of that time, as they used to say in the Soviet Union. He did a lot for his country and for the Germans. He was a major European and global politician.

I vividly recall many of our conversations. They were very useful for me; I am saying this without exaggeration.

President of France [Jacques] Chirac was a very interesting person, too. Just interesting. You know, he was something of an encyclopedist, or an academic: he knew everything you could ask about. It was curious, honestly. He had an opinion about everything, and he always stood for it. He was a very tactful and courteous person. I learned a lot from him, too, to be honest, just as I learned a lot of things from Kohl and made a mental note of them. I noted this in Chirac too: his behaviour, and his intelligence among other traits.

Berlusconi was slightly different, but also very pleasant to talk to, he was active and very tenacious. Just like Chirac, he did a lot for the development of Russian-Italian relations. Despite what is happening today, we can feel that that there is a certain affection for Russia in Italian society, just like we feel affection for Italy.

All of them made a significant contribution to the development of bilateral relations and world politics. Their company was always interesting. They had strong personalities and their own opinions. It was all focused on achieving the maximum result for their countries and strengthening the sovereignty of their states.

I still have many friends in Asia. I have already spoken about friendly relations with…

Alexandra Suvorova: With China, as you said.

Vladimir Putin: With China and India. I have very warm relations with the Prime Minister of India. I have many people I can talk with. However, like any person, I would like to say once again that these are my family and some friends I have had since childhood, and I treasure that a lot.

Alexandra Suvorova: Next question.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, I have something between a question and request for advice from Tatyana Prokhorova from Chuvashia: “Do you have bank deposits? If so, in which banks?”

Vladimir Putin: Initially, I had a deposit in Sberbank, I think. Then, when Rossiya Bank was the first financial institution to be sanctioned, I demonstratively transferred my money there. I think, my salary is also transferred there.

Alexandra Suvorova: Next question: “Did Elvira Nabiullina tell you what the Central Bank rate will be tomorrow?” I think this would be interesting not only for Valery Semenov from the Pskov Region, who wrote this question.

Vladimir Putin: No, she does not tell me what the rate will be. Perhaps she does not know this yet, because they discuss it at the board meeting, their “Komsomol cell,” and make the final decision in the course of the discussion. I hope that it will be balanced and will meet today’s requirements.

Dmitry Kulko: Another question: “Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s predictions about the developments in the Middle East and the South Caucasus are coming true. Will other predictions of the LDPR founder come true?”

Vladimir Putin: Of course, I knew Vladimir Zhirinovsky well. He was no fortune teller, but he liked provocations and had fun shocking others. However, he was an erudite, and a well-prepared one; he was a specialist on the Middle East. A true expert. Everything he said came true because he relied on his analysis of what was happening in Russia and the world, and forecast the unfolding of the situation. This really comes true.

However, it was a forecast based on real knowledge and the experience he had as an expert.

Alexandra Suvorova: I propose returning to the blitz a bit later, near the end.

Dmitry Peskov: The blitz can go on forever.

Alexandra Suvorova: Yes, sure, with 2,200 questions.

Dmitry Peskov: I cannot quite see what you have written on the paper, but you’ve been raising your hand for a long time.

Vladimir Putin: There is a man in a mask. You’re next, okay?

Svetlana Shevchenko: I can speak, aren’t I?

Vladimir Putin: Please, please.

Svetlana Shevchenko: Svetlana Shevchenko, Novosibirsk, Novosibirsk Region.

We are an agroindustrial region and produce high-quality products with added value for export. However, recently we have had an acute shortage of young personnel in the countryside. It has had a real impact: there are not enough personnel despite rural mortgages and the development of rural areas.

Mr President, what would you advise us? What measures should we take to attract new youth and retain those who already live in the countryside?

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important question, because agriculture is a key sector of the Russian economy. I have already said that it is developing at a good pace: three percent per year. We cannot but be pleased with what is happening in agriculture.

I have already given this example, but I will still say this, if I remember it right. In 1986, if I remember correctly, the Soviet Union purchased 35 million tonnes of grain. Last year, we exported 56 million tonnes. We started exporting grain back in 2000, but it was only 1.2 or 1.3 million tonnes; and today it is 66 million tonnes. It seems impossible, but it is happening.

Look, we are among the three largest exporters of food to the world market, and the top one wheat exporter in the world. Last year we had a record harvest of 148 million; this year it will be 130 million, but this is also a very large harvest, and we are stable: we have harvested over 100 million tonnes for 10 years and have a stable large supply for export operations. As I have already said, we have completely covered our need in meat – 100 percent – and we export it.

There are problems with dairy, fruit and vegetable products, but there is also a development programme. Everything is growing gradually.

Social issue in the country is one of the most important problems. There is a programme for the socioeconomic development of the countryside, and overall its has funding. Of course, it may be not enough, but the main thing is to increase the level of well-being and income of people living in the countryside. All other issues will be resolved based on this. I am sure that we will make progress in this area.

Personnel is also a key element. We have traditionally focused on personnel since the Soviet Union era, and now work in the rural areas is becoming more interesting. It is a whole industry now. It requires high-class specialists in various areas: biology and chemistry, in addition to traditional agronomists, and genetics as well.

For example, genetics is an important area, and it is currently developing at the highest pace precisely because of and in the interests of agriculture.

I think all this is very interesting, and we should talk about this not only at events like this once a year, but constantly, as well as create conditions for young people who would be interested in coming and working in this sector of the economy.

The government will do everything possible to attract applicants this industry needs; and manufacturers must do what they do in other industries: create conditions to send people for training intentionally, pick personnel they need during the training, and ensure their work at enterprises and industrial practice. We will certainly provide for all of this.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, you promised to take a question from the journalist wearing a mask.

Vladimir Putin:Yes, please.

Andrei Knyazev: I have already taken off the mask. I wear it because I use the metro as probably most of those present here do.

I am Andrei Knyazev, a volunteer with Argumenty Nedeli – Uzbekistan, and head of The World of the Young, a studio of young and adult journalists in Moscow.

Here is my question. This year marks 45 years of my journalistic career which I started in Uzbekistan and have been persuing here for the past 30 years. I see that paper journalism is dying out. Maybe bloggers like Vlad Bumaga will help independent newspapers which depend only on their readers, not on the goverment or business people.

What do you think can be done to stop at least weekly press from dying? Becasue the bloggers we have now are not always intelligent, not always sincere and not always good. This is my short question.

I asked my second question to many officials, inlcuding Ms Zakhartova, the Foreign Minsitry spokeswoman. She told me to address the President’s Direct Line. That’s why I am here.

A great number of our scientists and many clairvoyants say that within the coming 10 to 12 years European countries, Japan, the United States and the American continent will be submerged or destroyed. However, the peopole will survive and they will ask to come to us, Mr President. Meanwhile, they are against us. Should they be informed in advance?

This is hypothecal, of course. Yet, there are such forecasts. I read a lot, and I basically read newspapers, not those lying Telegram channels and others of the kind.

So I have two questions to you. Sorry for that.

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure if I should say it. Ok, I will. You know a popular joke, a banter about a family at table with a little boy doing a crossword puzzle, who says: “Tell me a four-letter word.” His mom hits him on the forehead with a spoon – bang! He cries: Why? It’s ‘home.’ Then the father bangs his wife saying: “You should think about your home! Think about your home.”

You have said that some continents would be underwater and we should think about what is to be done with those people. We should think about our home!

Andrei Knyazev: Mr President, but they will run to us. What are we going to do with them?

Vladimir Putin: I was listening to you very attentively. You are a person full of energy! Please, let me finish.

I am saying this because the forecasts you have referred to are ethemeral. They are made by serious researchers who say that permafrost is going to start melting. This carries huge problems for the environment because new emissions into the atmosphere will exceed those from all the vehicles in the world. So if permafrost starts melting, the coastal regions of the Russian Federation are also in danger.

We have entire villages and towns with houses built on stillts in the permafrost. They already hear some crepitation underneath there. That’s what we should be thinking about, our coastal cities, including even St Petersburg, you see? We did build a flood dam there, which they dreamed of building since the times of Peter the Great. But we should think about what will happen to the coastal cities. We should think about our homeland first.

Andrei Knyazev: And about the paper journalism.

Vladimir Putin: I’ll be right with you on that. If people begin relocating to us, we have unemployment at 2.3 percent, it’s practically non-existent. We are talking about labour migration and issues related to it.

You are right, think about that. If there is a massive influx of people, we must think about how to cope with it and where and how to accommodate those people. We are the biggest country in the world but do you know how many people live east of the Ural Mountains? About 12 million people. We do have space to resettle people.

In principle, we have to think about social and other infrastructure and rules in advance. It is not really an empty question. You are so egregious when you say all this, but there is actually an issue. I repeat once again: First of all, we need to think about the problems we have in our country.

As for paper journalism and help from Vlad Bumaga, I think that such fellows, of course, will gladly support you, especially since we are talking about paper journalism in this case.

I think that paper journalism will have its place in this huge changing world, just like the paper book. You can flip through a gadget, and everything is in good font there and in different languages. I myself, frankly speaking, sometimes use it. But picking up a book is a different story. Not only because there are pictures – although that is also interesting to look at – and a book illustration is sometimes a work of art, too.

Picking up an issue of Izvestia or Komsomolskaya Pravda, leafing through it, digging in it – there’s a thrill in that, isn’t there? I hope that those who are engaged in paper journalism will also take this into account and keep this remaining public interest alive.

The most important thing, of course, is the content, because whatever the media, the most important thing, as Vlad Bumaga said, is what’s inside, the content. That’s the most important thing. If paper-based media have a worthy and interesting content compared to some internet rubbish, they will be here to stay, they will not die.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, let us think about home, above all, a healthy one. This topic is among those the Russians are most concerned about. If we look at statistics, healthcare and related issues come second – people ask about the shortage of doctors in outpatient clinics, and pretty often about a lack of some medicines.

I suggest we listen to a telephone call from Irina Sychyova from Nizhny Novgorod.

Mr Sychyova, good afternoon. Please, ask your question.

Irina Sycheva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

My name is Irina Sycheva. I am from Nizhny Novgorod.

I would like to draw your attention to our free medical care. First, I would like to sincerely thank you for the renovated outpatient clinics. Thank God, they are starting to make them look decent.

However, these outpatient clinics are in a dire shortage of medical specialists and primary care physicians as the doctors are leaving to work in commercial clinics. What should we, retired and low-income people, do in this situation?

For over a month, I have been unable to obtain an appointment with a cardiologist for my father who suffered a heart attack recently. This doctor receives patients only once a week. There are no online appointments because the doctor is not working full-time. To get an appointment, people have to queue outside the clinic from 5 or 6 am, and their chances are pretty slim. The people are standing on the street until 7 am, when the outpatient clinic opens. Many elderly people are unable to cope with this situation. We hope that you will resolve this issue.

Thank you very much in advance.

Vladimir Putin: Ms Sycheva, healthcare issues – and I perceive them in the context of the entire range of issues – come second, I think. Yes, second. This is always very important – in all countries, by the way, including those with the so-called developed market economy. It appears that the situation there is now even more acute than in Russia. But why should we care about them? I agree that we should think about our home country.

So, thank you for mentioning the renovated outpatient clinic. This means that things are moving, nevertheless.

We have a whole programme, I’ll talk about it in a second. Because our main problem is human resources. This problem exists in primary care sector. We have hospitals, with doctors and physicians working there, as you know – we have no personnel shortages there, while in primary care this problem does exist. This results in an obvious conclusion: the problem is mostly linked with the way a healthcare system is organised in the Russian Federation’s regions.

Speaking about the hospital bed rotation, we can see that beds in hospitals are not fully used all year round. At the same time, there is a problem in primary care, including outpatient clinics and district hospitals where medical specialists work every day. Local healthcare authorities are supposed to distribute the load correctly. This is the first thing.

The second aspect is linked with personnel training. We are trying, and the Healthcare Ministry is trying to enrol as many applicants at universities as possible. The process is ongoing. We have started paying an additional 50,000 and 29,000 rubles to doctors and nurses at small communities, and this is also quite important. For the first time in several years, we can see an influx of 17,500 specialists, but their number is still not enough.

Going back to the organisation of healthcare and the need to continue strengthening the primary care sector, we should certainly be doing all this much quicker than we did before. I cannot help but agree with this. Speaking of your particular case, my colleagues will give me your data. You do have the information, right?

Alexandra Suvorova: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: We’ll do all we can and will certainly help your father.

Dmitry Kulko: Let us continue with the topic of healthcare. It is important.

Compared to last year, the number of complaints regarding shortage of medicines has gone down this year, but we still have them, and they mainly concern subsidised prescription drugs.

For instance, here is what a pensioner from Kerch wrote us, “I have cancer. I was prescribed free medication, but the last time I had it for free was three months ago. I called the hotline in Simferopol and was told the drugs were unavailable. I have to buy them with my own money now. Please help resolve this issue.”

This is not limited to expensive medications – the situation with absence of normal saline was especially striking. People with diabetes also report difficulties with obtaining insulin. Here are a few examples.

Rashida Gainutdinova had the following to write to us: “In Neftekamsk, I have not been able to obtain insulin for four months now. I used to get it from a hospital, but it is no longer available there. I cannot buy it at the pharmacy either.”

Vitaly Mayorov from Atkarsk, the Saratov Region, “I have had type 1 diabetes for 50 years now. I have never experienced such poor insulin and test strip availability.”

Mr President, where does the domestic pharmaceutical industry stand at this point, and what is your take on patients’ access to essential medications for cancer and other acute conditions?

Vladimir Putin: This is a critically important issue, just like ensuring we have enough medical specialists and doctors.

The pharmaceutical industry is high on our list of priorities. You might be aware that as far back as 2008, when I served as the Prime Minister, we started working on developing our own pharmaceutical industry.

We began discussing this in 2008 and started creating programmes to this end. These programmes were finalised in 2009. They went by different names, but they came down to one and the same thing which was developing our own pharmaceutical industry. I cannot give you the exact budget we set aside back then, but this sector has largely grown with the help and support of the state, mostly through federal funding.

More recently, our pharmaceutical companies have begun investing their own resources into growing this business, and the investment amounts to impressive tens of billions of rubles, around 40 billion, I believe.

We now have development programmes of our own in place and have started creating our own medications based on our own molecules and producing our own APIs, which we did not have before. We have begun manufacturing complex medicines, including for cancer treatment. This sector is doing quite well, particularly in St Petersburg. The same goes for insulin.

As for test strips and similar supplies, the issues arise from operational shortcomings and delays at local levels. Overall, funding for these medications is allocated in full. The challenge lies in organising procurement and making timely decisions.

I will certainly discuss this with the colleagues in the Government and regional administrations. It is essential to act promptly and understand the market’s needs.

We have a programme for expanding the pharmaceutical industry, which is part of the technological leadership initiative. This programme specifically addresses medication production. By 2030, we aim to meet 90 percent of the demand for vital medicines with domestic medications, and 40 percent of the demand for medical products.

Overall, this work is moving, and the pace is good. However, this is a major undertaking, and things do not always go without a fault. Please provide the details, and we will see if there are any disruptions. I am sure there are.

Regarding insulin, we have always had sufficient supplies of it. Normal saline is not a problem. I am following these developments. It is not about the saline solution itself, but the package. What happened is that two agencies – the Ministry of Industry and Trade and the Healthcare Ministry – failed to agree on the package price in time. The proposed price made production a loss-making operation, forcing manufacturers to import packages.

All due decisions have been made by now, and I hope these setbacks are a thing of the past. We will certainly look into this specific case.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr Peskov, please take the baton.

Dmitry Peskov: Thank you. Let’s go into the audience.

Remark from the audience.

Dmitry Peskov: You know, we won’t go far like that.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please. But let’s not act that way. Chaos will reign this hall, and we won’t be able to cope with it. Please.

Ksenia Aksyonova: Thank you. I apologise.

Ksenia Aksyonova, Spas TV channel.

I will ask questions that have in common a phrase of a person whom I know you respect very much and whom the entire Russian church loves. This is the spiritual father of our Patriarch, Elder Iliy (Nozdrin).

At the beginning of the special military operation, he listed three conditions for victory: ban abortions, ban foul language, and bury Lenin’s body.

I have three questions on these three points.

First, abortions. Our Patriarch has been talking about removing abortions from the compulsory medical insurance system each and every year, because it is not a medical procedure, and it does not help but maims. The leaders of traditional religions in Russia support the Patriarch in this. Will this be done?

Second, foul language. Recently, you have given an exhaustive opinion on the subject saying that it is anti-prayer and an invocation of dark forces. In order not to repeat myself, I will ask specifically about dark forces, because esoterics, occult science, fortune telling, accessible pornography are currently booming in Russia, and people are now spending more money on psychics than on doctors. Porn sites are now the most visited in our country. Will there be any measures taken to restrict these clearly dangerous types of activity?

Third, burying Lenin’s body. I am not talking about an assessment of his actions right now. You have done that many times. I’m referring specifically to fulfilling his will and that of his family, and that keeping an embalmed body in the Mausoleum is a pagan and ungodly custom. Please tell me what is preventing us from burying Lenin's body?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: These questions are clearly not for an extended news conference or a direct line. All of them are very sensitive.

As for abortions, of course, here we should be thinking about how not to harm people’s religious beliefs and at the same time deal with our demographic challenges. However, we should also think about the level of well-being of Russian families with children, their future and women’s right to make decisions. This is a delicate issue that cannot be resolved at a news conference, just like porn sites and so on.

See, some people don’t like that YouTube is slowing down. You say, “in our country,” but I think porn sites are visited all over the world. First come porn sites, and then one can think about ordering a cutlet, you see. All over the world. This is not just our problem; it is a problem in many other countries.

What answer can there be? In fact, any bans are possible, but it is always about offering a more interesting alternative to porn sites, so that a person would go to a porn site and say: I have already seen this, I want to watch something different. Something captivating. (Laughter in the audience.)

The same goes for the burial of Lenin’s body. Someday, society will probably come to this. But today, especially today, we must not take a single step that would split the society in Russia. That’s how I see it.

Overall, Iliy is right, of course. I like him and always listen to what he says. I know, he told me about it.

Dmitry Peskov: Can we take a question from that sector?

Mr President, Kolesnikov is there. I have completely forgotten about him. If I may.

Vladimir Putin: Please go ahead, Andrei.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon.

Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Mr President, the war has been on for nearly three years now, and we all have changed much. The war changed everyone. How have you changed? Have you found out anything new about yourself?

I have one more question, if Mr Peskov does not object. No one has asked this question yet, and perhaps never will, but I am curious. Some time ago, as is widely known, US President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, who had been convicted of making a false statement when buying a firearm. This caused quite a stir around the world, and everyone had something to say about that, yet you remained silent. Perhaps, you have nothing to say about that. What do you think about that anyway?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: They say silence is golden. It is better to keep things to yourself sometimes.

Thank you for the question, though.

Regarding Biden pardoning his son, even though he promised not to do so, it is a delicate matter. Our history has other examples to offer. Everyone saw the famous painting, Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan. That story may be a legend or not, just like what happened to the son of Peter the Great, Alexei. Or take Stalin – and this is no legend, when he refused to exchange his son Yakov, who was in captivity, for Field Marshal Paulus, saying, “I will not exchange a marshal for a soldier.”

You see, it is a personal decision, but during the war even surrendering was considered an act of treason. Why? You can cite all kinds of reasons, but at that time the country was facing possible annihilation of not only its statehood, but also its people. It was a battle for survival of the ethnicity, our nation. The measures taken to ensure victory were harsh, if not cruel.

Considering this public mindset, which Stalin likely abided by, he was unable to save his son. He said what he said and did what he did.

As we know, Stalin’s son was executed in a camp, while Paulus was “used” during the Nuremberg Trials. When Paulus entered the courtroom, everyone gasped as no one expected to see him there.

As for Biden, he is a politician, you know, and it is always important to understand what is dominating you – a politician or a human. It turns out Biden is more human than politician. I would not judge him for that.

Alexandra Suvorova: The first part of Andrei Kolesnikov’s question was about the three years of the special military operation and the ongoing hostilities.

Vladimir Putin: What has changed?

Andrei Kolesnikov: How have you changed over the past three years?

Vladimir Putin: You know we all change every day, and every hour. I think everyone in the audience and the people who are listening or watching us also change. That is the fact of life: everything changes, and nothing stands still. These past three years, or rather over two years, have been a serious test for all of us, including our country and me personally.

Let me give it to you straight: we are sitting here, joking occasionally, with laughter being heard in the audience, but I now make fewer jokes and almost stopped laughing.

There is another circumstance. I am now honing what I consider my skills – let us call them that – in identifying key issues and concentrating my attention and energy on solving them.

Dmitry Peskov: Moving on. Let's go to the diametrically opposite sector.

I see RBC. RBC, please.

Polina Khimshiashvili: Good afternoon.

Polina Khimshiashvili, RBC.

Just to follow up on the question already posed. You have said that now you laugh and smile less. If it were possible to go back to February 2022, would you change your decision?

Vladimir Putin: Such a hypothetical question: “If it were possible…” You know, if I could look at the situation in 2022, knowing what is happening now, what would I think? That the decision that was taken in the beginning of 2022 should have been taken earlier. This is my first point.

And second, being aware of this, we should have simply started to get ready for these measures, including for the special military operation. Indeed, the Crimean events were simply spontaneous and we also started the events of 2022 without any special preparations. But why did we start them? It’s because it was impossible for us to stand still any longer and tolerate and wait until the situation becomes worse for us. That's what it's all about.

After all, the Kiev authorities declared that they were not going to honour the Minsk agreements. They said it in a straightforward manner, laying their claims on some sort of weapons of mass destruction. We saw that we had been deceived regarding the Minsk agreements, with war and massacre and destruction of people in Donbass going on for eight years. Nothing was happening, they repudiated the Minsk agreements.

What’s more, we saw that they simply set on military development of these territories while at the same time destroying everything connected with Russia. We could no longer remain in the state we were in. They forced us to do what we did. If we had known in advance what was going to happen, of course, we would have engaged in serious systemic preparations. That’s what I would mean.

Dmitry Peskov: Friends, we have already been working for four hours.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s give the floor to the colleagues. Please pass the microphone.

Yekaterina Lazareva: Thank you, Mr President.

Hello,

Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.RU agency.

Today, you mentioned European leaders as well as the new and the current American leader.

My question is: in 2025, Russia will mark the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and I know that you are already extending invitations to leaders from various countries. However, if we recall, this year, for the anniversary of the Allied landing in Normandy, France did not invite us. Additionally, there will be memorial events at Auschwitz in January 2025, and to my knowledge, we have not been invited either.

Have you extended invitations to our allies in the Anti-Hitler Coalition for Victory anniversary celebrations in 2025, encouraging them to come to Moscow? Is it important to you that the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom, and perhaps France attend, or at least send representatives?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, as for being invited anywhere, we are not seeking invitations. We are happy here at home. Our focus is on strengthening ourselves, that is the essence of our work.

Second, we will never forget the sacrifices our people made in the fight against Nazism. The most important thing is that we remember. If other countries are trying to forget, it reflects the priorities of today’s leaders, who are focused on undermining Russia as a whole, forgetting, erasing, and shifting focus. But that is their own business.

We will be happy to welcome anyone who wishes to join us in celebrating this significant anniversary. While I personally sign some invitations, the Foreign Ministry handles most of the arrangements. My stance is that we are open to all who wish to be with us in Moscow on those days and mark this important anniversary.

We will be happy to welcome everyone, including the participants of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, who made a significant contribution to the victory over Nazism, such as the United States and Great Britain with its northern convoys. There were many heroes among them too, and we honour and respect them. Moreover, I believe there are still veterans among them. The British sailors demonstrated true heroism, and the Americans fought during the landing in northern France.

Indeed, their participation and losses are not comparable to those of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. We lost 27 million, while the United States lost around 500,000, and Great Britain lost even less: around 400,000, if I am not mistaken. Although in World War I, they lost 1.5 million. So, the scale of their contribution to Victory is different, but their involvement was still significant, especially since they were with us. They supported us through Lend-Lease. It is true, though, that we eventually paid for it in full. When I became President, we paid off the entire Lend-Lease debt. The Americans got that money from us, you see. We paid that in full, even though so many years passed by.

Nonetheless, we value the contribution of our allies to the shared struggle and will be happy to welcome anyone who wishes to join us in celebrating the joy of Victory.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, we still have many questions left, including personal ones.

Vladimir Putin: Let’s take another question from the audience.

Yamal. What is Yamal up to?

Andrei Zhizhin: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Andrei Zhizhin, Yamal-Media.

Western countries have imposed over 20,000 sanctions…

Vladimir Putin: It is 40,000, I believe.

Andrei Zhizhin: 40,000?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly, I stopped counting.

Andrei Zhizhin: They have a particular issue with our progressive development in the Arctic. It has come to the point where they openly declare their goal to destroy and kill the liquefied natural gas production projects in the Arctic.

What are they afraid of? Do they have any success with slowing the pace of our development in the Arctic? How are we going to respond?

Vladimir Putin: They are afraid of the competition. They are leveraging political tools to engage in unfair competition.

Take the well-known company NOVATEK. It is not an industry leader; other countries, including the United States, produce more LNG. However, we are getting bigger, and they are trying to hamper our growth using unfair methods for keeping competition in check.

This may backfire if they continue to deal with competitors using non-economic methods. They will eventually lose their competitive edge. Not tomorrow, perhaps, but someday they will if it goes on like that.

Are they in our way or not? Yes, they are. Are they creating problems for us? Yes, they are. Will they be able to completely shut us down or to destroy us? No, they will not. They might cause us a certain amount of harm, but, without a doubt, we will overcome these difficulties, just as we have overcome energy supply challenges in the past. Moreover, the global demand for energy resources did not go anywhere, as the global economy still needs them. The demand for them is on the rise and will continue to grow (this is not our data; it comes from the world economic institutions), and this product will remain in demand on international markets. We will continue to expand our share on the global LNG market.

By the way, the same applies to pipeline gas supplies. Ukraine refused to renew the transit contract. It was not us who did it. Ukraine did. They refused to renew the contract, even though they used to receive about US$700–800 million a year under it.

Now, the question is what to do with it. But that is not our problem. It was Ukraine who cut off our gas supply to European consumers. On one hand, it is eating from their hand because it can survive, not just war, but survive only with the support of the West, including Europe, but at the same time, it is creating problems for them by cutting off supplies of our relatively cheap gas. That contract is clearly history. Fine, we will survive. Gazprom will survive.

By the way, the other day our intelligence services told me that saboteurs, clearly Ukrainian ones, were detained in Slovakia. They had maps of Slovakia’s gas infrastructure facilities on them.

I was briefed about this just recently. I will ask our intelligence agencies to request information from their colleagues about what exactly occurred, the connections are still in place. You see, it is not enough for them to carry out terrorist attacks in our country; now they are targeting European countries.

Once again, they are eating from their hand, and now they are attempting acts of terror in Europe. But that is their choice. Our choice is to pursue cooperation, and we will push forward to achieve our goals.

Kosmos, go ahead. And I can see BBC, too. You will soon get your chance to put us under fire. Go ahead. All we do is defend ourselves.

Dmitry Maslak: Thank you.

I am a staff correspondent for the Russian Service of China state television in Moscow. We work here in Russia, and I am a Russian citizen, although I am considered a foreign journalist.

If I may, I will start with a question from China state television, from CGTN, because thanks to them I got here, and we have been working here for the second year already.

First question. Today’s programme is called “Results of the Year,” and throughout the year you have been saying that Chinese peace initiatives are among the most – I cannot remember the exact wording – but you have said that they were more realistic than all the others proposed by the mediator countries.

We have all heard and remember that the West has exhausted its trust limit, and Russia has been deceived by European leaders, as they themselves admitted. But if we talk about specifics, Mr Trump and his assistant Keith Kellogg say that it is possible to end the war even before the inauguration on January 20.

We are not talking about any country joining NATO… But is it possible to cease fire in one minute? Is Russia ready to at least take this simple step if European and American partners manage to convince Kiev?

The entire world is really tired with the Ukraine crisis, and I think people in Russia now want peace, too. This is a simple step: nobody risks anything if everything just stops where it is. If promises are not kept or broken, it may continue. No one will lose anything if it just stops at some point

And my second question, since this is a mixed-format event. I live in Korolev and would like to draw your attention to the largest science town in Russia, because in fact we, the residents of Korolev, have many questions.

Currently, a National Space Centre is being built at the Khrunichev centre, and many residents of Korolev, and we are talking about a quarter of a million, residents of the Moscow Region are perplexed: are we still the historical space capital, where Korolev and leading designers worked, or not? For example, perhaps we need a special economic zone on the territory of the integrated house-building factory, which they are trying to divide now; because the city needs a boost, it needs to regain its title as the country’s historical space capital, because Energia RSC continues to work there, among other things.

This calls for building a third entrance to the city. Everyone is asking for it, because people spend up to four hours in traffic jams. When this event is over, we will drive all the way up there to be stuck in that notorious traffic jam for three and a half hours. We need a flyover. We have a little problem with democracy in the city. Sorry, these are pressing issues.

Dmitry Peskov: You have combined two roles: a citizen and a journalist.

Dmitry Maslak: A direct line and a news conference.

Alexandra Suvorova: Since you are already here.

Dmitry Maslak: In fact, yes. A third entrance to Korolev. You have used this flyover personally. A third entrance is necessary, because we are stuck, we cannot waste time in these traffic jams. I believe the entire city is applauding now, because if you can solve this problem, it would make us very happy.

Thank you very much.

Colleagues, I apologise.

Vladimir Putin: Your employer will not be happy about the second part of your question. It is not what he has sent you here for. But you got me right: you should care about your home. This is absolutely true.

The idea of a third entrance to Korolev was discussed. I know about it from our previous discussions on the development of Korolev as a space capital. Another centre that is under construction in Moscow is extremely important for the development of the space industry, but Korolev remains a prominent space centre. I will not go into detail now, but Korolev as a science city certainly deserves to be given attention. I will discuss this matter with my colleagues by all means, both in the Moscow Region and with those who are working in the aircraft and space sector. They have various plans.

There are grounds for the idea of a special economic zone [in Korolev]. I will not present a final decision now, but this is something that can and should be given attention. You are right that we should think about using the potential of Korolev. This is the first point.

Second, regarding the peace initiatives of the People’s Republic of China, Brazil and South Africa. We have taken note of them because this is a sincere attempt to find a solution. We regard it as a balanced attempt that is not being imposed on either side, Ukraine or Russia. That is because these initiatives have been proposed by neutral countries, which are not interfering in the conflict, unlike the Western countries, which are actually waging a war against us by the proxy of Ukrainians. And so, their initiatives must be analysed very carefully because they are actually a party to the conflict.

As for stopping the conflict where it is, you see, I have already spoken about the situation. We see the exhaustion of weapons, equipment, ammunition and, most importantly, personnel in the Ukrainian armed forces. They are running out of all this.

What do we really see on the battlefield now? Our army is advancing, while the opponent is unable to become entrenches in the positions in has retreated to at any given day or moment. Its troops have retreated in an organised manner, but they cannot consolidate their hold on them, because our men will continue to advance tomorrow, and so on and so forth.

We pause for a week – we give the enemy a chance to gain a foothold and fortify their positions. It will give them the opportunity to rest, regroup and rearm. Most importantly, it will allow them to recruit and train soldiers. With the current shortage of personnel, they literally grab people off the streets, as I told the Defence Ministry board – they cart people off like stray dogs. But stray dogs at least are taken to animal shelters, and subsequently put up for adoption, and eventually get a new home. Unlike them, Ukrainian men are being sent for slaughter.

They have no time for training, and our military see this on the battlefield: their training is lacking, it is not anything like a Soviet military school; this is a totally different story. Even those who are trained in Western countries are not good enough compared to the Soviet training because their instructors have never fought themselves; they have never participated in real action. How can they train anyone?

The point is that a lengthy period of relative truce will give the enemy the opportunity to improve this aspect as well – train and retrain, and consolidate their personnel. Some battalions of the Ukrainian army have only 35 or 40 percent of the required number of fighters. You have a battalion, but no personnel in it. Do you really want to give them the opportunity to reman their units?

We do not need a truce. We need peace: a long-term and lasting peace with guarantees for the Russian Federation and its citizens. It is difficult to say how these guarantees can be provided, but it is a place to start.

In fact, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban put forth a proposal for a short-term truce. This is what he told me – I do not think Victor will be angry with me if I reveal a part of our conversation – he said, it will not hurt to call a Christmas truce, just for a day or two, and the enemy will not be able to do anything in these two or three days. I said, you are probably right, but you should first ask the Ukrainian side. We have earlier agreed to at least three such proposals – on navigation in the Black Sea, on energy infrastructure, and so on.

Erdogan contacted me; ask your President. This is true, he made a proposal to me as an intermediary. I said I had to think about it. The next day, just a day later, I called him and said we agreed. Suddenly, the head of the Ukrainian regime announced there would be no talks and no truce. So, I called Erdogan and asked what that meant? He said: this is what our partners do. I said: well, all right.

I have asked Orban the same question. He proposed a Christmas truce, and he also proposed a prisoner exchange. I have not refused anything. I said we needed to think, but you should ask them. He did. The next day, the head of the [Kiev] regime said that there would be no truce, no prisoner exchange. This is the answer to your question.

Dmitry Kulko: We have been on the air for over four hours now. Let’s wrap it up.

Vladimir Putin: I promised [to take a question from] the BBC.

Go ahead.

Alexandra Suvorova: They promised to attack.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, you promised to attack. They gladly do so even without promises. This is their job; it is what they are paid for.

Steven Rosenberg: BBC News.

Exactly 25 years ago, Boris Yeltsin resigned, transferred power to you, and said, “Take care of Russia.” After 25 years, do you believe you have taken care of Russia? Because looking from the outside, what do we see? We see substantial losses in the so-called special military operation that you declared; and we see Ukrainian soldiers in the Kursk Region. You criticise NATO expansion, but there is more NATO now on Russia’s borders: Sweden and Finland. There are sanctions, high inflation, and demographic problems. But what do you think? Have you taken care of your country?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. I believe I have not just taken care of it, but I believe we have stepped back from the edge of the abyss, because with everything that was happening in and around Russia before and since was leading us towards a complete, total loss of our sovereignty. Without sovereignty, Russia cannot exist as an independent state.

Let me draw your attention to what you said about Boris Yeltsin. Everything seemed fine; they patted him on the back patronisingly, and turned a blind eye when he drank. He was welcome in all Western circles. But as soon as he raised his voice in defence of Yugoslavia, as soon as he said that it violated international law and the UN Charter, as soon as he said that striking Belgrade, the capital of a European country, without UN Security Council approval was unacceptable in modern Europe, they immediately started having a go at him, calling him names, saying he was a drunk, and so on. Do you not remember that?

I have done everything so that Russia can be an independent and sovereign state that is capable of making decisions in its own interests, rather than in the interests of the countries that were dragging it towards them, patting it on the back, only to use it for their own purposes. I could stop there. But I understand you have laid out the entire set of arguments that seem support your stance.

You mentioned inflation. Yes, there is inflation. We will fight it. But we also have economic growth. We rank fourth in the world in purchasing power parity. Please share that with your readers. We are first in Europe, far ahead of the United Kingdom, which, I believe, is not even in the top five.

But we are ready to work with the UK, if the UK wants to work with us. If not, that is fine. We will cope without our former WWII Allies.

Dmitry Kulko: Mr President, there are numerous questions from Russians, including some of a personal nature. Time is short, so I suggest we proceed in a rapid-fire manner.

Dmitry Peskov: We have already been at it for four and a half hours.

Vladimir Putin: Let's bring it to a close.

Alexandra Suvorova: Do you have a dream? Not one related to governance, but a personal one. What is your dream?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I do, of course. But it is a personal dream. May I keep it to myself?

Dmitry Kulko: A question from social media. Alexandra Pukhova asks: Are you a happy person?

Vladimir Putin: Do you consider this a rapid-fire question? Am I meant to respond with a simple yes or no? How can I possibly convey that with just yes or no?

You see, the point is this: everyone knows I was born into a humble, working-class family. My ancestors crossed the Danube back in the 19^th century, and I have a document from the archives showing one of my ancestors was awarded the Cross of St George, one of the first Crosses of St George. Then my father, along with all my relatives on both my mother's and father's sides, fought on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. Many died, indeed a great many; probably every second one fell. My father was left disabled by the war. I myself served in the foreign intelligence services, and my work has always been linked to serving the Fatherland. And of course, the fact that it is not the first time the people, the citizens of Russia, have entrusted me with leading the Russian state is a profound honour and an immense responsibility. So, in principle, one could say, ”That's it, I am happy, thank you.“ One might also say, ”God forbid, what more could I want?“

But you know, the reality is that happiness cannot be complete until our lads return from the front, until their mothers and wives reunite with them, until their children embrace them, until our young men and women form the right number of families for us, for the country, for Russia, and have children.

I deeply desire for our scientists, artists, and cultural figures to realise their aspirations. Only then, perhaps, might it be possible to claim that I am happy.

Alexandra Suvorova: There's a question from St. Petersburg: Why do various foreigners insult you, and yet you remain silent?

Vladimir Putin: It comes down to one's level of culture. I have said before: ”He who calls names is called that himself.“ In my opinion, such behaviour is born out of impotence. Why should we showcase such impotence? We have ample arguments to state our position clearly and succinctly.

Dmitry Kulko: An SMS from the Stavropol Region: Are there any duties you despise?

Vladimir Putin: No, there aren't. You see, if people have entrusted me with the responsibilities of the presidency, there are certain obligations, and I aim to fulfil them with honour, at least with complete dedication.

I am aware that if I begin to harbour aversion towards any aspect of my official duties, the desired outcomes will not be achieved. That's why, long ago, I resolved that everything I am required to do should be approached with a sense of satisfaction.

Alexandra Suvorova: A question from the Nizhny Novgorod Region. Whose portrait is hanging in your office?

Vladimir Putin: I do not have a portrait in my office. I have an icon in one of my offices, and a bust of Lomonosov in the other.

Dmitry Kulko: Another text message from Moscow. Would you grant political asylum to Zelensky? He will sure need it soon.

Vladimir Putin: I do not know. I do not think he will need it. In the most likely scenario – I cannot say what he will do, probably the same as other individuals from the top political leadership of Ukraine who went abroad – he will leave. I think those people whose interests he serves today will take care of him.

If by any chance he suddenly popped out of nowhere, like a jack-in-the-box, appearing when we would least expect it, and said he needed political asylum – Russia never refuses anyone.

Alexandra Suvorova: A question from Tatyana Kostyuchenko. What is Russia for you?

Vladimir Putin: This is a complex issue.

You see the map opposite us. Russia, like any other country, is first of all a vast territory. But it is not just the territory – it is history, culture, our customs and traditions. This all is Russia. And in any case, the most important component is the people.

You know what I sometimes find myself doing lately? When I watch something – I rarely watch television, I do not have time, I almost never go online – I always note our achievements, the successes of our people.

I recently watched the World Swimming Championships. The swimmers – strong torsos, healthy, confident, world champions, beautiful women. I look at the boys and girls who achieve success at international [student] Olympiads. I look at our young scientists with whom I recently met. Honestly, I look at them and I feel happy and proud, as I would have felt at the success of my family members. Without any exaggeration, I look at them, and I am happy and proud as if they were my family. What I am saying is I view Russia as a family.

Alexandra Suvorova: Mr President, millions of viewers have been watching us for more than four and a half hours. We have answered numerous questions, and it is clear that there will be many more.

In conclusion, what else would you like to say to the nation?

Vladimir Putin: I just said that I view Russia as my family.

We are holding this conference ahead of the best time of the year, a season of joy – the New Year and Christmas. I speak to many representatives of different religions, and they all say that they celebrate Christmas, just as our neighbours celebrate Eid al-Adha, Passover, and so on.

When I meet with clergy, I often ask them: what do your people share with you at the everyday level, what do they most often talk about, what do they regret? I do not expect them to break the Seal of Confession, of course, but do you want to know what they answer? What is the most common regret? Giving too little attention to their children.

The New Year’s is a family holiday, and Christmas even more so, so I would like to wish you to spend more time with your loved ones. And I want to wish you all every success, happiness and prosperity.

Alexandra Suvorova: Thank you very much.

Dmitry Kulko: Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Media statements by the Presidents of Russia and Belarus

2024-12-07T13:49:31+04:00

Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko made statements for the media following the meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State.

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko: Mr Putin,

I express my gratitude for your presence here today, alongside your colleagues – essentially the entire leadership of the Russian Federation – as we have conducted a highly productive session of the Supreme State Council.

However, if I may, given the amicable and – as your Press Secretary [Dmitry Peskov] once aptly described – fraternal relations that we have cultivated, I wish to bring up one more point. I refrained from mentioning it during our meeting, yet I’ll be frank, since I don’t conceal it, as I previously brought it up in Astana. This is indeed a serious matter, and it would be preferable for it to be transparent rather than later there appear various speculative approaches to this issue.

Mr Putin,

We are gravely concerned about the situation in Western Europe, particularly along our borders, specifically with Poland and Lithuania, our neighbouring nations. We perceive this as an even greater threat than that posed by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

Merely 15 kilometres away – a short distance to the border – troops are being deployed, and it is not solely the Polish and Lithuanian forces at the frontier; NATO troops from other nations, including Germany, are being amassed. Thus, the situation is exceedingly tense. Poland is expending vast resources to arm its military forces. However, if they want peaceful coexistence with us, as they profess, then why allocate billions of dollars towards armament? In essence, we are profoundly disquieted by this.

This poses a threat to our joint military force, which you referenced in your statement today. In Astana, without consulting you, I jestingly remarked upon it – but what jest can there be when discussing new weaponry?

Recently, Russia successfully launched the Oreshnik missile system. This has made a notable impact on our former partners, now adversaries. Please, do not misconstrue this as audacity: I would like to publicly request the deployment of new weapons systems, particularly Oreshnik, within Belarusian territory.

This would significantly placate certain factions inclined towards conflict against Belarus, as well as against Russia on Belarusian soil – in line with the national security concept that you recently endorsed and we have adopted today regarding the Union State.

We possess, and I am not jesting in saying this, specific locations where these weapons can be stationed. With the singular condition: that the targets for these weapons shall be determined by the military and political leadership of Belarus. Meanwhile, you would train us to operate these weapons, should this be implemented, so that Russian Federation specialists would maintain and launch the Oreshnik warheads at designated targets. You have demonstrated your proficiency recently. This would considerably fortify the defence of our Union State and, primarily, the territory of Belarus.

I earnestly ask you to contemplate this and accede to my request. We are being criticised: nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are deployed, and so forth. These are not nuclear arms, but they are exceedingly effective. As you noted, they are comparable under certain conditions to delivering damage akin to that of a nuclear weapon, yet without any contamination and without any strikes that would lead to pollution of the territories and facilities that are targeted.

Once more, I urge you to consider it. It would constitute substantial support – not solely for my appeal, but also for the Belarusian people.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Lukashenko, colleagues,

Foremost, I wish to extend my gratitude to the President of Belarus for the invitation to visit Minsk and for the traditionally warm reception accorded to our entire delegation.

As I have already remarked during today’s proceedings: a substantial amount of work has been undertaken by the experts and government representatives on both sides to prepare for today’s event – an endeavour that proved to be both successful and efficient. Indeed, there are issues within the economic domain that require further attention. Nonetheless, all our preceding meetings have been directed towards reaching consensus on some contentious matters, which inevitably arise given the extensive scope of our collaboration.

As of today – the President of Belarus is aware, as are our colleagues from both sides – virtually all issues that have previously sparked disputes or necessitated coordination have been resolved. Certainly, there remains work to be done, and we shall pursue it. I am confident of achieving favourable outcomes, as both parties are eager and prepared to continue our collective, constructive endeavours. This signifies that solutions will be found and realised.

Although, I reiterate, as of today – Mr Lukashenko, I trust you concur – there are no issues causing dissatisfaction in the progression of our relations on either side. There are, I reiterate, matters requiring further work, and we shall address them.

We have just signed two exceedingly significant agreements – one concerning the unified electricity market and another on security guarantees. Undoubtedly, these treaties are of paramount importance: one within the economic sphere, the other within the security sphere, as the treaty on security guarantees delineates mutual allied commitments to ensure the defence of Russia and Belarus. And, as we have previously stated, with the deployment of all available forces and resources.

That is why we decided to meet the requests from the Republic of Belarus and the President of Belarus to deploy Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus.

Of course, such cutting-edge systems as Oreshnik have no parallels in the world. A combined missile assault by this system is comparable to the use of nuclear weapons, yet they are not weapons of mass destruction for two reasons.

Firstly, unlike weapons of mass destruction, this system is a precision weapon. It does not hit areas, and it achieves a desired effect not through its power, but through precision. This is the first point.

Secondly, in the case of a combined missile assault – using one, two or three systems – it is the same as a nuclear weapon in terms of the impact force but it does not contaminate the area and does not have any radiation fallout since the warheads of these missiles have no nuclear component.

Now as regards the possibility of deploying such, let’s face it, formidable weapons as Oreshnik missile systems on the territory of Belarus. Since we have signed today a treaty on security guarantees with the use of all available forces and means, I believe that the deployment of such complexes as Oreshnik on the territory of the Republic of Belarus is feasible. This is the first point.

Second. I think, this will become possible in the second half of next year, as the production of such systems is ratcheted up, as these systems are mass-produced in Russia, and as these missile systems enter service with the Russian Strategic Missile Forces.

And there are obviously a number of technical issues to be addressed by specialists, namely, identifying the minimum range in view of the priorities of ensuring the security of the Republic of Belarus. Specialists should look into the matter, but I think that it is possible, given that this will require minimal costs. I mean that Belarus retained certain infrastructural capabilities from the times of the Soviet Union, so the deployment of such missile systems in Belarus will incur minimal costs to prepare the infrastructure.

Of course, although they will be part of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, nevertheless, it will certainly be up to the military and political leadership of the Republic of Belarus to identify the targets on the territory of the potential adversary. This is obvious.

So, we will discuss all this in a routine mode. I must only say right away – experts are well aware of this – the shorter the range, the greater the striking power of the warhead. Well, we will talk more about technical details later.

Thank you.

Alexander Lukashenko: Thank you, Mr Putin. I am quite satisfied with the answer – the second half of next year.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, the second half of next year. By that time, according to our preliminary estimates, we will have established series production. These systems will enter service with the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. And concurrently we will begin deploying them on the territory of Belarus.

Alexander Lukashenko: I took advantage of our friendship in the sense that if you want something from Putin, make him promise it publicly.

Thank you!

News conference following 16th BRICS Summit

2024-10-25T20:46:54+04:00

The President of Russia is giving a news conference following the 16^th BRICS Summit.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Ladies and gentlemen,

The 16^th BRICS Summit has just concluded with great success.

It marked the culmination of Russia's chairmanship of the group and was one of the significant events on the global political calendar.

I have stated on numerous occasions that Russia has approached its BRICS chairmanship with full responsibility. Over 200 events were organised across thirteen Russian cities. Notably, numerous meetings of sectoral ministers took place, alongside various conferences, seminars, and the Business Forum. The Sports Games were also conducted very successfully.

This year, we have operated in the new expanded format and Russia as the group's chair has made every effort to ensure that new nations join our family swiftly and seamlessly. In my view, we have succeeded in this endeavour.

The new countries have witnessed and understood that it is feasible to work and achieve results within BRICS. They have come to appreciate that the cornerstone of our group is mutual respect and obligatory consideration of each other's interests. I can state with satisfaction that all of them are actively participating in working forums and are putting forward useful and promising ideas and initiatives.

Regarding the Kazan Summit itself, delegations from 35 countries and six international organisations participated in it, as you are already aware. Such broad representation clearly underscores the authority and role of BRICS, as well as the growing interest in cooperation with us from states that are indeed pursuing truly independent and sovereign policies.

Each of these countries has its own path of development, distinct models of economic growth, and a rich history and culture. It is obviously this civilisational diversity and unique combination of national traditions that underlie the strength and enormous potential for cooperation not only within BRICS but also within the broader circle of like-minded countries that share the group's goals and principles.

The Summit’s agenda was quite extensive. BRICS countries have held meetings in narrow and expanded formats to discuss pressing issues of the group’s activities and prospects for expanding partnerships across three main areas: politics and security, trade and investment, and cultural and humanitarian exchanges.

Following the tradition, a BRICS Plus/Outreach-format meeting was held as well. This format has a proven track record and provides an opportunity for holding a direct and open dialogue between BRICS states and our friends and partners from the Global South and East. This year, Russia, as the current chair of BRICS, invited leaders from the CIS countries and delegations from many Asian, African and Latin American countries, as well as heads of executive bodies of a number of international organisations to attend this meeting.

We exchanged views on key international issues with a focus on the escalation in the Middle East. We also explored prospects for cooperation between BRICS states and countries from the Global South and East in the interests of inclusive sustainable development.

Most importantly, all sessions and events that I just mentioned took place in a traditionally business-like and open atmosphere fostering mutual understanding that is customary for BRICS. This constructive approach to joint work allowed us to conduct an in-depth discussion of a wide range of issues over the course of three days.

The Kazan Declaration which summed up the discussions was approved at the summit. It is a comprehensive conceptual document with a positive forward-looking agenda. Importantly, it reaffirms the commitment of all BRICS countries to building a more democratic, inclusive, and multipolar world order based on international law and the UN Charter. It also underscores our collective determination to oppose the practice of imposing unlawful sanctions and attempts to erode traditional moral values.

BRICS countries are committed to deepening partnerships in the financial sphere. We will continue to enhance interbank communication and to work on creating mechanisms for payments in national currencies that are immune to external risks.

During the Summit, we also discussed at length possible joint efforts to further stimulate investment in order to promote economic growth in BRICS states and countries of the Global South and East. We will engage, among other means, the New Development Bank led by its President Dilma Rousseff.

Russia proposed extending Brazil’s presidency and the presidency of Dilma Rousseff at this bank, since Brazil is presiding over the G20 this year, and next year it will take on the BRICS presidency. Let us face it, with the situation around Russia in mind, we believe this approach will help the institutions which we want to see developing further avoid challenges that are specific to Russia. We will manage these challenges effectively on our own.

There are promising prospects for bolstering sectoral cooperation and implementing new projects in industry, energy, logistics, high technology and many other key areas. Naturally, there is also potential for enhancing collaboration among our nations in the realms of culture, science, and sports, as well as through youth and civic organisations.

In Kazan, we reaffirmed that BRICS is not a closed format; it is open to all those who share BRICS values. The group's members are prepared to work towards identifying joint solutions without external impositions or attempts to enforce narrow approaches upon anyone. BRICS is compelled to respond to the burgeoning demand in the world for such cooperation. Accordingly, we devoted particular attention to the matter of potential BRICS expansion through the establishment of a new category – that of partner states.

During these days, the leaders and members of the delegations engaged in numerous informal interactions. Many bilateral meetings, contacts, and discussions took place. Our delegation endeavoured to meet with leaders of the majority of the participating countries.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Summit has concluded. I wish to express my gratitude once again to all my colleagues, who travelled to Kazan, for their contributions to our collective efforts. I must highlight that their input was quite substantial.

Throughout our chairmanship, we have felt the vigorous support of our partners. This is crucial, particularly as it does not cease with the conclusion of the Summit. There are several significant joint undertakings to be completed before the year's end. As I have previously stated, next year we shall pass the baton of chairmanship to Brazil. Naturally, we shall extend all necessary assistance to our Brazilian friends. We will continue to coordinate closely with all BRICS partners to further enhance cooperation within this framework.

Furthermore, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the leadership of Tatarstan and the Kazan Mayor's Office for their hospitality and efforts to create a conducive environment for our joint work.

I also wish to apologise to the residents of Kazan for any inconvenience they may have experienced, such as moving motorcades and the closure of certain highways. However, I assure you that these disruptions were not in vain. I am grateful to you for creating such favourable conditions for our work. Thank you very much.

I must apologise in advance, but we are unable to engage in lengthy discussions with you, as I have several more bilateral meetings, approximately seven, and cannot keep my colleagues waiting. Nonetheless, if there are any questions, please feel free to ask.

Question: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

Mr President, could you please share the details about financial cooperation between BRICS countries? Was a common investment platform discussed? Was the creation of an alternative payment system, an alternative to SWIFT payment network, brought up?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Speaking of SWIFT or alternatives to it, we are not creating any alternatives to anything, but settlements are, indeed, a critical issue which is why we are using our respective national currencies, which is a well-known fact.

Regarding payment systems, we are using the Russian financial messaging system created by the Central Bank of Russia. Other BRICS countries also have their own systems, which we will also use, are already using and will continue to use.

However, we are not inventing a separate common system, since we are doing well with what we have. All we need to do is take timely administrative decisions, which we also discussed with our colleagues, and we will continue down that path.

Question: Good afternoon.

Ilya Yezhov, RIA Novosti.

Mr President, the Kazan forum was the first summit for BRICS not as a five-member group but as a group with a broader geographic representation. Discussions about expanding it are underway, and your colleagues, including today, were clear about their willingness to work more closely with BRICS. The BRICS partner country format has been explored as well.

Could you please share how this work is going and what is the key message that the Kazan Summit sent out regarding the further expansion of BRICS?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, I mentioned earlier that many countries are interested in joining this group. Thirty-five countries participated in the events in Kazan, and we agreed with our partners that we will approve a list of partner countries during the first phase of the potential expansion. This list has been agreed upon.

Some countries that took part in the events held yesterday and today have submitted their proposals and requests for a full-fledged participation in the work of the BRICS group.

Our next steps will be as follows: we will send out invitations and proposals to future partner countries for them to take part in our work in this capacity and, upon receiving positive responses, we will announce the countries on that list. It would be inappropriate to do so before we receive their responses, even though all these countries have previously filed requests.

Question: Good afternoon.

Viktor Sineok, MIC Izvestia.

It is known that the issue of the Ukraine conflict was raised during your numerous bilateral meetings. Could you please elaborate on the context in which you discussed the developments within the special military operation zone? In your opinion, how do the partners with whom you had discussions perceive this conflict, and did they express any support for our country?

Vladimir Putin: All the parties are in favour of resolving the conflict at the earliest opportunity, preferably through peaceful means. You may be aware that the People's Republic of China and Brazil put forward an initiative at the General Assembly in New York. Numerous BRICS nations endorse these initiatives, and we, in turn, extend our gratitude to our partners for their attention to this conflict and their pursuit of methods to resolve it.

Question: Mr President, Keir Simmons from NBC News.

Mr President, satellite images are said to show North Korean troops are here, in Russia. What are they doing here and wouldn’t that be a massive escalation in the Ukraine war?

And, Mr President, we are weeks away from US election. Russia again is accused of interfering, and that you have had private conversations with former President [Donald] Trump. Have you been speaking with him? And what have you been saying?

Vladimir Putin: Allow me to address the first part of your question.

Images are a serious matter. If images exist, they indicate something.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it was not Russia's actions that precipitated the escalation in Ukraine, but rather the 2014 coup d’etat, supported primarily by the United States. It was even publicly disclosed how much financial support the then US Administration allocated towards preparing and orchestrating this coup. Is this not a pathway to escalation?

Subsequently, we were misled for eight years with assurances that everyone sought to resolve the conflict in Ukraine through peaceful means, specifically via the Minsk Agreements. Later on, and I am certain you have heard this as well, several European leaders openly admitted that they had been deceiving us, as they had used that time to arm the Ukrainian military. Is this not the case? It is indeed.

Further steps towards escalation involved Western countries actively arming the Kiev regime. What was the outcome? It led to the direct involvement of NATO troops in this conflict. We are aware of the actions undertaken and the methods employed when unmanned marine vehicles are deployed in the Black Sea. We know who is present there, from which European countries – NATO members they are, and how they conduct these operations.

The same applies to military instructors, not mercenaries, but military personnel. This also pertains to the deployment of high-precision modern weaponry, including missiles such as ATACMS, Storm Shadow, and so on. Ukrainian servicemen cannot execute these operations without space reconnaissance, target indication and Western software – requiring the direct involvement of officers from NATO countries.

With regard to our relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, you may be aware that the Treaty on Strategic Partnership was ratified, I believe, just today. It has Article 4, and we have never doubted the fact that the DPRK leadership takes our agreements seriously. However, it is up to us to decide what we will do and how we are going to do it, and we will act in accordance with this article. First, we need to hold talks regarding the implementation of Article 4. However, we will be in contact with our North Korean friends to see how this process unfolds.

In any case, the Russian army is acting confidently on all fronts, which is a well-known and undisputed fact. It is advancing on all sections of the frontline. Active operations are underway in the Kursk direction as well. A portion of the Ukrainian forces that invaded the Kursk Region, about 2,000 troops, has been blocked and encircled. Attempts are being made to break this group free from the outside and from within, but they have remained unsuccessful so far. The Russian army has begun an operation to eliminate this group.

With regard to contacts with Mr Trump, this issue has been making headlines for years now. At one point, Mr Trump and Russia were accused of being connected. However, after an investigation conducted in the United States, everyone, including US Congress, concluded that it was utter nonsense and that nothing of the kind ever happened. There were no contacts back then, and there are none now.

Russia-US relations after the elections depend primarily on the United States. If the United States is open to building normal relations with Russia, we will do the same. If not, so be it. This is up to the future Administration.

Question: Good afternoon.

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV channel.

May I follow-up on your conversations with Mr Trump? The former US President, now a candidate for the US Presidency, has claimed that during one of his telephone conversations with you, he supposedly threatened to strike the centre of Moscow. Is there any truth to this assertion?

Furthermore, is it possible to threaten you at all? Do threats have any impact on you? How do you perceive the fact that, in the current landscape of high-level politics, conversations between leaders are increasingly being exposed to the public domain, if that story is true?

Additionally, if I may, a question regarding BRICS Summit: do you currently feel isolated? Do you perhaps miss engaging with your Western counterparts?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question, as to whether it is possible to use threats. Well, you can threaten anyone. However, it serves no purpose to threaten Russia, as it merely strengthens our resolve. I do not recall having such a conversation with Mr Trump. This is undoubtedly a very intense phase of the electoral campaign in the United States, and I would advise against taking statements of this nature too seriously. However, what Mr Trump has recently expressed, which I have heard, is his wish to do everything possible to bring an end to the conflict in Ukraine. I think he is sincere about that. Statements of this nature, regardless of their origin, are certainly welcomed by us.

You know, we receive various signals from our Western partners concerning potential contacts. We have not isolated ourselves from such engagements. When it is alleged that we refuse, or I refuse, to engage in conversations or maintain contacts, including with European leaders, I must clarify that this is untrue. We do not refuse, we have never refused, and we are not refusing now. If anyone wishes to restore relations with us, they are welcome to do so. We constantly repeat this, although we do not impose ourselves upon others.

As you can observe, we continue to live and work normally, and our economy is developing. Last year, our growth was between 3.4 and 3.6 percent; this year, it is projected to be around four percent or perhaps 3.9 percent. Meanwhile, the eurozone's economy is on the verge of recession. In the United States, there is growth, estimated at about 3.1 to 3.2 percent, which is not bad. However, they also face significant challenges, including deficits in three major areas: foreign trade deficit, payments deficit, and a huge debt, which, I believe, stands at US$34 trillion.

We, too, encounter challenges, but it is preferable that we refrain from disputes or conflicts and instead focus on how to address these issues collaboratively. This is precisely what we are doing within the BRICS framework.

Question retranslated): Thank you very much.

A journalist from Cameroon.

Mr President,

Our team is just back from Donbass. We are putting together a documentary to show how things really are in Donbass and to tell everyone what it means for Africa.

Mr President, we are aware of the fact that many African countries have fallen victims to terrorism and other destabilising actions. At the same time, we see Russia helping the Central African Republic and other Sahel countries. Before Russia’s involvement, other countries were present there, but only after Russia had come in the situation stabilised in many of these countries. So, my question is: is it not time for Russia to deepen this kind of partnership with African states not only in the military sphere, but in other spheres as well?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I fully agree with you. This is the point of our cooperation with BRICS partner countries. Creating an investment platform within BRICS is precisely the goal of our efforts.

We believe that in the near future – I have just spoken with my colleagues at the conclusion of today’s Summit – our experts suggest that the economies of countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and others will develop at a steady and positive pace. However, there are regions around the world where growth will go at a very fast pace. These are primarily South Asian and African countries. This is exactly why we, within BRICS, are addressing the issue of creating a new investment platform using the latest electronic tools. The goal is to create a system that could – surprisingly enough it is an achievable goal – be non-inflationary and to create proper conditions for investing in efficiently and quickly developing markets worldwide, especially in Africa.

Why do we think that? I believe many will agree with me. There are several reasons for that.

First, these countries are experiencing significant population growth. In Africa… Yesterday, I spoke with the Prime Minister of India. They have a yearly population growth of ten million people. That means ten million more people in India every year. Africa is growing rapidly as well.

Second, these regions of the world are less urbanised, but urbanisation will definitely ramp up, and both people and countries will strive to catch up with the living standards in other regions of the world, including Europe.

All of that, and some other factors, shows that growth rates… Yes, and capital accumulation will happen as well, and is already happening. All of this suggests that we should focus on these regions around the world.

We, in BRICS, are trying to create a working group at the BRICS New Development Bank in order to develop mechanisms for effective and reliable investment in these countries. I believe this will benefit everyone, including the investors and the recipient countries. New production facilities will be created, which will be efficient and ensure return on investment.

To achieve this, we need to create tools that are immune to external risks, especially those of political nature. I think we can do this. This is the path we will follow.

Thank you. This is a very important question.

Steven Rosenberg, BBC: I have read the final BRICS statement, which refers to the need for global and regional stability, security and just peace. In general, the motto of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship includes such notions, it seems to me – justice and security. But how does all this relate to your actions in the last two and a half years, with the invasion of Ukraine? Where is justice, stability and security, including the security of Russia? Because there were no drone attacks on Russian territory, no shelling of Russian cities, and no foreign troops occupying Russian territory before the start of the special military operation – this did not happen.

And last: how does this all fit in with the recent statement by British intelligence that Russia has set out to wreak havoc on the streets of Britain and Europe with arson, sabotage and so on? Where is the stability?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will start with Russia’s security because it is the most important thing for me.

You have mentioned drone attacks and so on. Yes, this was not the case, but there was a much worse situation. The situation was that we were constantly put in our place as we made constant and persistent proposals to establish contacts and relations with the countries of the Western. I can say this for sure. It seemed kind of gentle, but basically, we were always put in our place.

And eventually that placing would have led Russia to the category of second-rate countries to only function as raw material appendages with the loss of the country's sovereignty to a certain degree and to a large extent. In such a capacity Russia is unable not only to develop, it just cannot exist. Russia cannot exist if it loses its sovereignty. This is what matters most. Russia’s breaking away from that condition, strengthening its sovereignty and economic, financial and military independence amounts to our security being increased and conditions being created for Russia to steadily develop in the future as an independent, full-fledged and self-sufficient state, with the kind of partners we have in BRICS, who respect Russia's independence, respect our traditions, and whom we treat the same way.

As for justice in the spheres of development and security, I have my arguments regarding this, and I will try to answer your question. Here are my points.

What is justice as applied to development? Consider the recent events that took place during the coronavirus pandemic. What happened at that time? I would like to draw your attention and the attention of all the other media representatives to this issue. During that period, the United States printed about $6 trillion, and the Eurozone countries printed about $3 trillion or slightly more than that. All that money was used in the global market to buy everything and anything, primarily food but also medicines and vaccines, which are now being destroyed en masse because they are past their sell-by date. They placed all these products on the market, thereby provoking food inflation and various other kinds of inflation worldwide.

What did the world’s leading economies do? They abused their exclusive positions in global finance, in terms of both the dollar and the euro. They printed money and used it to buy up the products they needed the most. They – you – consume more than they produce or have the money to buy. Is this fair? We do not think so, and we would like to change this. This is what BRICS is doing.

Now, about security in general. I have already presented my views regarding Russia’s security. I see what you mean. But is it fair in terms of security that you have for years disregarded our repeated requests to our partners not to expand NATO eastward? Is it fair that you lied through your teeth, saying that the bloc would not expand while doing precisely that in violation of your commitments? Is it fair that you have moved into our underbelly, that is Ukraine, and started building – not preparing to build but actually building military bases there? Is this fair?

Is it fair that you staged a government coup, which I spoke about when answering your colleague’s question, in complete disregard of international law and all the tenets of international law and the UN Charter? Is it fair that you financed a government coup in a foreign country, specifically Ukraine, and pushed the situation there towards a hot phase? Is this fair in terms of global security?

Is it fair that you violated your commitments within the OSCE, when all Western countries signed a document stating that no country may ensure its security at the expense of other countries? We warned you against doing this – against expanding NATO – because it infringed on our security. But you did it nevertheless. Is this fair?

This is not fair. We want to change this, and we will change it.

Could you repeat the last part of the question, please?

Question: It concerns claims by UK intelligence that Russia is generating mayhem on British streets.

Vladimir Putin: Look, thank you for repeating this part of your question, but it is absolute drivel.

You see, the domestic policies of these states have led to the scenes we have been witnessing on the streets in some European cities. However, you and I know all too well, and I have already mentioned this in my remarks, that the European economy is teetering on the brink of a recession, while the Euro zone’s leading economies have de facto entered a recession. Even if they do succeed in expanding their economies by a meagre 0.5 percent, this would be attributable to the south, where there are no major manufacturers, as well as to the real estate sector, tourism, etc. But are we to be blamed for that? What do we have to do with this?

All of a sudden, Western countries, I mean European nations, decided not to use our fuel and energy. We have never turned our backs on them. By the way, there is still a functional pipeline in the Baltic Sea – it is part of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. All the German authorities have to do is just press a button to resume supplies. But they are not doing this for political reasons, while their main partner engineered a situation – go figure why and for what reason – that has forced an entire sector of the German economy to move to the United States because the government there offers a more favourable business environment. The primary sources of energy there are three times cheaper than in Europe, if I am not mistaken, or maybe four times, and the tax framework is also different. They know what they are doing. But what do we have to do with all this?

Faced with deteriorating living standards and a higher cost of living, people have responded accordingly. This is quite obvious, and statistics from these European countries make this abundantly clear. But what do we have to do with all this? How can anyone blame us for that? This amounts to shifting the blame onto others and trying to avoid responsibility for erroneous economic and domestic policies.

As far as the economy is concerned, I think this is quite obvious to any impartial expert. However, there have been widespread attempts in Europe and other countries, as well as in the United States to abuse the environmental agenda and climate change-related matters, and they are still doing this. They are running ahead of the train for no particular reason, since the technology has yet to reach a point where these actions would make sense. They are closing everything related to nuclear power generation, or coal, which started even earlier, and in general have launched this crackdown on hydrocarbons.

But has anyone done the math? Can Africa get along without these hydrocarbons? The answer is no. They are trying to impose the latest tools and solutions for preserving the environment on African countries, as well as several other developing markets, but these countries have no money to pay for them. Just give them the money then. But no, they are not getting it. At the same time, I believe that the tools the West uses are neo-colonial practices consisting of humiliating these countries and making them dependent on Western technology and loans. They engage in predatory lending practices so that these countries would never be able to repay them. This is yet another neo-colonial tool.

This is why we have to start by looking at what the West has achieved with its economic, financial and domestic policies. Of course, people get scared whenever the international situation deteriorates or when they witness escalation in various conflict zones, be it the Middle East or Ukraine. But we are not the ones behind this escalation. It is always the other side that seeks to escalate tension.

But we are ready for this escalation. It is up to you to decide whether the countries who are doing this are also ready.

Question: Areej Muhammad, Moscow bureau for Sky News Arabia, United Arab Emirates.

Mr President, a number of reports suggest that Moscow may provide support to Iran in the event of an Israeli attack. What do you think of these reports? Do they accurately reflect the situation? Is Russia considering assistance during this round of escalation in the region?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, we are very concerned about what is happening in the region. No matter what anyone says, Russia is not interested in further aggravating this conflict. Strategically, we stand to gain nothing from it; we will only face additional problems.

As for assistance to Iran, first of all, we maintain close contact with the Iranian leadership. Of course, we do. We see our role as facilitating a settlement, above all, by [helping the sides] reach compromises. I believe this is possible. In fact, no one in that region – the meetings I had on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit confirm this – that no one in the region wants further escalation. No one wants a major war there.

Question: Mr President,

Tursunbek Akun, Kyrgyzstan. I chair the human rights organisation of Kyrgyzstan. I am also the coordinator of the human rights congress in Central Asia. I represent not only Kyrgyzstan, but also the public of all Central Asian countries.

First of all, I congratulate you on the excellent organisation of the BRICS Summit. Like many people around the world, I can hardly envy you for being the President of the Russian Federation. This is an extremely heavy burden, but no matter how heavy it is, you are carrying it with honour.

The West has been trying to isolate Russia from the rest of the world for almost three years, but today that attempt ended in a complete failure. This is confirmed by the results of the BRICS Summit, where your political and state stance was supported by about 35 countries. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and other international organisations are attending this Summit.

Today, historic events occurred on Russian soil, in Kazan, marking the moment when the multipolar world finally gained the upper hand. The unipolar world led by the United States is gradually losing its significance and ground. The BRICS Plus leaders’ meeting featured discussions on the most complex issues concerning the Middle East, where Israel has been refusing to comply with the UN resolution, and openly ignoring UN decisions. In fact, the UN Secretary-General was declared persona non grata there. Iran launched a massive strike on Israel, and now Israel is announcing retaliatory actions. According to open sources, it is preparing to bomb Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities.

I have a question and a suggestion. US military forces are patrolling the Persian Gulf to help Israel. Should the BRICS countries, chaired by Russia, take steps to offset the unilateral domination of the United States and Israel and give an appropriate response to their actions if they start a war against other states? Along with US warships now patrolling off the Gulf shores, Russian warships and those of other BRICS countries should also be present to support Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon. This alone should put an end to the lawless actions of the United States and Israel.

And the second question, Mr President. The United States and the West are making every effort to denigrate you once again by claiming that the President of Russia is refusing to negotiate. However, you have laid out your demands and conditions before Zelensky’s Swiss summit. They did not accept them. Do your demands remain unchanged? I am sure you never refused to negotiate, did you?

Vladimir Putin: A colleague asked about our relations with Iran and our readiness to provide assistance.

First, a few words about the situation in the Middle East. I spoke about it earlier today and would like to repeat it here. I believe that there is no person on Earth whose heart does not bleed when they see what is happening in Gaza. Over 40,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed. Our position on this is clear, and you know it. We have stated it clearly, including how the situation can be resolved. The solution can only be found by addressing the root causes, the primary one being the lack of a fully recognised, sovereign Palestinian state. It is necessary to implement all relevant UN Security Council resolutions on this matter.

However, we must engage with all participants in the process and, under no circumstances, allow the conflict to escalate or intensify. This includes working with Israel, which, it must be acknowledged, faced a terrorist attack in October of last year.

We must carefully and calmly analyse the situation, ensuring that disproportionate responses to these terror acts are not encouraged. It is essential to engage with all sides and work towards de-escalation, including along the Lebanese track. I believe this is achievable overall, but it requires very careful action. To be honest, I have to take great care as I speak, because every careless word could harm this delicate process. On the whole, I would like to thank you for raising this issue, as it is of utmost importance.

Regarding negotiations with Ukraine, I have spoken on this many times before. We are grateful to President of Turkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who once provided a platform for talks with the Ukrainian delegation. At the end of 2022, through these negotiations, we reached a potential agreement, a draft peace accord. The Ukrainian delegation had initialled it, which meant they were satisfied with it – but then they suddenly backed out.

Recently, Turkiye once again reached out, with President Erdogan’s aide calling from New York, saying there were new proposals for negotiations that they asked us to consider. I agreed and said we were open to it. The next day, however, the head of the Kiev regime abruptly announced that they were not planning to negotiate with us. We told our Turkish colleagues: “Thank you for your efforts, but first, please clarify with your clients whether they actually want negotiations or not. Let them say it outright.” As far as we know, in Ukraine’s parliament, instead of hearing any proposals for peace, another plan was announced – a so-called victory plan. Well, alright then.

As for the victory: last year, during their so-called counteroffensive operation, Ukraine’s losses amounted to around 16,000 personnel, both killed and permanently wounded. Now, just in the last month or so, in the Kursk theatre alone, losses have reached 26,000 – again, in irreparable losses and casualties. As for equipment, during last year’s counteroffensive, they lost about 18,000 pieces of military hardware, if I remember correctly. Now that number has increased by almost another thousand. True, they lost nearly 100 fewer tanks, but I believe that is because they are simply using fewer tanks due to a shortage in the Ukrainian army.

However, rather than listing such numbers, it would be better to face the realities on the ground and sit down at the negotiating table. But the Kiev regime does not want that. I think this is partly because starting peace talks would require lifting martial law, and immediately after that, they would have to hold presidential elections. It seems they are not ready for that yet. But the ball is in their court.

Question: Could you tell us what you would be willing to accept for ending the war in Ukraine, and where is the limit?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have just told you that we are ready to discuss a peace agreement in any shape or form based on the reality on the ground. That is to say, I am not ready to accept anything else.

Question (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

I am from Saudi Arabia.

It can be argued that the BRICS group has already moved beyond the stage when it could be referred to as a platform. Can we refer to it as some kind of a centralised governance framework at this juncture?

I think that BRICS needs some form of a centralised governance framework at this current stage in its development, or a body that would serve as a hub for managing all these contacts around the world. For example, one country may be chairing BRICS today, only to be replaced by another country tomorrow, which could be less effective in this role.

My second point on this matter concerns Russia’s desire to create a mechanism of this kind for working with its partners. Would it be possible for the Central Bank and the New Development Bank, which already exists, to work with other similar banks in other countries? After all, we do need funds for promoting mutual investment.

My final question is whether you have discussed Saudi Arabia’s accession to BRICS?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me start with the way we operate the BRICS group. Of course, institutionalising this group has become an obvious imperative for us. You were spot on when you said that we need to give this group a structure. Of course, my colleagues and I will think about it and will work on this matter. Overall, every participating country is unique and self-sufficient, in its own way. At the same time, we are all sincere in our commitment to developing and strengthening our union. Therefore, I do not think that BRICS could fail in any way. I do not see this happening.

At the same time, we would prefer not to create too much red tape within BRICS, so that we have all these officials driving luxury cars and employing all the staff members they need, getting generous salaries, while no one has a clear understanding of who is doing what. That said, I do agree that we need to bring more structure into our efforts, so this is something we can think about.

As for the bank, as I mentioned earlier, we already have the New Development Bank. For now, it operates on a rather modest scale, having provided funding for 100 projects worth about $32-$33 billion. As for investment, this is an extremely important topic. It is instrumental for Saudi Arabia, Russia and other countries like China and India to ensure that their investment in emerging markets is reliable and safe. This is something that really matters to us. Our proposals on establishing a new investment platform are designed to achieve this goal.

As for Saudi Arabia, let me assure you that we have been maintaining effective ties with the Crown Prince, who is our friend, as well as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques – the King of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia’s representatives took part in our work today, and we hope that this cooperation expands and gains momentum in the future.

Question (retranslated): My name is Bianca, and I am a reporter for GloboNews, the principal television network in Brazil.

My question pertains to Venezuela. Yesterday, you expressed gratitude to President Nicolas Maduro for his endeavours, including his participation in BRICS. However, Brazil opposes this. I would like to ascertain which side Russia supports and whether Venezuela could join BRICS despite Brazil's objections.

Furthermore, regarding Ukraine, you also expressed appreciation to Brazil and China for their efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine through political means. I would like to inquire, on a scale of one to ten, what probability you assign to the success of this peace plan in Ukraine? Additionally, what, in your view, is utterly unacceptable?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First and foremost, with regard to the probability, it is challenging for me, and I believe it would be inappropriate, to provide any numerical assessment from one to ten. This is due, in part, to the fact that… I do not wish to sound discourteous, but the attempts to initiate negotiations followed by the abandonment of such initiatives… I have mentioned that a high-ranking representative from Turkiye contacted us directly from New York. Prior to this, Turkiye had also proposed an initiative concerning the situation in the Black Sea, aimed at ensuring safe and free navigation, as well as discussing and formalising certain arrangements and agreements related to the security of nuclear power facilities. We agreed to this. However, the leader of the Kiev regime subsequently declared publicly: no negotiations. We conveyed to our Turkish friends: you should resolve this matter; you present us with a proposal referencing them, we agree, and then we receive a refusal merely a day later – what does that signify? They simply shrugged, indicating the complexity of dealing with such partners.

Why do I assert that it is exceedingly difficult to evaluate this on a scale from one to ten? The behaviour of the Ukrainian leadership today is highly irrational. Trust me, I am well-informed on this matter. I shall refrain from offering further evaluations at this juncture. For instance, I believe their provocations in the Kursk Region are associated with attempts to influence the internal political situation and the electoral process in the United States. They seek, at any cost, to demonstrate to the current Administration and its electorate and the party that their investments in Ukraine have not been futile. They are utilising all means, regardless of the cost, including the lives of their soldiers. They are working for them, not for the interests of the Ukrainian people. Thus, it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to assess the situation using any kind of scale.

Turning to Brazil and its perspective on the ongoing developments in Venezuela, we know what they think about it. Russia and Brazil hold different views regarding Venezuela. I discussed this with the President of Brazil the other day. Otherwise, we have developed very good, friendly relations. At least this is how I see it.

Venezuela is fighting for its independence and sovereignty. I remember a time – it happened after the previous election – when an opposition leader came to a square, looked up at the sky and proclaimed in front of the Lord thy God that he viewed himself as President. How ridiculous.

At the time, we discussed this situation with the US leadership. After all, they supported, and still support, the opposition. But they did not say anything at the time, and just smiled in response. That was it. What an awkward situation, right? Anyone can step outside, look at the sky and say that he or she can be anyone, why not the Pope, for that matter. But this is not how it works. This is not how it is supposed to happen. There are specific election procedures. Go to the polls and win an election.

We believe that President Maduro won the election, and that the election was fair. He has formed his government, and we wish his government and the people of Venezuela every success.

I do hope that Brazil and Venezuela will be able to iron out their differences bilaterally. I know President Lula to be a very descent and honest man, and I am certain he will take an impartial and unbiased position on this situation. During our telephone conversation, he asked me to convey a message to the President of Venezuela. I hope that the situation improves.

As for enabling Venezuela, or any other country for that matter, to join BRICS, I can say that this can only be achieved by consensus. We have a rule whereby all countries within this group must give their consent for accepting any other applicants into the BRICS group. This is the only way this can be done.

I beg your indulgence, but my colleagues are waiting for me at a bilateral meeting. This is a hard choice for me: I can stay here and talk to you, or go to the meeting. So, please, forgive me, and do not hold it against me.

Thank you very much.

Meeting with journalists from BRICS countries

2024-10-19T18:31:42+04:00

Vladimir Putin answered questions from the heads of leading BRICS media agencies. The meeting was held ahead of the BRICS summit in Kazan.

The meeting was attended by the heads of media agencies from Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the UAE. It was moderated by Head of the Rossiya Segodnya Media Group Dmitry Kiselev.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, gentlemen, friends,

I am very glad to see you. Our group is expanding; we have made more friends within BRICS, and there is significant interest in its activities. Both my colleagues and I have said this many times. Of course, this interest is also growing thanks to your work, support and coverage of what we do together with our colleagues and friends, the heads of BRICS countries.

The summit will begin soon. Ahead of it, we will host the President of the United Arab Emirates for a visit the day after tomorrow. We have an informal dinner scheduled for Sunday here, followed by the visit on Monday. On Tuesday, we will commence our work in Kazan.

We have a very busy agenda planned. A great deal has happened over the year of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship, which I believe will be of interest to you. I will be happy to discuss this briefly. Please forgive me, but I will not go into detail, as it is impossible to retain all the information in mind at all times due to the diverse and comprehensive nature of our cooperation. We collaborate in all areas, and I think you will be interested in talking with specialists on each of them.

I hope that you, your colleagues or your teams will have the opportunity to speak with professionals, including during the summit in Kazan.

Perhaps that is all I wanted to say at the beginning. I will now give the floor to you, so as not to take up more of your time. I will do my best to answer your questions as fully as I can on every aspect of our conversation today.

Go ahead, please.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, we are very grateful to you for finding the time in your insanely intense schedule to meet with us.

This intensity is evidenced by the fact that in four days in Kazan, you will not only take part in the summit and have a big news conference, but also hold over two dozen bilateral meetings. You are absolutely right that it is difficult to wrap one’s mind around it.

Vladimir Putin: Seventeen.

Dmitry Kiselev: Seventeen, right – about two dozen bilateral meetings.

The meeting we are holding now is crucial not just to us personally, but to the entire planet, because the media represented here have a total audience of several billion people. We will get across your answers to our questions to our viewers, listeners, and readers.

I would like to ask the first question. Perhaps it will be somewhat general. The world is changing so rapidly that sometimes we cannot keep track of how different is has become. What are the signs of these changes and what opportunities do they open for BRICS?

Vladimir Putin: The most important sign is the emergence of new development centres. This is the most important sign. According to experts, whom I trust and whose opinions I heed, this development will be focused primarily in BRICS countries. This is the Global South, Southeast Asia and Africa.

Powerhouses like China and India will record positive growth. Positive growth will also be in Russia and Saudi Arabia. But countries of Southeast Asia and Africa will demonstrate outstripping growth rates, and for several reasons.

First, the development level in those countries, where positive but limited dynamics is expected, indicates that those countries have already reached a certain level of development. Second, those countries that I have mentioned, that will have outstripping growth rate, still have an insufficient level of urbanisation and a high rate of population growth. Without doubt, these two factors will influence the formation of new centres of economic growth to be followed by enhancing political influence.

Regarding BRICS countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa, it is evident that their expanding economic potential will lead to their bigger global influence. This is an undeniable fact and it simply reflects objective reality.

As my colleagues, partners and friends have often noted, BRICS represents 45 percent of the world’s population, covers 33 percent of the Earth’s land area, and has a continuous growth in trade and global commerce.

I recently spoke with the BRICS Business Council and entrepreneurs from our nations, sharing the figures I have previously mentioned. When comparing 1992 to 2023, the combined growth of the BRICS countries’ share in the global GDP has doubled, while the growth of the G7 countries has slowed down. By this measure, the BRICS nations have already surpassed the G7. Moreover, it is evident that by 2028, this trend will continue, with the gap favouring the BRICS countries only widening. This is a clear and undeniable fact.

In certain sectors, humanity’s existence is impossible without the BRICS countries, particularly in food and energy markets and so on. However, in high-tech fields, especially in the development and application of artificial intelligence, we are not only acquiring competencies but also emerging as leaders in certain areas. This represents a significant shift, one of the most important and noticeable changes in today’s world.

This is a natural occurrence, and there is nothing wrong with it. The world is always evolving, and new leaders continuously emerge. We should accept this calmly as a reality and focus on building our relationships with one another accordingly.

What sets BRICS apart from many other international organisations? BRICS was never meant to be created in opposition to anyone. The Prime Minister of India put it best. He said BRICS is not an anti-Western alliance; it is simply non-Western. This distinction is very important and has great meaning. That is, BRICS does not set itself in opposition to anyone. It is a group of countries that work together, guided by shared values, a common vision for development, and, most importantly, by the consideration of each other’s interests. This is the foundation on which we will be working in Kazan.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you, Mr President.

It is true that BRICS countries make up 45 percent of the planet’s population, but even if BRCIS does not make the global majority, then it definitely represents it, because many countries that are not part of BRICS wish this group success and share its values.

I am very happy to present Mr Fan Yun, my colleague from China, who is the editor-in-chief at CGTN and deputy editor-in-chief of China Media Group, deputy of Mr Shen Haixiong. We are giving him the floor first in view of your personal relationship with President Xi Jinping and special relations between Russia and China. Afterwards, we will move clockwise.

Please, Mr Fan Yun.

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of China Media Group, CGTN Director and Editor-in-Chief Fan Yun (retranslated): Mr President,

I am very glad to represent Chinese media at this meeting.

The BRICS summit in Kazan is the first one after the group’s expansion, so we are paying special attention to it. How do you think BRICS countries’ growing role and BRICS expansion will help promote its influence?

You have already mentioned that the group overall accounts for over 33 percent of the global GDP. What contribution will this make to the development of the entire world?

Vladimir Putin: Now BRICS includes ten countries. Each of them is of interest and value to the world community and, of course, to such group as BRICS. Each of these countries has its unique culture, its unique history, its own advantages in the global division of labour, and interaction with these countries is of interest to all BRICS participants.

Of course, when new players, new participants – full-fledged participants – appear and join any international organisation, they make their own contribution. And here it is very important for them to respect the principles on which BRICS was created, and it was created by three countries. The first step was made by Russia, India, and China, we did it together. At that time we created RIC in St Petersburg, Russia, India, and China. Later, it started to expand. On the other hand, however, all countries in the group should also respect the new participants’ interests.

This year, we have done everything within Russia’s capacity to smoothly and gradually integrate all our new members into the group’s activities. In fact, we have 250 events planned across various sectors, with 200 of them already completed.

The decision to accept new countries was no coincidence. These are countries and people we know well, with whom we have collaborated in various fields over a long period. Now that we are working together within a single group, we have created platforms for exchanging ideas and exploring potential joint projects across a range of sectors. While economic cooperation is our primary focus, we are also placing significant emphasis on developing people-to-people and humanitarian ties in such areas as culture, cinema, youth exchanges, and more.

We have been working hard on these tracks throughout the year, and the results show we are on the right path. It is clear that expanding the group was a positive and right decision. I am fully convinced that this will undoubtedly boost our influence and authority on the global stage, something we are already witnessing.

You know that each new country brings its close allies along in various areas. When a country joins the group, its partner nations naturally take an interest in what is happening and often express a desire to collaborate as well.

As I have mentioned many times before, around 30 countries have expressed interest in cooperating with BRICS in some form or participating in its activities. This is a clear and visible impact of our recent expansion. In fact, another wave of interest is already building on the heels of this one. However, we need to carefully consider, alongside all BRICS countries, how best to approach further expansion.

One thing is certain: we will not turn anyone away. The doors are wide open. The question now is how to structure this process, and my colleagues and I, along with our friends, will discuss all these matters when we meet in Kazan.

Dmitry Kiselev: And here you have the voice of the global majority.

I’m pleased to pass the floor to my colleague from Sky News Arabia. Nadim Koteich, one of the most renowned journalists in the Arab world, the author and host of the weekly show Tonight with Nadim. So, we are true colleagues in that sense.

Nadim, please go ahead with your question.

General Manager of Sky News Arabia (UAE) Nadim Koteich (retranslated): Mr President, thank you so much for the opportunity to meet with you. We are thrilled to have you with us.

I represent Sky News Arabia, and before I begin, I want to acknowledge the excellent work your team has done in organising this meeting. We truly appreciate the chance to have an open conversation with you, even though we don’t speak Russian.

I want to clarify that we didn’t discuss specific topics beforehand, and I want everyone to understand and be aware of this. We value this transparency.

Mr President, you have mentioned many times that the world order needs reshaping, which is undoubtedly a challenging task. We recognise the significant influence that China and the United States have in this process. How does Russia perceive its role in this reshaping? Does Russia, in any way, feel like a junior partner in light of the ongoing dynamics between China and the United States?

Vladimir Putin: It is true that we have a unique relationship with China, built on a deep level of trust. Our trade and economic ties are expanding rapidly. According to our data, trade turnover is between US$226 and US$228 billion, while Chinese statistics estimate it at around US$240 billion. These figures speak for themselves.

I have mentioned this many times before, yet I would like to stress again, that Russian-Chinese cooperation on the global stage is undoubtedly one of the key pillars of strategic stability worldwide. This is a fact that I believe is clear to everyone and is widely acknowledged.

Our relationship with the People’s Republic of China is based on equality and mutual respect for each other’s interests. This is not just an empty phrase, it reflects the reality of our cooperation. We genuinely listen to one another. Some five to seven years ago, the Chinese leadership, at both the government and top political levels, and I, along with my friend, President Xi Jinping, often discussed the need to improve the trade balance. We talked about finding ways to increase the presence of Russian products, both industrial and agricultural, on China’s market. Similarly, China had its own requests, particularly in the areas of energy, space cooperation, and other sectors.

We are actively addressing these issues and truly hear each other. If you examine the current trade balance structure, you will find answers to all these questions. Our focus is not just on discussions; we take action. There are no hierarchies between us, we collaborate based on mutual interests, and that approach is effective. That is the first point.

Now, regarding the relations between China and the United States. We do not interfere in these issues, just like we do not interfere in relations (we have colleagues here who will instantly figure out what I am referring to) between Ethiopia and, let’s say, Egypt. Do you understand what I am talking about? We do not interfere, do you see it? If there are any issues arising and if a minute thing depends on us, we are ready to offer our services in resolving these issues, if they arise and the participants in the corresponding process are interested in any involvement from our side.

The world’s biggest economy in terms of purchasing power parity rather than per capita is China. This is all statistics, you see? The United States of America is second. But, in terms of per capita values, the US economy is much bigger. Just look at the population: 1.5 billion or 1.3 billion in China against the population of the United States. The economy volume increased.

The United States holds the second place, India is third, and, incidentally speaking, the Russian Federation is fourth, we managed to overtake Japan a little bit. China is our number one trade and economic partner. Russia’s share is growing, and currently Russia’s share is the fourth in China’s trade turnover, this matters to everyone.

We very carefully measure our every step. Chinese partners are happy to purchase Russian energy resources. Russia is the most reliable source. We have a common border which is not prone to any fluctuations in terms of world politics. By the way, there is no need to transfer anything across borders, over seas or oceans: the entire border is common, period, and energy resources in Russia are infinite.

If you look at the relations between China and the United States, you know, I think the United States needs to start thinking. It ruined relations with Russia, constantly impose sanctions and this, eventually, negatively affects the US and the US dollar. The whole world started contemplating whether US dollars should be used since the United States, for political reasons, restricts the use of the US dollar as a universal international payment unit. Everyone started considering this, and the volume of US dollar use is slowly, in small increments dropping both in settlements and currency reserves. Even traditional allies of the United States are reducing their US dollar reserves.

And what is happening to China? It faces one sanction after another. This is not purely political; it is about the growth of the Chinese economy and attempts to hinder that growth through various politically motivated sanctions.

Here’s what I would like to note. The United States is 15 years too late, they cannot stop China’s progress. It is impossible, just as it is impossible to tell the sun not to rise. It will rise anyway. These are objective processes of economic development, with a million related factors. This effort to contain China’s development negatively affects the US economy as well. It renders the production of some of their goods uncompetitive, and if this trend persists, it could render certain sectors of their economy totally uncompetitive.

This illustrates how the economies of China and the United States have become interconnected over the past few decades, a fact that everyone admits. However, the actions we are witnessing today from the United States appear to be counterproductive, I believe.

This is also related to security policy, particularly the ongoing provocations surrounding Taiwan. I often find myself questioning the motives behind these provocative actions in various regions of the world. Why are they happening? I truly do not understand. In fact, NATO is drawing European nations into Asia through itself. No one seems to consider whether Europeans want to jeopardise their relationship with China by getting involved in Asian affairs through NATO, creating a situation that raises concerns among regional countries, including China. I can assure you that they do not want this. Yet, they are being pulled into this, like small dogs on a leash pulled by a big fellow. Their allies — Japan, Australia, and New Zealand — are nudged into action, tension is growing as serious weaponry is deployed which poses threats to the countries in the region, including China and Russia.

We are closely monitoring this situation. Naturally, we do not interfere, just like in other issues, such as those between Ethiopia and Egypt. However, we firmly consider China to be our strategic partner and ally.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

The advantage of BRICS is that there are no seniors or juniors in it, and nobody interferes in other countries’ affairs. It is really a very important stance and an important sentiment inside the group.

Mr President, I would like to introduce Faisal Abbas, world-famous columnist on international politics, international Arab politics, who represents the Arab News newspaper.

Please, go ahead, Faisal.

Editor-in-Chief of Arab News (Saudi Arabia) Faisal Abbas (retranslated): Your Excellency, Mr President,

Let me thank you for the opportunity to talk to you about various problems on the international arena which matter a lot.

Here is my question. As you know, Saudi Arabia has been invited to BRICS, and the Foreign Minister will attend the summit in Kazan. As you know, Mr President, the Crown Prince has been busy with settling issues in the Middle East and resolving the two-state problem in Palestine since last October. Moscow has always supported this solution, a two-state solution.

Will the UN Secretary-General attend the BRICS summit? What results can we expect to make it possible to put pressure and stop the bloodshed that is going on in the Middle East, considering that all the BRICS countries agree on the need to implement a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem?

Dmitry Kiselev: Faisal Abbas represents Saudi Arabia.

Vladimir Putin: I understand.

When you were speaking about ceasefire right now, did you mean the Gaza Strip? Did I hear that right?

Faisal Abbas: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Our position on this is known well. I can hardly add anything new. We have always proceeded from the fact that the Security Council resolution on the creation of two states – Israel and the State of Palestine – must be implemented. This is the root of all the problems, and I am sure that we will have to talk about this at the BRICS summit. I invited the President of Palestine to join our events, and there will be an opportunity to listen to his assessments.

You know, I have had a lot of conversations on this subject with the Israeli leadership, the Saudi Arabian leadership and the Palestinian leadership. I believe it is impossible, just like I told our partners in Israel, to resolve the Palestinian issue based exclusively on economy-related issues. I know that the Israeli leadership – both its current and former leaders – believe it is enough to satisfy some fundamental, basic interests of Palestinians living on these territories, and the issue will be closed.

It seems to me that apart from some material issues, there are issues connected with a spiritual sphere, history, aspirations of peoples living on specific territories. The issue is deeper and more complicated, and work needs to be done in this sphere. This is first.

Second. The work definitely needs to be done within a broad consensus. I do not want to blame the United States for everything but it should not have destroyed the [Middle East] Quartet. I really do not want to point a finger at it all the time and repeat that they are guilty of all woes. This is probably not so. But they should not have destroyed the Quartet, it worked, it was easier to agree on all positions. But the US monopolised the work, took all the responsibility and eventually failed.

I believe we need to get back to it. Maybe expand the Quartet, talk about recovering the territories and bringing back the people who fled them. The Palestinians will not leave the area, it is their land, this needs to be understood. This is first.

Second. The bigger the humanitarian issue is the more there will be of those willing to assert their interests. Incidentally, many people in Israel understand this, too, and share the point of view I am expressing.

I have been in a position to obtain information from people in Israel who hold this view. We are in touch with both Israel and Palestine, of course. We have had a traditional position since the Soviet Union, which states, let me reiterate this, that the main way to resolve the Palestinian issue is to create a full-fledged Palestinian state.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you very much.

Chairman of the Sekunjalo Investment Holdings Iqbal Survé is one of the most influential African leaders. His group of companies includes Independent Media and the African News Agency.

Dr Iqbal Survé worked with President Mandela and is a firm advocate of BRICS.

Please, go ahead, Iqbal, South Africa.

Executive Chairman of Independent Media Holding (RSA) Iqbal Survé: Your Excellency, Mr President,

Firstly, congratulations on the summit. And it is really a pleasure and honour that we are here today.

Mr President, you are one of the pioneers of BRICS. As you have quite correctly said, you have been there from the inception, and you have also seen the development of BRICS from the initial RIC to BRICS to include South Africa and now the additional countries.

Mr President, I have had the pleasure of being the Chairman of the BRICS Business Council and also the privilege of having met you previously during those engagements. I am a strong advocate for BRICS myself, but I get the sense that we have moved too slowly. I get the sense that, in a way, we may miss the valuable opportunity to ensure that the BRICS grouping becomes the preeminent grouping in the world. BRICS is very critical at this juncture in terms of where we find ourselves in world history. It is very important for the Global South, or for what Mr Kiselev has said is the Global Majority, and I think Russia has a very important role to play and, in particular, yourself, Mr President.

My question is very specifically to you. How can you and Russia hosting BIRCS accelerate the mechanisms for BRICS to play a far more important role: one, economically; two, in payment systems; and three, which I think is important, politically as well.

Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: As for the political order, your Egyptian colleague [has asked about this], I sidestepped it but since you revisited it, so I will get back to the first part of his question, too. He said that I, or we, are declaring and striving to change the world order. We are not, in fact. It is happening naturally. We are simply saying that this is an inevitable process, and we must respond to it accordingly.

These new emerging centres of power are not emerging because the Western countries brought upon us the Ukrainian crisis, and all of this came to the current state. Let me remind you once again: back in 2014, the Western countries led by the US organised, or at least supported, a coup d’etat. This is what sparked the crisis. Then, NATO has been pushed into it for many years. This is how the crisis began. And the war began in 2014, too, because they launched armed actions involving armed forces against people who didn’t accept the coup. So the war broke out in 2014.

However, changes in the world started even earlier, and on a larger scale. This is what we call the emergence of a multipolar world. We just proceed from the fact that this is happening, and we are trying to facilitate this process in a way that would not lead to destruction, but, on the contrary, let things take shape in a new expanding format.

You say that we should act more decisively, but how? We believe, any rush would be inappropriate. We are proceeding incrementally, step by step.

As for finance, say, we did not decide to stop using the US dollar as universal currency, we were denied using it. Now, 95 percent of Russia’s foreign trade with its partners is being carried out in national currencies. You see, they did it themselves. So be it. They thought everything would collapse. No, it did not. Trade is developing on a new foundation.

Ninety-five percent of our trade with China is in ruble and yuan. We also use the yuan in settlements with third countries, which helps strengthen the yuan as an international currency. It is not because China wants to harm anyone, no; it does nothing bad to anyone, but it is the way it is.

This is the first point: settlements in national currencies.

We have established the Bank headed by Ms Rousseff. A lot of work needs to be done there: we need to work on the capital, increase it, I will not list everything. We met with Ms Rousseff several times, she is a good specialist, she understands everything. We need to discuss how to create a corresponding insurance platform, a reserve currency pool. All of these needs to be steadily strengthened to make them real working tools rather than declarations. This is happening.

We would like to propose some really serious things to our colleagues – I will not go into details at this point. There is a serious issue of using digital currencies in investment processes, and not only in BRICS countries but by BRICS countries in the interests of other developing economies which have good development prospects, what I have already mentioned.

We can actually create such a tool which will practically be non-inflationary, it will be controlled by corresponding BRICS institutions. This might be another very interesting, good step in the development of the Global South with our direct active participation. We will talk about this now. Well, not now, I will discuss this with my colleagues.

We are holding consultations with Chinese friends and Indian friends, have had consultations with Brazilians recently, and we will definitely have a talk with South Africa. We will be doing this with everyone, just like we are doing now. We are moving, gradually.

But I believe this is not enough. We need to bring people closer together to work efficiently in the economy. All of our so-called traditional values of the Chinese culture, Christian culture, Islamic culture are, in fact, the same if read and translated from one language into another. They are very close or fully coincide, as diplomats say.

People need to realise and understand this. There are no enemies, only friends and like-minded people. And this is why we are developing a corresponding programme regarding museums and theatres. This year Russia initiated the creation of a single platform even in folk dance art, as well as in cinematography, theatre, and exhibition activity. All of this creates – must create and, I am sure, will create – a colossal, solid base to bring people closer together.

We constantly hold respective themed years with colleagues: the Year of Culture, the Year of Youth Exchanges, the Year of Theatre and so on and so forth. This also draws people closer, creates numerous contacts, increases opportunities. Most importantly, it increases trust in each other. It increases trust and this is a necessary basis for cooperation in the economy and ensuring security.

This is why we will not rush, but we will move, move as fast as we can. We cannot set off this tempo, I also agree with it, you are right.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

In fact, it is about forming a common cultural BRICS market that would also promote cooperation in economic security.

Next is our Indian guest, Mr President. This is an influential news agency, PTI. Sudhakar Nair has been with PTI for 45 years, rising from a correspondent to an executive editor, he worked in Germany and in the prime minister’s pool.

Please, go ahead, Sudhakar.

Executive Editor of PTI (India) Sudhakar Nair: Thank you, Mr President.

This is my sixth visit to Moscow as part of the coverage of leaders of India and Russia for a period of time.

So, my question relates to a point where you made a passing reference on the question of BRICS countries cooperating together in producing films. As you know, India has a very vibrant film industry. People of 30 years back, 40 years back, still remember some of the Indian films and songs.

Will Russia give an opportunity to film producers from the BRICS countries to open their place and give some incentives for film shooting?

Vladimir Putin: You know, if we take BRICS countries, then perhaps Indian films are as popular in Russia as nowhere else, in no other BRICS country. I think there is even a special television channel that shows Indian films day and night. So, Russia is very interested in the Indian cinema. This my first point.

Second, at Moscow film festivals… Yes, we hold BRICS film festivals. This year, films from almost all BRICS countries have been presented at the Moscow Film Festival. I think the winner was a film by Saudi Arabian and Egyptian directors. There also was a third country, but I don’t remember, I think it was Jordan. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. A film shot by directors from these three countries was the winner.

As for the economic aspect, cinema products are products like everything else. It is a part of the market that must be regulated accordingly. India has adopted a number of decisions to protect its domestic market, not just in terms of cinema, but also for automobiles and other areas. But I believe that if our Indian friends are interested in this, then we will undoubtedly find a common ground to promote Indian film products on the Russian market.

I can say that this product is in high demand on the market in the broad sense of the word, at least in Russia. I think it will be a good business, like Indian pharmaceutics. I will be ready to discuss this with our friend, Prime Minister of India [Narendra Modi], when he arrives in Kazan, if he raises the issue. We are confident we will find a common ground. That’s for sure. I see no problems here.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you, Mr President.

Of course, we would like to see not only Indian films, but films starring actors from BRICS countries who represent their diverse cultures.

Vladimir Putin: Raj Kapoor.

(Laughter.)

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, but let there be an Indian, a Chinese, an Ethiopian, and so on.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I talked with my colleagues, leaders of the BRICS countries, about organising festivals of theatrical art, and it is currently being held. I think we have created a joint academy of cinematography. We will definitely continue on this path.

We discussed the need to create a pop music festival and so on. There is a lot work to be done here. This work is very interesting. Of course, journalists will also be interested in covering this work and taking part in it.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes.

In the Soviet Union, there were films like Mimino. Natives of the Caucasus, Russians or Ukrainians played parts in war films as actors representing different or close cultures. This is also an interesting style.

A guest from Ethiopia, the CEO of FANA Broadcasting Corporate. This is a major Ethiopian media corporation broadcasting in nine languages.

Admasu Damtew Belete, please.

CEO of FANA Broadcasting Corporate (Ethiopia) Admasu Damtew Belete: Your Excellency, Mr President, I thank you for the chance.

My question is, how to capitalise on a collaborative project that could benefit BRICS+ countries focusing on infrastructure, technology, and education?

I thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Which sphere, I beg your pardon?

Admasu Belete: My question is, how to capitalise on a collaborative project that could benefit BRICS+ countries focusing on infrastructure, technology, and education?

Vladimir Putin: As far as education is concerned, let’s start with it. We traditionally have very good and positive connections and very good experience in training personnel for Africa. We have had this practice for decades, since the Soviet Union.

Thousands of people from Africa got education in Russia, many of them have held very different posts in their countries after getting education in Russia, which is very pleasing for us. As we have witnessed such pictures at the last Russia–Africa summit in St Petersburg which, I believe, made millions of Russian citizens happy, since our media, television and the internet showed how today’s state officials from some African countries sang Russian songs in fairly good Russian. This is definitely a very powerful cooperation potential – education obtained in a foreign country in a foreign language, especially in the host country’s language. We are continuing this practice – I am afraid to cite wrong number – but practically with many African countries if not all of them. This also concerns Ethiopia.

The second question, or the second part of your question – you asked it first – is no less important: infrastructure. We have a lot of projects in this sphere, infrastructure development. The most well-known projects are important and of global nature – this is the North-South project known to many interested colleagues. This is a main railway line from the Baltic Sea and to the Persian Gulf. We are doing this with many of our partners which show interest and are ready to participate in financing this project, among other things.

The second very large route is the Northern Sea Route along the Arctic Ocean. A lot of work is being done there. This is a global route, and many BRICS countries show interest in it because it will give major economic benefits when implemented – and we are implementing it. We are doing very much, this is practical work.

We are building an ice-breaking fleet which is similar to none. Such a nuclear ice-breaking fleet simply does not exist anywhere in the world except for Russia. I believe we have seven nuclear ice-breakers and 34 diesel ice-breakers of a very high class which are powerful and up-to-date.

The ice-breaker Leader, as we call it, is under construction, it will break ice of any thickness, absolutely any ice, and it will operate all year round. As a matter of fact, they escort ships, I think, up to nine months a year, therefore this is a very interesting and big project.

As for Ethiopia, we have traditionally deep relations, very good spiritual, humanitarian connections, and many of our companies show interest in working on the Ethiopian market. These are utility and engineering companies. And I would like all of the plans which we have discussed with the Prime Minister to be implemented. On our part, we will be doing everything for this.

Dmitry Kiselev: We will be breaking ice of any thickness.

Vladimir Putin: Well, it might not be that interesting for Ethiopia as of now. But for such countries as India, China, very many countries in other regions of the world, this represents a huge economic interest. And this is why we are discussing this as part of BRICS and bilaterally, and we are ready for such work with our BRICS partners.

Dmitry Kiselev: Egypt’s leading news agency, MENA, Salaheldin Magauri.

Please, go ahead.

Deputy Editor-in-Chief of MENA news agency (Egypt) Salaheldin Magauri (retranslated): Mr President, my name is Salaheldin Magauri. I represent MENA news agency from Egypt. Thank you very much for inviting me to this meeting.

We, of course, know that the Russian Federation holds a fair position on many issues of the agenda and takes everyone’ interests into account. Russia is aspiring for cooperation rather than interference in others’ affairs. In particular, as part of BRICS, we see that Russia supports aspirations of different countries which want to join it.

We understand that the summit is taking place in a turbulent time amidst many challenges and threats which we see at the global level. I would like to hear your vision of future cooperation between BRICS member states and modalities of the group’s expansion, in particular, the economy.

A common BRICS currency, which could facilitate the development of economic cooperation and strengthen national currencies, among other things, is especially intriguing.

What are the long-term steps in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: As for the BRICS common currency, we are not considering this issue. Its time has not come yet. We need to be very careful and act gradually, without any rush.

We currently study the possibilities to make wider use of national currencies and create tools which would allow making such work safe. Just as I mentioned it, we are examining the possibility of using electronic tools. We need – and this work is being done – to smooth things out between central banks and ensure reliable exchange of financial information which would not depend on those international financial information exchange tools which impose specific restrictions for political reasons and violate the global economy principles. We will be expanding the work of the currency pool and strengthening the New Development Bank. We will be moving in these directions.

To speak about the creation of a common currency, the economies must be highly integrated. And apart from high integration of the economies, they must be equal in quality and volume. But equal volume is impossible, I mean the population and the economies themselves. However, the economies must be roughly equivalent in terms of structure and efficiency. Otherwise we will face bigger problems than the problems which arose in the European Union when the common currency was introduced in countries who had an incomparable level of the economies, they were not equivalent. This is why it is a long-term prospect, but potentially this could happen, we will be able to talk about this in future.

Regarding expansion, the latest wave of BRICS expansion is over; obviously, it is only natural that our colleagues present here have asked questions as to what steps we are taking to get new group members adapted to joint activities. These efforts also require a certain amount of time, even given that we have worked and interacted with each other for a while. We still need to work on this as a single structure.

As I have mentioned, we see a growing interest in BRICS activities and involvement in them, with 30 states indicating their willingness to cooperate with the group. So, jointly with our colleagues – and I am going to dwell on it with our friends, leaders of BRICS states, in Kazan – we are developing such category as BRICS partner countries, the initial step being the efforts to organise this work. For Russia, these primarily include the CIS and the Eurasian Economic Union member states, but we are willing to invite countries representing other regions and work with them as well. This is the first thing.

Second, we obviously need consensus, and we will act carefully in this regard based on two principles: multilateralism and efficiency of the association’s work. While increasing the number of BRICS states, we should avoid reducing the effectiveness of the structure to a minimum. Therefore, we will act by following these considerations.

What was the first question? There are two. Is that all or is there something else you asked about? Expansion and a single currency?

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, it was also about prospects. There is one clarification though, Mr President…

Salaheldin Magauri: What do you think are the prospects and future of the BRICS group?

Vladimir Putin: As I have mentioned, we can see new development centres and new powerhouses being formed, and all of them are represented in BRICS. In this regard, I believe that the group has a promising future. We have immense respect for other regional associations and we take efforts to cooperate with them.

Frankly speaking, amidst all the active conflicts in the world today, I think that the advancement of BRICS will have a beneficial effect on the global developments, if it develops based on the principles I mentioned earlier, namely, non-confrontation and cooperation solely in the interests of the group countries.

As you see, we are not creating some sort of bloc as an opposition to someone’s interests. This is not a bloc organisation; it has a universal character and I think it will have an overall positive impact on global affairs, including the global economy.

If these efforts help develop the global economy, they will also be beneficial for those countries that are not part of this BRICS group. This is only evident, I think.

I believe that the world economic leaders will ultimately benefit from this as well, even despite many of them now having to face certain problems. We are aware of the issues in the eurozone, which is generally balancing on the verge of recession. It will only serve for the benefit of these economies if they maintain proper and sustainable relations with BRICS countries.

The US economy is apparently going to have a solid growth of over three percent this year. Following the pandemic, it indicated an upsurge of 5.7 percent but then slumped to 2.5 percent. This year, it will show a larger growth of more than three percent. Yet, it still has plenty of problems.

As far as I remember, the [US] foreign trade deficit stands at US$718 billion, while the budget deficit is at US$1.8 trillion and the national debt amounts to US$34.8 trillion. As we can see, even leading economies have a lot of problems. I believe that having good relations with BRICS states – and we are open to these efforts – will have a generally beneficial effect on the global economy.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, one clarification. You said that BRICS countries are working to create a reliable platform for financial information exchange. Can we call it a step towards a single payment system?

Vladimir Putin: No, this is about central banks exchanging financial information.

Dmitry Kiselev: But is it being done to create an alternative to SWIFT?

Vladimir Putin: It is a SWIFT alternative, correct. This is a tool to support international settlements, and therefore trade.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

CNN Brasil, Brazil. Editorial Director Daniel Rittner, who is on the list of the most respected journalists of Brazil by Jornalistas & Cia (Journalists and Company, a Brazil magazine).

Please, go ahead, Daniel.

Editorial Director of CNN Brasil (Brazil) Daniel Rittner: President Putin,

Thank you very much for such an opportunity.

Firstly, I have to say that I have bad remembrances somehow of Kazan, because I came in 2018 for the World Cup for leisure, and I was so optimistic and confident with Neymar and the international team. We got eliminated, as you know, and we spent the whole night crying.

I am speaking of Kazan because you are preparing so carefully for the summit of BRICS, and we in Brazil are also preparing very carefully another summit, which is the G20 in November. Brazil’s government invited you to come to the G20, to the Leaders’ Summit.

However, the country’s judicial power is completely independent, and many legal experts say it would be necessary to comply with the arrest warrant issued by the International Court of Justice against yourself.

In that regard, let me ask you three simple questions. Are you planning to go to the G20 in Rio in November? Secondly, in face of that, do you think that this situation that I described somehow shows the weakness of BRICS before old organisations like the ICC? And thirdly, with all due respect, do you fear to get arrested in Brazil?

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to say that the International Criminal Court has no universal power. This is an international organisation whose jurisdiction Russia does not recognise, like many other countries. I believe the US does not recognise it, and neither do China and Turkiye.

In fact, it is perhaps not bad that an independent organisation like this exists, but it must become universal. This is the first point.

Second, it is very easy to bypass decisions like this. Signing an intergovernmental agreement is enough to have the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court restricted. We have had good, strong and stable relations with Brazil for many years, even decades, so we can basically sign an intergovernmental agreement, with no one to be put in a difficult position. That is all.

As for independence, I do not want to stir up any tension here. However, we know that the International Criminal Court said it was about to make a decision on several politicians from the Middle East, but it was rebuffed by the US and had to shut up. Where is all this? This is why respect towards an organisation that is neither universal nor independent remains so low, unfortunately.

And finally, the main point. Firstly, as you know, our situation is difficult, because the Ukrainian crisis is far from over; secondly, and most importantly, we understand that G20 is a useful forum in general as long as there is no further political bias. Various attempts have been made to politicise it. It was created as an economic platform, and if it develops this way, then it will be useful.

However, we all understand what is going on around Russia. I understand it, too. I have excellent friendly relations with President Lula [da Silva]. Why would I go there to interrupt the routine work of this forum? We all understand that – and I understand this, too – even if we rule out the ICC, the only talk will be about it, which would undermine the work of G20. Why? We are all adults. We will find a senior official who will suitably represent the interests of Russia in Brazil.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

We treat G20 with care.

Vladimir Putin: We treat everyone with care, except our enemies.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, you have mentioned the Ukrainian crisis. Just yesterday, while addressing the EU summit in Brussels, the ‘expired president’ Vladimir Zelensky said that the sole alternative to Ukraine joining NATO would be acquiring nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, the Bild newspaper published an interview with some anonymous Ukrainian tech-savvy, who claimed that Ukraine only needs a few weeks to build its own nuclear weapons and then make a strike at Russian troops.

What does it all mean?

Vladimir Putin: This is yet another act of provocation. In the modern world, creating nuclear weapons is not a difficult task. I do not know whether Ukraine is capable of doing this now though. It is not easy for Ukraine today, but generally there are no big difficulties in this regard, with everyone knowing how it is done.

This is a dangerous act of provocation, because, obviously, any step in this direction will meet an adequate response. This is the second point.

And third, most importantly, the current Ukrainian leadership claimed that Ukraine should have nuclear weapons. As I have mentioned on many occasions, they had stated that even before the crisis entered its hot stage; although it was a soft statement, it was made anyway. And such a threat will elicit a corresponding response from Russia.

I can say straight away: under no circumstances will Russia allow this to happen.

Dmitry Kiselev: But could it happen that, say, the British secretly provide these nuclear weapons to Ukraine and then claim that it was Ukraine that built them?

Vladimir Putin: Let’s avoid making any hypothetical assumptions and wild guesses about the British or whoever secretly supplying weapons. Such efforts cannot be hidden; they require proper resources and actions. It cannot be done covertly just as you cannot hide a cat in a bag. And we are capable of tracking any steps in this direction.

Dmitry Kiselev: Please, Saudi Arabia, go ahead.

Faisal Abbas (retranslated): I would like to continue with the Ukrainian crisis, if I may.

You thanked Saudi Arabia for voicing its position and assisting in war prisoner swap with Ukraine. Everyone knows about the close friendship between Riyadh and Moscow, but there is also friendship between Riyadh and Kiev. The Crown Prince said in an interview with Fox News that Saudi Arabia was doing everything possible to help settle the crisis.

What is your assessment of Saudi Arabia’s efforts? Many BRICS countries have offered a solution. You said that Riyadh was close both to Ukraine and Russia. Would Russia take part in a peace conference if it takes place in a friendly country, such as Saudi Arabia, in the near future, say, until the end of the year?

Vladimir Putin: You have just mentioned the friendship between Russia and Saudi Arabia. It is true; we regard Saudi Arabia as a friendly country. I have warm relations with the King and also enjoy friendly personal relations with the Crown Prince. I know for sure that everything done by Saudi Arabia in this direction is done sincerely. I have no doubt about that. If Saudi Arabia hosts an event like this, then, of course, it would be a comfortable venue for us.

However, the question is what is there to discuss. As you know, we had lengthy negotiations in Istanbul, Turkiye, which resulted in a document that was initialled by the head of the Ukrainian delegation, who put his signature there. We have this document – it is a draft agreement – and the extract from it. Once again, it was initialled by the head of the negotiating delegation.

So if Ukraine signed the document it means that it suited Ukraine, at least regarding the points of principle. Some details there could be discussed and adjusted further, but I think it is wrong to totally disregard this document, or else any document could be disregarded in this manner.

Therefore, we are ready for a dialogue on a peace settlement to the conflict, but only based on the document that was developed during the thorough talks that took several months and were initialled by the Ukrainian side. We are ready to continue working on these grounds.

There are the initiatives launched by China and Brazil, who have a very sober and objective approach to the settlement process, with a corresponding group established in New York. We are monitoring it carefully, with respect, keeping in mind that all our friends, including BRICS countries, want to promptly settle this conflict by peaceful means. Of course, we understand that this is an aggravating factor in international affairs, in European affairs, and in the economy. We are interested in settling it as soon as possible and by peaceful means like no one else.

Let me repeat this: we are ready to come back. It was not us who broke off the talks; it was the Ukrainian side saying that it would not continue negotiations with Russia.

In addition, a presidential executive order was issued in Ukraine prohibiting any negotiations with us, which is still in effect. They have to cancel it first. It is ridiculous to even say this. Everyone is calling on us to negotiate while forgetting that the Ukrainian side has prohibited itself to negotiate. It is simply ridiculous.

However, the foundation remains the most important thing, this foundation being the draft document developed during the Istanbul negotiations.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, thank you.

We can already see a queue forming. Please, go ahead, the United Arab Emirates, then South Africa, and then Brazil. The Emirates, please.

Nadim Koteich (retranslated): Mr President,

As someone who has a thorough understanding of military strategies, do you see any surprises or perhaps feel any disappointment in the Russian army’s performance in this war that has been going on for a long time, longer than you expected?

And the second question: could you determine when you will achieve victory in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You know, setting any deadlines is a very complicated and even counterproductive action.

We have just spoken about the possibility of peace talks. We are all for it. I described how it could be implemented. If this is a totally earnest stance that both sides adhere to, then the sooner the better.

Regarding the army: you know, the character of warfare is ever-evolving in today’s world due to technological progress. It is rather difficult today to give a totally accurate assessment of tomorrow’s events.

Moreover, just recently, people were saying that the today’s warfare was a confrontation of technologies. Today, I have already heard our participants in combat operations saying that the today’s warfare is a “war of mathematicians.”

Here is a specific example: electronic warfare means are used to intercept [the enemy’s] means of destruction and suppress them. The other side makes certain assessments and makes changes to the strike weapons software. Within a week, ten days, three weeks, the other side increases its efforts and makes adjustments to the software in its electronic suppression means. The process continues endlessly. Of course, it is totally evident that the Ukrainian army is unable to do it, neither can they use high-precision and long-range weapons as they simply do not have them. It is evident that this is being done by NATO, its member countries, and military specialists.

Do you see the difference? NATO is fighting us, but they are fighting this proxy war using Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine does not spare its soldiers in the interests of third states. But it is NATO that uses high-tech weapons, not Ukraine, while the Russian army fights by itself, creating its own military products and developing its own software, which makes an immense difference. I have noticed that the Russian army is definitely becoming one of the most high-tech and efficient ones, especially recently. When will NATO get weary of fighting us? Well, ask them. We are ready to continue this fight – and we will be victorious.

Dmitry Kiselev: We will be victorious.

South Africa, please.

Iqbal Survé: Thank you, Mr President.

When I listen to some of the questions and some of the comments, I am in a way very happy that I stay in Cape Town on the southernmost tip of the African continent, far away from many of these conflicts.

But I also reflect on whether or not the world needs a Mandela moment, and whether BRICS and your leadership can provide that Mandela moment, because, you know, every war has to be followed by peace. That is a sine qua non of the world through the ages. And we have to always find the path to peace. Often, the path to peace is not the path to peace; it is not very easy, because it is not very obvious.

It is also made a lot more difficult by the technological involvement in war today, in conflicts today, because in a way it disassociates people from the war in a way, so to speak.

Mr President, my question is a contradictory one, because, on the one hand, I think you are a peace lover and you want peace, the Russian people want peace, the people in the Middle East want peace, and the people in other parts of the world want piece. But just before we came into this meeting today, the Turkish foreign minister was meeting with a number of his counterparts, I think principally in the Middle East, and he made quite a serious statement. The Turkish foreign minister said that there is an extremely high probability of a war between Israel and Iran. You may or may not have seen that statement by the Turkish foreign minister. Of course, that would be devastating for the region and devastating for the world.

My question is, what are your thoughts on this, Mr President? Can you intervene and what will you do as Russia? And what will BRICS do if this is to happen?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this situation is complicated and dangerous. I have just described the developments around Ukraine to your colleague and said that NATO was fighting this proxy war using Ukrainian soldiers, while Ukrainian soldiers were using NATO weapons. And we are doing everything ourselves. We are fighting ourselves and making weapons ourselves. The difference is immense, in fact. NATO doesn’t care about Ukrainians: they are not its soldiers. It serves the interests of the United States, and in this sense the US doesn’t care either. Unlike us, for we do care about our soldiers and equipment.

When we think about our soldiers, we think about ensuring peace, including by peaceful means. This is as huge difference. We do not issue orders prohibiting peace talks but say that we are ready for them.

The situation around Iran and Israel is critical, too. A war breaking out there, God forbid, would mean direct military involvement of both countries’ armies. We stay in touch with both Israel and Iran, with which we have quite trustworthy relations. We would like it very much that this exchange of blows, which may very well turn to be endless, stops at some point and ways are found to settle the conflict that satisfy both sides.

The answer to this question always lies on the path towards compromises. Are they possible in this situation or not? I believe they are. However difficult this may be, I still believe it is possible. This is an issue too delicate to try to predict and discuss publicly. I think this is counterproductive, because it could be harmful.

However, the search for solutions like this is highly needed. Of course, if the conflicting parties are interested, we are ready to assist sincerely, with due consideration for the interests of both parties.

Russia and Iran have allied relations, and we can feel very well what is happening in various spheres in this country. Moreover, how can one comment on those previous strikes by Israel? What comments can there be?

On the other hand, I would like to emphasise that we always speak against any terrorist attacks, including those aimed at Israel and its citizens. This is also something we should never forget.

As for the question whether a compromise is possible, I believe it is. If necessary, we, in rapport with both sides, are ready to do everything in our power to help seek these compromises.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr Rittner, go ahead, please.

Daniel Rittner: Let me, please, get back to the six-point peace plan proposed by China and Brazil.

Would you consider to sit at the table and start negotiations on the terms proposed by China and Brazil? Besides, Mr President, President Zelensky of Ukraine called the plan destructive and said President Lula of Brazil could be considered too much pro-Russian, that’s his words.

Would you consider Mr Lula da Silva an ally, do you think he can play a role in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Well, we knew absolutely nothing about China and Brazil’s proposal on setting up a corresponding group in the UN and developing a corresponding plan. That is, neither Brazil nor China – countries we have very close relations with – chose to consult with us while seeking solutions to a peaceful settlement; they acted as they thought proper.

It is a different question whether it is good or bad. But this simply proves that both Brazil and China are acting independently, without playing into anyone’s hands, including Russia’s. I am saying it to you openly and responsibly; it can be reported by any media. Our Foreign Minister updated me directly from New York about the developments, without any preliminary consultations with Brazil and China. I believe these are balanced and sensible proposals aimed at seeking a peaceful solution. If someone dislikes it, that’s their stance.

As I have said, Ukraine deems it impossible to hold any [peace] talks, it simply voices its demands, and that’s about it. These aren’t talks. They negotiated with us but ceased to do so after agreements were reached in Istanbul, and that’s it. And now they do not want to.

Just recently, when the head of the Kiev regime visited New York, he has once again said publicly that they are not going to engage in any talks. What more can I say? It is their choice to like or dislike the proposals made by Brazil and China.

We got familiarised with these proposals only after they were made public. Once again, I believe they could serve as a solid foundation for further attempts to seek peace.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, please. We have India here.

Sudhakar Nair: Mr President,

My question is a kind of mix of some of the earlier questions, it relates to the Ukrainian conflict.

Some time back you suggested that, you know, that India, China and Brazil could be potential mediators to bring an end to the conflict. Our Prime Minister Narendra Modi freely communicates with you, also with the Ukrainian President and also with the US.

Do you feel that a potential mediation could exist in the near future?

Vladimir Putin: You see, your colleague has just asked a question about the developments and tension on the Iran-Israel track and I answered that if anything depends on Russia or our mediation is needed, we will be happy to collaborate with our colleagues.

The same refers to our friends whom we totally trust. In this case I mean Prime Minister Modi. Yes, I know that during each telephone conversation with me he raises this issue and offers his insights about it. I am grateful to him for that and welcome it.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kiselev: We are close to wrapping up. The Emirates, Nadim, go ahead.

Nadim Koteich (retranslated): Mr President,

I would like to follow up on the question from our Brazilian colleague. You have already said Mohammed bin Zayed will arrive in Russia soon, and you will have a meeting. It is a truly important visit. You paid a wonderful visit to Abu Dhabi earlier. We also spoke about the ICC and its activities.

Importantly, Mohammed bin Zayed was in the United States to discuss technology cooperation with the US. How do you perceive the UAE in terms of their capability to build up relations with Iran, the USA, with your and other countries, to cooperate with international organisations such as the ICC? Is it an example of a policy you would like to pursue?

Vladimir Putin: This is a good example indeed. We have very good relations with the Arab Emirates. I have a very trustful and friendly contact with the President. I am confident that his visit will be very fruitful.

For its unofficial part, I mean to invite him to my place nearby. We will have dinner, spend the evening together and talk over all current issues.

The President of the Arab Emirates really manages to maintain good and very business-like relations with a great number of partners. It is very valuable in itself. So, we shall see.

In fact, Saudi Arabia too has done a lot for us, including on detainee swaps. We have similar contact with the United Arab Emirates. Our economic ties are progressing and our trade is growing. It is not as big as that with China, not US$240 billion, but nevertheless, the trend is positive. This is the first point. And the second point is that our investment fund has been operating very well and with success. And it is just one specific instance of our bilateral relations.

Regarding the Middle East agenda, we heed the voice coming from the UAE leadership and we certainly factor it in our practical policy.

Dmitry Kiselev: Fan Yun, China, please go ahead.

Fan Yun (retranslated): We have just discussed many security issues. I am very grateful to you, Mr President, for giving such an important description of Russian-Chinese relations. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has released a statement that President [of China] Xi Jinping will attend the summit in Kazan. Do you think that bilateral relations are in their best era under your and President Xi Jinping’s strategic guidance? What do you expect in the long term?

Russia-China relations look very promising today whether we speak about the production capacities that China and its government are promoting, e-commerce, or any new spheres. Which areas of bilateral relations do you think are the most promising?

Vladimir Putin: Now we are actively working in the energy sector, as you know, and we will definitely continue to develop this area. We are working to create two units at Chinese nuclear power plants and also supply a large amount of energy resources, both oil and gas. We will expand this cooperation.

As I have mentioned, this is beneficial for us and also serves as a reliable source for our Chinese friends because it is free from any outside influence. This is a sort of basic thing. We also expand cooperation in agriculture.

We are grateful to our Chinese friends for opening their market a bit where it serves their interests, including for the supply of agricultural products like pork and some other goods. But these are traditional areas of cooperation, of course.

Yet, we must certainly look to the future, with the most important areas including high-tech cooperation, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, genetics, and space.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, please, Saudi Arabia.

Faisal J. Abbas (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

Thank you for taking the time, and two short questions from me.

The first one concerns Pavel Durov, who holds the citizenship of France, Russia and the Emirates. We are well aware of what has been happening to him recently. What can Russia do to help him?

The second question is about the head of Iran’s parliament. He made a strange statement on the implementation of the [UN] Security Council Resolution 1701. He commented on it quite negatively during his contacts with the French. What can Russia do within the BRICS format to mend the relations between, let’s say, Israel and Iran? And is there a threat of a serious conflict between these countries?

Vladimir Putin: Look, first of all, the relations between Israel and Iran should be built by the two countries – Israel and Iran. It is their job, we cannot interfere in bilateral relations of two respected states in the Middle East which have an important role there.

As for the statements, made by the head of Iran’s parliament, to my mind I hardly need to make any comments on the statements made by heads of representative authorities of other countries. Let me note once again, we have very kind, allied and very trust-based relations with Iran. The situation is tense, everyone is expecting possible strikes by Israel with bated breath. I really do hope that any escalation of this conflict will be avoided.

Let me reiterate once again: we are ready to do our utmost, to the extent possible, if our role in this case is perceived positively, for the conflict in the Gaza Strip to be settled eventually in a peaceful way, for horrible strikes against civilians to stop and for the situation in southern Lebanon to normalise, so that reciprocal strikes from both sides cease and peaceful life comes to this area once again.

I believe that no one is actually interested in further widening the spiral of this conflict, no one – either for security reasons or economic reasons. This is why I believe that chances to find a solution exist. But whether this will be done or not, depends primarily on the countries involved in this conflict.

Dmitry Kiselev: Egypt, then Russia, and I think we will be wrapping up.

Egypt, please.

Salaheldin Magauri (retranslated): Mr President, thank you very much for the invitation.

I would like to talk about Russia-Egypt relations that have recently seen an upswing assisted, among other things, by your relations with Mr Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. A large number of development projects have been launched by Russia and Egypt recently. I would like to hear your opinion of the prospects for these projects and future relations between the two countries.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We have been enjoying traditionally warm and friendly relations with Egypt for many decades.

I am delighted to note that in recent years these relations are being enhanced largely thanks to President el-Sisi. Our trade is growing, we are engaged in large projects – suffice it to say that we are building a nuclear power plant, which is well known, everything is going as planned and I believe that all these plans will be completed.

We need to be more active regarding the industrial zone. We have been talking about it for a long time yet the steps we have taken are pretty modest.

Today, the President of Egypt also mentioned it in his address to the BRICS Business Forum, the industrial zones around the Suez Canal. We also have specific plans related mainly to engineering. These are very interesting long-term projects with both hefty investments and development of industrial cooperation. I think it is crucial.

We will continue our joint work in the humanitarian area, including personnel training. And finally, we will continue our cooperation in security. I hope, work in terms of military-technical cooperation will also be resumed.

In my view, our interaction and coordination of positions on the international arena are very important, including the issues pertaining to ensuring security in the region.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, the sentiment in the West regarding Ukraine has changed. Earlier there were talks about Ukraine’s inevitable victory and settling everything on the battlefield, but now there are active speculations about ceding territories in exchange for the remaining part of Ukraine joining NATO. How do you like this idea?

Vladimir Putin: I do not understand when you talk about ceding territories, because those territories which our soldiers are fighting for on the battlefield, these are our territories. These are the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. This is the first thing.

Second. Without any doubt, apart from this, we need to resolve the issue of ensuring long-term interests of Russia in the security sphere. If we are talking about some specific peace processes, then these should not be the processes connected with a truce for a week or two or for a year what would allow NATO countries to re-arm and stockpile new ammunition. We need conditions for a long-term, stable and lasting peace which would ensure equal security for all participants in this difficult process. This is what we should aspire for.

And if someone spoke at some point about the necessity to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, ensure victory over Russia on the battlefield, they already saw for themselves that this is impossible and unrealistic, and changed their point of view. Well, they were right to do so, I commend them for that.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you very much. We still have a lot of questions, but we understand that the two hours are over. We will not abuse the hospitality of the President of Russia.

Many thanks from all of us for your sincerity and patience. I even wrote down some important things that “BRICS is not an anti-Western alliance; it is simply non-Western.”

Vladimir Putin: This is what Prime Minister Modi said. Not me.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, Prime Minister Modi, but you quote him.

Thirty states are interested in cooperating with BRICS, which is very important.

The issue about the common currency has yet to gain relevance, but a reliable exchange of financial information is needed, which is an actual analogue.

Vladimir Putin: And broader use of national currencies.

Dmitry Kiselev: Yes, and broader use of national currencies.

The United States is 15 years late.

No one is interfering in other countries’ relations inside BRICS, but we treat everyone with care and victory will be ours.

Thank you very much, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to thank you for arranging today’s meeting. I would like to thank all the colleagues for today’s joint work and the interest you display in BRICS operation.

The group has very good, stable and reliable prospects. Let me reiterate: such confidence is based on the fact that we actually have common values, common understanding how to build relations with one another. And if such countries as India, China, Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and all other BRICS states (there are ten already) and all those who show interest in BRICS – there are already 30 of them and there will be more – if all of them are guided by these common principles, then the organisation will definitely be developing on this solid basis, this foundation and will be a substantial element of the new world order, multipolar world order, reliable in terms of security and development for all peoples included in this group.

I would like to thank you for this joint work and express hope that it is not our last meeting. I hope that your representatives or you will be present during the work in Kazan. And we will do everything to get this work done at the highest level.

Thank you.

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, we are very grateful to your press service, which treated us with utmost care. But our last wish for today is a joint photo.

Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.

Dmitry Kiselev: Thank you.

Answers to Russian media questions

2024-07-05T09:55:24+04:00

In conclusion of his working visit to Astana, Vladimir Putin answered questions from representatives of Russian media.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. Go ahead, please.

Anton Vernitsky: Mr President, my name is Anton Vernitsky, Channel One. Are you satisfied with the SCO’s effectiveness in this turbulent global envoronment? Does the Organisation manage to respond to all the challenges? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The SCO is a useful organisation. Let me remind you that it was created to finally settle all the issues that arose after the USSR collapsed, border issues with China that remained unresolved backing the Soviet times between China and the newly established states. Gradually, the organisation started to gain steam and definitely became more necessary in today’s world, because it is clearly an independent centre of the new multipolar world. This is the feature that attracted the organisation members and those who wanted to maintain close contacts with it at various levels, as guests or as observers. As you can see, the will to join the SCO is growing. It has definitely become a powerful and global organisation: its member countries represent almost half of the Earth’s population. This is the firs point.

Second, it is a platform to agree positions among the member countries: China, Russia, India and Pakistan. As you understand, contacts never go amiss. In addition to this, once the organisation has grown to be so powerful and large, then the principles it declares are also significant, when they are known all over the world. For example, all the member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have agreed that they stand against the deployment of any weapons in outer space, which is reflected in the declaration and other documents as well. This is a signal for the rest of the world on how we feel about the militarisation of outer space.

There are also other serious and important things, as I have said. First, a trillion-worth mutual trade matters. Discussing issues related to economic cooperation, both bilaterally and multilaterally, is crucial. As I have said, the GDP grew by 5.4 or 5.3 percent, and the industrial production grew 4.5 percent at the inflation rate of 2.4 percent. This is a good growth rate and good quality of the economy. I mean the low level of inflation.

Finally, cultural and humanitarian issues in various fields are agreed on, including youth, culture, education, and sports cooperation, all of which are very important and have good prospects.

Alexander Gamov: I am Alexander Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Mr President, statements are already made that we consider Verkhovna Rada the only legitimate authority in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: It is not we who say this but the constitution of Ukraine.

Alexander Gamov: Yes, this is according to the constitution. Perhaps Russia could address Verkhovna Rada directly, so that everyone in Ukraine and the West knows it.

A question arises related to Ukraine, which was spoken about a lot today. Back in December 1999, it was decided to create the Union State of Russia and Belarus, and we were dreaming about a common constitution, common currency etc. Today, integration processes have reached an unprecedented level, even considering our defence ties. Isn’t it time to return to creating the union we dreamed about in 1999? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, as for Ukraine, we could address Verkhovna Rada but this makes no sense while the power is usurped by the ruling elite, because the majority at the Verkhovna Rada is under its command. It holds the power illegally and does not even appeal to the constitutional court to confirm its powers. As I said, back in 2015, the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled that a presidential term was limited to five years, and there were no reasons to extend powers in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine. All powers should go to the Rada, but it does not take these powers upon itself. Therefore, of course, we can address it, but it is pointless considering the real-life situation.

The Union State is developing, and we remember all the goals and tasks set in the original documents. This is the path we are going along.

The President of Belarus believes, and I support him, that not political but economic issues must be addressed at the first stage. A foundation for further rapprochement on the political track must be created, though everything works smoothly in the political sphere: there are both interparliamentary and intergovernmental associations. It is a question of time whether it would be necessary to establish a single parliament. I agree with Mr Lukashenko that we have to properly strengthen our economic relations first.

The same goes for our finances and a single currency. Nobody is saying that this is impossible or that we cannot do this. We have to get ready for this economically, because, as you know, when a single currency was introduced in the European Union, many countries with weak economies suffered from this, because nothing could be regulated using inflation since everything was pegged to euro. For example, there was no drachma, so Greece could not regulate its domestic economic processes using its national currency. Therefore, it is important that we have a relevant level of economic cooperation. We have taken very serious steps in this direction.

This concerns tax and customs regulations. You know, this is very significant, if not revolutionary. We move forward while relying on international experience, too. I believe we are correct in doing so.

Donald Courter: Donald Courter, Russia today.

Mr President, terrorist organisations on Afghan territory pose a serious threat to security of the SCO space, including Central Asian countries and Russia. The Islamic State is the most dangerous of them, and Russia has already had to face it this year.

My question is, should the Taliban join the dialogue on terrorist threats? Do you think they are allies or enemies here?

Vladimir Putin: The Taliban movement has taken on certain obligations, and in general there are issues that require constant attention both within the country and from the international community. In fact, we should keep in mind that the Taliban controls the country. In this sense, the Taliban are, of course, our allies in countering terrorism, because any authority in power is interested in its own stability and the stability of the country it leads.

I believe that the Taliban are also interested in Afghanistan being stable, calm, and subject to certain rules. We have received repeated signals from the Taliban that they are ready to work with us on the anti-terrorism track.

Dmitry Laru: My name is Dmitry Laru, Izvestia newspaper.

Afghanistan remains a SCO observer state, but the Kabul authorities have said many times that they are interested in fully joining the Organisation. Has this topic been discussed at the SCO, considering that the [SCO – Afghanistan] Contact Group has resumed its work?

Is Russia planning to remove the Taliban from the list of banned organisations? If so, when might this happen?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that we maintain contact with the Taliban. We have received repeated signals that the Taliban movement is ready to cooperate with Russia in various areas, including on the anti-terrorism track, and we welcome it.

As for full membership in the SCO, it is not for Russia alone to decide. This is always decided by a consensus. There are issues with several SCO member states which concern the inclusiveness of power in Afghanistan.

I believe all these issues can be resolved. We must maintain relations with Afghanistan and the real political forces that control the country. We will do this. I do not see why we should turn away from this now.

The timing will depend on how the situation will develop.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.

Several months ago, I was lucky to ask you: who is better for us, Biden or Trump? And then you said that Biden. But now it turns out that that “bet” has become questionable because after the recent debates in the United States everyone is terrified of Biden, and, in general, his participation in the election race is in question.

Maybe you managed to see some pieces of these debates. What are your impressions? And, let us put it as follows, have your political preferences changed?

Vladimir Putin: You said: “That “bet” has become questionable.” Nothing has become questionable. Then I said … What has changed? Nothing has changed. Do you think we didn't know what would happen? We did. Nothing has changed in that sense.

As for watching or not watching it – I watched some pieces. I have enough to do, so I don't particularly follow what's going on there, especially in the media comments. They always have certain preferences: someone is in favour, someone is against. On the whole, of course, I have seen it, it is impossible to turn away from this, especially since the United States remains a great power with certain economic, security, and military capabilities, and the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, certainly has such an influence on the situation in Ukraine. Of course, we are not indifferent to what is happening there. Still, this is their own internal affair.

Please, go ahead.

Aisel Gereikhanova: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Aisel Gereikhanova.

And yet, regarding the debates and specifically Donald Trump’s statements. He has already said on many occasions during the debates that he is ready to finish the conflict in Ukraine literally overnight. There are also some reports that Trump may stop NATO expansion to the East. How seriously do you take such promises yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we take seriously enough the things that Mr Trump is saying as a presidential candidate about his readiness and wish to stop the war in Ukraine. Naturally, I do not know his possible proposals as to how he is going to do it – and this is, of course, the key question. However, I have no doubt that he is saying it sincerely, and we support it.

Andrei Kolesnikov: My name is Andrei Kolesnkov, Kommersant newspaper.

Mr President, do you believe a ceasefire along the contact line with Ukraine is possible before peace negotiations begin, without any preconditions, in order to have a better chance of success? Or is it also subject to negotiation?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me remind you some things. When our troops were near Kiev, we received a proposal and even a plea from our Western partners to cease fire and stop hostilities in order for certain things to be done on the Ukrainian side. We did it. There was a moment when we did it. The Ukrainian side did not cease hostilities. Later we were told that the official Ukrainian authorities could not control all their military units, because there were allegedly those that were not subordinate to the central authorities. This is what we were told, no more and no less. This is first.

Second, we were asked to move our troops away from Kiev in order to create conditions to finally sign a peace treaty. We did this and faced deception once again: all the agreements reached in Istanbul were thrown in the trash. Such things happened repeatedly.

Therefore, we cannot just declare a ceasefire hoping that the opposing side will take some positive steps. This is first.

Second, we cannot allow the adversary to take advantage of this ceasefire to improve its positions, rearm itself, fill up its army through forced mobilization, and get prepared to continue the armed conflict.We must ensure that the opposing side agrees to take steps that would be irreversible and acceptable to the Russian Federation.

Therefore, a ceasefire is impossible without reaching this agreement.

Yelena Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.

Several days ago, Vladimir Zelensky said that he considered negotiations with Russia possible through mediators, the way it was with the grain deal. What do you think about this idea, and who could serve as mediator in this case?

Vladimir Putin: We have always been in favour of negotiations, as you know. We never rejected them. The problem is that I consider it improbable that the conflict can be settled through mediators alone, above all because a mediator will not be authorised to sign any final documents, and moreover, even bring them for signing. The competencies of these mediators are not the only crucial issue, but their authority, too. Who can vest the authority to any mediator to put this conflict to an end? I find this improbable.

However, we welcome mediation, for example, like that of Mr Erdogan during our negotiation process in Istanbul.

Rossina Bodrova: Rossina Bodrova, Zvezda TV channel.

What do we know about Washington’s plans to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles? What territories might be used to deploy them, and what kind of threat will this pose for our security?

You recently spoke about the need to begin the production of intermediate- and shorter-range missile strike systems. Are we talking about a new weapon? Is it just production, or does that include deployment as well?

Vladimir Putin: As you may remember, I said that in connection with the United States withdrawing from this treaty and announcing that it would begin the production, we, too, believe we can begin the R&D work, and production in the future. We are carrying out the R&D work. We are ready to start the production. In principle, we have already instructed the industry accordingly.

As far as deployment is concerned, as you may remember, and if you do not, I will remind you, I said we were declaring a moratorium on the possible deployment of our respective systems in the future until the time these missile systems are deployed in another region of the world. If US-made medium-range and shorter-range missiles appear in some place, we reserve the right to respond tit-for-tat. Everything that we said remains valid.

Alexander Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Mr President, yesterday you had several bilateral meetings, and the spotlight was on your talks with President Erdogan, whom you saw in person a long time ago, even though trade between our countries is declining.

Vladimir Putin: It is growing now.

Alexander Yunashev: Still not as much we would like.

If it is not a secret, what did you discuss when the reporters left? What is the most important issue in Russia-Turkiye relations? What, or who, is standing in our way?

Vladimir Putin: It is well known who is standing in our way. What helps us is President Erdogan’s political will. Technically, it is about calculations, and everyone is well aware of it. Even though our Turkish partners mentioned yesterday that, in value terms, our trade had fallen from US$63 billion to US$55 billion. These figures need to be checked, of course. According to them, this is primarily cost-related, because they used to purchase our energy carriers at higher prices, and prices have fallen in recent months, at least compared to 2022. So we are witnessing a decline in value terms as well.

According to them, not much has changed in absolute terms and in terms of volume. I will run a check on it. The point is not to check things, though, but to step up our work, and both sides are interested in doing so.

There are also objective considerations that have nothing to do with someone being in our way, but have more to do with what things actually are. For example, the harvest in Turkiye was good, and their storage facilities are full of grain. They buy less grain. Or, take their tax restrictions related to our metallurgical industry. This has nothing to do with restrictions from outside. It is simply the dynamics of domestic production and our bilateral relations. All these issues can be dealt with.

Please go ahead.

Anna Derkach: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Anna Derkach, MIR.

As of today, Belarus is officially a SCO member. What prospects does this bring to the organisation, and what opportunities does it open up for cooperation between the SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Belarus’s size, territory, economy, or population cannot be compared with China or India with over 1.5 billion people each, probably, even more now. However, it is still an important element of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, because Belarus is Eastern Europe, so the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has officially entered the European continent. I also believe that this is a great advantage for Belarus, because, for example, it now has a way to the Caspian Sea via Russia, and then, say, via Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, further to Iran. It is important for Belarus, because it remains a large exporter of mineral fertiliser. It is important for Belarus to have routes and countries where it can export its agricultural equipment or import something from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation countries.

Therefore, I believe that this is a mutually beneficial decision, and, to a certain degree, Mr Lukashenko and his Foreign Ministry’s success.

Ksenia Chernyayeva: My name is Ksenia Chernyayeva, Interfax agency.

At the moment, in fact, the entire previous system of strategic stability has been cancelled: START-3, the INF Treaty and the CTBT are not in effect. Is it possible to renew these agreements in the future, or will they never be relevant again? Should we come up with something new, such as a unified concept, convention, or some other framework document? With whom and on what platform should this topic be discussed and such agreements recorded?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The first thing I would like to point out is that indeed the United States has destroyed the fundamental documents that underpinned international stability and security. We did not withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was a cornerstone, or the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or the CTBT.

Many elements in the foundation of international stability have been destroyed in recent years. Nothing if this was done by us. All of this was done by the US. What were we supposed to do? Only to take note and respond to those actions. And so we did. For example, what have we done in the military sphere to overcome the missile defence system being created by the United States? We successfully invented systems to overcome antimissile defences, such as intercontinental Avandards, hypersonic gliding blocks, or intercontinental-range ballistic missile technology to break through missile defence systems, and some other things, too. We were forced to do this.

However, the issue of creating a legal framework for international security and strategic stability is still on our to-do list. Should these be new agreements or should we return to the old ones? This is up to the experts to decide. You know, even when I was studying at the university, I did not study public international law, I studied private international law and my thesis was about it. Then, I did economics.

But it is not even about that, not about the formal, or the legal aspect, but about the root of the matters that we should address as a team.

We have articulated our proposals. I mentioned when I spoke before the Foreign Ministry’s senior officials. As a matter of fact, it was put on paper. But there must be goodwill on the part of those who are interested in seeing this happen. We sometimes hear from the United States that they are willing to resume talks on this subject. But they appear to be undecided. At some point they seem to want it, next thing you know they do not. During the latter stint of President Obama’s administration, they let us know that they wanted to, but then all of a sudden they changed their mind.

I believe everyone here, and in general, people who follow the developments, realise that establishing any kind of a constructive dialogue with the United States at this point, amid the presidential campaign marked by acute domestic political strife – we should discuss this matter primarily with the United States – is impossible. We should wait for the elections in the United States to take place and see the future administration’s disposition and preferences. We are ready for that.

Yulia Bubnova: Speaking at the Foreign Ministry, you outlined your vision of the future security system, and now you mentioned that these ideas would be put on paper. What will it be, if it is not a secret? Will it be new treaties, our written proposals to the West, or something else? More broadly, are there any contacts underway to follow up on your proposals regarding Ukraine and the global security system in general, or do they remain unanswered by the West?

Vladimir Putin: As far as global security is concerned, I have just covered it. We need to wait for the new [US] administration to be formed, to understand their preferences, views, and plans, and whether they are willing to discuss this matter. To reiterate, they are letting us know from time to time that they are willing to resume this dialogue with us. However, shortly after, they vanish and then come up with abstract topics that are not directly related to matters of strategic stability. To reiterate, let us wait until the new administration is formed and see what its plans and preferences are. Once again, we are ready for that.

Thank you very much. All the best.

Meeting with heads of international news agencies

2024-06-24T13:54:22+04:00

Vladimir Putin held a meeting with heads of the world’s leading news agencies.

Representatives of news agencies from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the United States, Uzbekistan, China, Iran, Great Britain, Turkiye, Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain, and France took part in the meeting. Russia was represented by TASS Director General Andrei Kondrashov.

* * *

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, guests,

Mr President, before we begin, let me thank you for helping us carry on a wonderful tradition throughout all these years. The tradition is about the Russian News Agency TASS bringing its foreign colleagues together for a meeting with you. I am not sure how you manage to set aside time in your very busy schedule to meet with foreign journalists every time we have this meeting.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Did they offer you a tour of this building?

Andrei Kondrashov: They did. We will most likely go up to the roof after the meeting.

Vladimir Putin: Do not go.

Andrei Kondrashov: Why not? Is it dangerous?

Vladimir Putin: No, it is not, but Mr Miller will not let you go unless he gives you every detail about every element of this building. It usually takes him three hours to do so. He absolutely loves this building. You will not be able to leave.

Andrei Kondrashov: Did you like the building?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, I did.

Andrei Kondrashov: How did you like the view of St Petersburg from the 87^th floor?

Vladimir Putin: It’s beautiful. I hope you like it too, if you go.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, we have 16 countries represented by their key leading news agencies in this audience. There should have been more of them, but our Indian and Brazilian colleagues could not make it, because they are busy covering the outcomes of the elections that had been held in their respective countries lately. Our colleague from Egypt broke his leg just the other day, and we wish him a speedy recovery. However, we welcome those who came to one of the world’s most beautiful cities, St Petersburg, and to this new trendy place called Lakhta Centre.

According to our estimates, the people you see here, Mr President, produce about 80 percent of the entire global news flow. During the time that we did not meet, many of the countries they represent have suddenly become unfriendly towards Russia. However, this will probably make it even more interesting to see how they are living by and what issues they consider to be their priorities.

Actually, although this is going to be the eighth meeting and we are pleased that it is being held in the year when TASS turns 120, this will, perhaps be the first meeting amid such international tensions. It looks like the world has lost its mind, that someone is intentionally pushing it towards a catastrophe.

We would very much like to expect that after our meeting we will be at least a step closer to understanding how to reduce the degree of this tension, the degree of double standards, of this ill understanding and simply hostility.

Colleagues, being a TASS agency moderator, I will give each of you an opportunity to ask your main question. Whether you will be able to ask a second and subsequent questions depends solely on the President of Russia.

And we also have a wonderful tradition: we give the first floor to the better half of humanity – women. Why? Because in Russia women are traditionally treated not only with respect, but also with love and reverence.

This is why the first question will be asked by our wonderful Irina Akulovich, Director General, BelTA agency – Belarusian Telegraph Agency. Mr President, she also has a musical education, so we will count on her to set the right tone for our entire conversation.

Ms Akulovich, your question, please.

Vladimir Putin: If I may, I want to welcome all of you. You must have been held in this tower for half a day – I apologise for that. Let me repeat: it is very difficult to escape from the grip of Gazprom CEO, who tells you everything about every element and infects you with his optimism.

The people here are very well-informed, and I simply cannot imagine what I could tell you that you do not know. You know everything, and you certainly know it better than I do. Whatever I say, you will still think you know better. So, I propose that we should exchange opinions rather than have a Q&A session. It will be more interesting. And it will also be interesting for me to hear your opinion on matters that are of interest to you.

This seems to be everything I wanted to say at the beginning.

Ms Akulovich, please, go ahead.

BelTA (Belarus) Director General Irina Akulovich: Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr President.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk to you. We are perfectly aware that your schedule is very busy indeed. It is not just us who are waiting for this meeting, but also the world’s biggest news agencies, and the biggest media outlets are following it too, of course.

However, I would like to say that I believe I was given the right to ask the first question not only because we are trying to fix gender issues here, but also because Belarus is the closest country for Russia. This is not a question, this an exchange of views; it is a statement, of course.

You met Alexander Lukashenko somewhere in the mid-90s, that is, you have known our President for about 30 years. Our countries have seen different relations over time, but you always managed to find a solution to any issue, be it security or economic issues. I would like to ask how easy or difficult are things for you now. Are there any leaders in the European Union today to resolve complex issues with? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, the President of Belarus and I have known each other for a long time. It is true that we had different relations at different times. However, because our relations rest on the fundamental interests of the two peoples, the Russians and the Belarusians, we have always been able to find solutions even to most complicated issues, which seemed to have had no simple answers. This is why we have started the work to build the Union State which is going smoothly. We are doing this guided by our nations’ sentiments, and we are doing this in a very quiet and orderly manner.

We always consider our interests when addressing any issue or taking any step, above all in the economy or politics, including foreign politics. It may sound odd, but also in ecology and culture. When we take a look at the entire range of things that unite us, it enables us to resolve both small matters and, perhaps, difficult ones, if they arise.

You know, with the volume as large as it is, there is always room for improvement. In fact, it is no secret, and everyone knows that if we look at the dollar figure, our trade amounts to $48 billion, or almost $50 billion. This is quite a substantial turnover.

Moreover, we have been very effective in diversifying our economic relations. This includes agriculture, with nearly 90 percent of all Belarusian agricultural and industrial exports going to the Russian market, as well as industrial production and cooperation. We recently discussed these matters in Minsk. I believe we have everything we need: we hold regular meetings to discuss these issues, and my visit there after my re-election as President of Russia was meant to serve as a symbol in a way, and had a ceremonial side to it. But there was much more to it than that. Our key Government officials accompanied me on that visit and engaged in intense debates during their meetings on industrial cooperation and the extent of localisation in manufacturing. As usual, we also focused on export volumes, primarily oil, to Belarusian refineries, and also touched upon reciprocal supplies of petrochemicals to the Russian market. What I mean is that we had specific and meaningful items on our agenda. The way we tackle these matters will have a major impact on the quality of life for our people.

Let me reiterate that the positive attitude and goodwill between our two nations have always enabled us to find solutions. Sometimes we must take unconventional steps, even if they may seem unusual, given our extensive ties and the fact that our relations may seem like a well-oiled mechanism. But no, we have to invest our efforts all the time in finding solutions to issues which arise along the way. However, we have never failed in this regard. I am confident that this continues to be the case moving forward.

Irina Akulovich: Does this mean that there are no issues in Russia’s relations with Belarus?

Vladimir Putin: No, there are issues.

Irina Akulovich: But there are always solutions too.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, we always find a way to resolve them since we make these decisions based on the interests of our two nations.

Irina Akulovich: Would it be possible to find solutions of this kind with the leaders of the European Union?

Vladimir Putin: We could certainly do this with these leaders as well, if only they felt more confident and had more courage to stand up for their national interests. I think that our colleagues here will raise this issue during our conversation.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you Ms Akulovich.

I give the floor to Samia Nakhoul, a Global Foreign Policy Editor at Reuters. Samia has reported from many hot spots and was seriously wounded in Iraq. Ms Nakhoul, please ask your question.

Vladimir Putin: When were you wounded in Iraq?

Samia Nakhoul, a Global Foreign Policy Editor at Reuters (UK): It was during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Samira Nakhoul: Thank you for receiving us.

Mr President, given you past interaction with both President Donald Trump and President Biden, can you tell us, according to your perspective and your views, which one do you think would be the most favourable candidate in terms of relations with Russia, given the war that is going on in Ukraine now?

Vladimir Putin: As I said, everyone smiled ironically when I made a statement about Mr Biden, seeing it as an attack on President Biden. Indeed, he is an old school politician; he did not like what happened and he struck back at me, up to a point. I thought that this could happen. It meant that I was right, and that he was predictable. It only confirmed my thoughts about this.

Deep down, we do not care because Mr Trump, who was accused of spying for Russia… As we see it, it is complete nonsense and drivel. It was just an element of political infighting between Democrats and Republicans, these silly accusations against Trump. We have always seen them as an element of political infighting in the United States. This was later confirmed by various investigations conducted in the United States. We never had any special ties with Mr Trump.

However, it is a fact that as president he introducedlarge-scale sanctions against the Russian Federation. He pulled out of the INF Treaty. It happened during his term in office.

I will be completely honest with you: we do not think the election outcome will impact US policy towards Russia. We do not think it will; we do not think there will be any serious changes.

You know perfectly well that the current developments in the United States are political infighting; they are burning themselves out, their state and their political system.

I must say, even if it may be unpleasant, that they are also incinerating their pseudo-leadership in the field of democracy. It is clear to everyone worldwide that the persecution of Trump, especially his prosecution on charges based on events that took place years ago without any direct evidence, is a blatant use of the judicial system for political infighting. This is obvious to us in Russia. I am confident that this is obvious in the UK as well, and that the rest of the world thinks likewise. Most importantly, people in the United States recognise this as well, because after the trial and the jury’s guilty verdict, Trump’s ratings have soared, as we know, by 6 percent, if memory serves, and donations to his election headquarters have increased immediately.

This shows that people in the United States do not trust their judicial system which adopts such rulings. On the contrary, they believe that these rulings have been issued for political reasons.

As strange as this may sound, I believe that the current administration is making one mistake after another, be it in its international, domestic or economic policies. Sometimes simply observing what is happening there becomes quite perplexing. Therefore, we monitor these developments as outsiders. We have never interfered in the internal political processes within the United States and have no plans to do so. Still, let us wait and see where it all takes us.

I would like to end this answer with the point I mentioned in the beginning. We believe that the result does not matter here. We will work with any president elected by the American people.

Samia Nakhoul: With regard to Ukraine, you don’t think anything will change in terms of support for Ukraine or if Trump comes back? You don’t think there will be a change?

Vladimir Putin: It is hard to say. I cannot tell you with certainty whether something would change or not. You know, we need to see the next administration’s priorities.

If the next administration prioritises national interests and if they believe that ensuring domestic stability is in their national interests; if instead of focusing on immigration they seek to consolidate their society within the United States in order to overcome the mistakes that brought about a spike in inflation while the US debt ballooned – in this case, of course, if they focus on their national interests and act this way, rather than pursuing a global liberal agenda, which I believe is destroying the United States from within, this striving to be a global liberalism leader; if they seek guidance from their national interests – then there can be some shifts in US foreign policy and the way it treats Russia and the Ukraine conflict. However, you will understand that it is all about the ifs that I keep mentioning. It can change if this occurs.

Still, I think that you would agree with me that no one cares about Ukraine in the United States. All they care about is how great the United States is. The US is not there to fight for Ukraine or the Ukrainian people. It is fighting for its own greatness and world leadership. There is no way they can allow Russia to succeed. Why? Because they believe that this would undermine US leadership. That is the purpose behind everything the US does.

But if the next administration changes course and shifts its agenda so that its raison d’etre and its work focus on strengthening the United States from within and reinforcing its economy, finance and building normal, more respectful relations around the world with everyone, it is only then that something would change. I think that the overall public sentiment can play a decisive role here. And the public opinion seems to be tilting this way, and if the next administration catches this wind in its sails, it is at that point that change becomes possible.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Ms Nakhoul.

It is now the men’s turn to ask their questions. Chairman of the Board of Azerbaijan State News Agency Vugar Aliyev, you can go ahead and ask the President of Russia your question.

Mr Aliyev, please go ahead with your question.

Chairman of the Board of Azerbaijan State News Agency Vugar Aliyev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us.

There has been positive momentum in Azerbaijan-Russia relations lately. President Ilham Aliyev’s recent visit to Moscow was not only an opportunity to mark a memorable date for our two countries – the 50^th anniversary of the Baikal-Amur Mainline – but also to discuss our bilateral relations.

What are your thoughts on the future of our bilateral cooperation, particularly in terms of developing the North-South corridor?

Vladimir Putin: We have been successful, steady and pragmatic in developing our relations.

You know, we can sense how committed Azerbaijan’s leaders are to building relations between our countries based on mutual interests or, I should even say, based on a certain degree of mutual sympathy we have for each other. Is there any other way we can explain the fact that there are 300 Russian-language schools in Azerbaijan where students can study in Russian? I know that President Aliyev has been proactive in promoting the learning of the Russian language in his country. And this attitude is apparent across all domains.

What does this mean? It means that the Azerbaijani leadership recognises the importance of the Russian language for the people of Azerbaijan. Why? Because it enables them to develop our bilateral ties. And these ties are indeed developing.

Let me reiterate – and I will use a dollar figure once again – that our overall trade is at about $4.5-$4.6 billion, and it has been growing quite well and gathering momentum.

Our relations are becoming increasingly diversified. I am convinced that if the two sides continue on this path, and Russia remains committed to this objective, we will deliver and achieve meaningful results.

In this regard, there is much to be done in terms of logistics. You are absolutely right about that. It is not just about developing the North-South corridor. There are also opportunities for building logistics centres, including along the Russia-Azerbaijan border in Dagestan. This effort is already underway. There are also other matters we can work on together. There is a considerable number of students from Azerbaijan studying in Russia, including those benefiting from free tuition. We can see that young people are quite eager to study in Russia.

The North-South project has the potential to evolve into a valuable international corridor, enabling shipments of goods from the port of St Petersburg, where we are right now, all the way across Europe to Azerbaijan, Iran and on to the Persian Gulf. The travel time should be almost 10 days shorter than through the Suez Canal.

No offence – it goes without saying that the Suez Canal is an essential fixture in global trade. However, the North-South corridor will offer an additional and highly efficient route for delivering goods from north to south and back, saving 10 days in the process. Ten days is a lot, in terms of the time saved, and makes the corridor worthwhile and highly efficient.

Nevertheless, there is still a lot to be done here. We are working on both sides of the border. I know that President Aliyev supports this project, as we have discussed it on numerous occasions. The Iranian leadership also supports it. Furthermore, due to its significant economic potential, foreign investors, both regional and extra-regional countries, have shown interest. Arab sovereign wealth funds have also expressed interest, which is understandable as they are always on the lookout for low-risk investment opportunities. This project is undoubtedly a good investment, with guaranteed profitability.

There are certain issues that require further consideration. For example, we need to determine which areas will be utilised, including inside Azerbaijan, and how the construction will be financed. Will it be funded through a loan, or will Russia provide direct financing? Additionally, we need to consider how the branch lines that will extend westward across Azerbaijan will be integrated.

We also need to work out the specifics with our Iranian partners and friends: what type of railway are we going to build? Will it be a standard gauge or a narrow gauge similar to the one in Iran?

However, the most important aspect is that all stakeholders are committed to following through with the plan. We have established a directorate, and VTB is actively involved. I have no doubt that we will succeed. We still have a few questions regarding the timeframe and costs, but even that is nearly finalised. So, this is a great project that we are implementing together, although it is not the only one. In addition to everything else, Azerbaijan is a Caspian state and a member of the Caspian Five, and we have plenty of shared interests, including environmental considerations.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Aliyev.

I am now giving the floor to a country that will probably never fail to evoke strong emotions in you, Mr President. This is Germany.

Our guest is Martin Romanczyk, head of news service at the German news agency DPA (Deutsche Presse-Agenture).

Martin actually knows our country firsthand, because he was posted in Moscow as DPA’s own correspondent in the 1990s. Your question please, Mr Romanczyk.

News Director at DPA Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Good evening, Mr President. Good evening, everyone.

Chancellor Scholz has agreed to supply arms to Ukraine. I would like to ask you how you would react if Scholz changed his mind. And what do you think this implies for Germany? Did you try to warn, caution or maybe threaten Mr Chancellor when he made the decision to send weapons to Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Why would you think we would threaten anyone? We never threaten anyone, least of all the head of another state. That would be mauvais ton, unacceptable in polite society.

We have our own viewpoint on certain issues. We know the European states’ approach, including Germany’s approach, on the current developments in Ukraine.

Everyone believes that Russia started the war in Ukraine. But no one – I want to emphasise this – no one in the West, no one in Europe is willing to remember how this tragedy began. It started with an unconstitutional coup in Ukraine. This was the beginning of the war. But is Russia to blame for that coup? No. Have those who are trying to blame Russia today forgotten that the foreign ministers of Poland, Germany and France went to Kiev at the time and signed the settlement document as guarantors of a peaceful constitutional resolution of the crisis? This is something Europe, including Germany, prefers to forget. Because if they remembered, they would have to explain why the leaders of Germany, along with the other signatories, never demanded that the perpetrators of the coup in Ukraine return to the constitutional framework. Why did they neglect their obligations as guarantors of agreements between the incumbent government and the opposition like this? They are as responsible for what happened as the forces in the United States that provoked the unconstitutional seizure of power. Don’t you know what followed? The residents of Crimea made a decision to secede from Ukraine, and the residents of Donbass refused to obey those who carried out the coup in Kiev. This is what followed. This is how this conflict began.

After that, Russia made every effort to come up with a formula for a peaceful settlement. What is now known as Minsk agreements were signed in Minsk in 2015. By the way, they were institutionalised by a UN Security Council resolution. It was an actionable document. Instead, they chose to resolve this issue militarily. They used artillery, tanks and aircraft against civilians in southeastern Ukraine. For some reason, no one, I repeat, no one wants to talk about this either in Germany and other European countries, or the United States. So be it.

We facilitated the signing of the Minsk agreements, but it turned out that no one was going to act on them. The former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France have publicly stated so.

What does this mean, Mr Romanchik? They made a public confession that they were not going to implement the Minsk agreements, and signed them just in order to buy time to arm Ukraine and to create proper conditions for continuing hostilities. All they did was pull the wool over our eyes. Is that not so? Is there any other way to explain what happened?

For eight long years we have been trying to achieve a peaceful solution. Eight years!

A former chancellor once told me, “You know, in Kosovo, we, NATO, went ahead without a Security Council resolution, because blood was spilled for eight years in Kosovo.” What about the blood of Russian people spilled in Donbass? Was it water, not blood? No one wanted to pay attention to it.

In the end, this is what we were forced to do when the then Ukrainian authorities said that they did not like a single clause of the Minsk agreements, and the then Foreign Minister said they were not going to fulfill them.

Do you realise that these territories were plunged into economic and social degradation? Eight years. I am not even talking about murders, constant killing of women, children, and so on.

Considering this, we were compelled to recognise their independence. We did not recognise their independence for almost eight years. We were looking forward for both sides to come to terms and to resolve this issue peacefully. Eight years! When they said they were not going to implement any peace agreements, we had to use military force in order to bring them into compliance.

We were not the ones to start this war. The war started in 2014 following the coup and their attempt to use cannons to break resistance of the people who opposed the coup.

And now for people following international events and international law. What happened next? What did we do? We did not recognise this for eight years. What did we do when we realised that the Minsk Agreements will never be fulfilled? Please note everyone: we recognised the independence of these self-proclaimed republics. Could we do this from the point of view of international law, or no? As Article One of the UN Charter says, we could. It is about the nations’ right to self-determination. The UN International Court of Justice ruled (it is put in writing) that, if any territory of a country decides to become independent, it is not obliged to appeal to the higher authorities of that country. All this was done regarding Kosovo. There is a decision of the International Court of Justice, which reads: if a territory has decided on independence, it is not obliged to apply to the capital for permission to exercise this right.

However, if it is like it is written in the UN court decision, then these unrecognised republics, the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, had the right to do so. And they did. Did we have the right to recognise them? Of course, we did. And we did recognise them. Next, we entered into an agreement with them. Could we sign an agreement with them or not? Yes, of course. The agreement provided for assistance to these states in the event of aggression. Kiev waged a war against these states, which we recognised eight years later. Eight years.

Could we recognise them? We could. And then, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, we provided them with assistance. You know, no matter what anyone says, this is exactly what I told Mr Guterres, the logic we followed, step by step. Where is the mistake here? Where are the violations of international law here? There are no violations, considering international law.

Then we hear the answer: well, you attacked anyway. We did not attack, but defended ourselves, just to make it clear to everyone. The first step towards the war was taken by those who encouraged the bloody unconstitutional coup d'etat.

Now regarding the arms supplies. Arms supplies to a conflict area is always a bad idea. Especially when those who are supplying weapons not only supply them but also operate them. It is a very serious and very dangerous step. You and I know this, and the Federal Republic doesn’t deny it (I certainly don’t know how it made its way to the press), that a Bundeswehr general discussed where and how to deliver a strike: either at the Crimean Bridge or at some other facilities inside Russia, including a territory that no one doubts belongs to Russia.

When the first German tanks, tanks made in Germany, appeared on Ukrainian soil, it produced a moral and ethical shock in Russia because the attitude in Russian society to the Federal Republic has always been very good. Very good. Now, when they say that some missiles are to appear that would attack facilities on Russian territory, it will certainly destroy Russian-German relations for good and all. But we understand that, as one of the well-known German politicians said, after World War II the Federal Republic of Germany has never been a sovereign state in the full sense of the word.

We were in contact with Mr Scholz, we met on many occasions. I don’t want to assess the performance of the Federal Government, but it’s the German people, the German voters who are making such assessments. European parliamentary elections are coming up; we will look at what is going to happen there. As far as I know – of course, I actually care about Germany, I have many friends there, whom I am trying not to contact, not to subject them so some obstruction in the country, I am trying not to maintain relations with them, but I simply know these people for many years, I know that they are reliable friends and I have many of them in Germany. So, I am also aware of the balance of forces in the political arena. As far as I understand, if I am not mistaken, the CDU/CSU now has somewhere around 30 percent, the Social Democrats have about 16 percent, the Alternative for Germany already has 15 percent, and all the others are lower. This is the elector’s response. This is the Germans’ mood, the mood of the German people.

I understand the dependence of the Federal Republic in the area of defence, in security in general. I understand its dependence in politics, in information policy, because wherever you point to there, to any major publishing house (I don’t know where you work) its ultimate beneficiary is located overseas, some US foundation. Well, I applaud those American foundations and those who are conducting such policy: It’s great that they are holding the information field of Europe so firmly in terms of their interests. And they are also trying hard not to reveal themselves.

It’s all understandable. The influence is tremendous and it is very difficult to oppose it. It is clear. But there are some elementary things. Speaking about these elementary things – it is strange that nobody in the current German leadership protects German interests. It’s clear that Germany does not have full sovereignty, but Germans are still there. Their interests should be taken into account and protected, at least a little bit.

Look: the ill-starred pipelines at the bottom of the Baltic Sea have been blown up. No one is even indignant – as if this is the way it should be. We nevertheless continue to supply gas to Europe through the territory of Ukraine. We continue to supply gas. There were two pipeline systems there, and Ukraine closed one of them, screwed the valve, just closed it and that’s all, although there were no grounds for this. It left only one pipeline system – well, okay. But gas goes to Europe through it, and European consumers receive this gas. Our gas also goes to Europe through Turkey via Turkish Stream, and European consumers receive it.

OK, one Nord Stream pipe was blown up, but another Nord Stream pipe is intact, thank God. Why doesn’t Germany want to receive our gas through this pipe? Can anyone explain the logic? You can get it through Ukraine, you can get it through Turkey, but you can’t get it through the Baltic Sea. What kind of nonsense is this? There is no formal logic in this, I don’t even understand it.

They would better say that Europe should not get gas at all. OK, fine, we’ll get over it, Gazprom will survive. But you don’t need it, you need to buy overpriced liquefied natural gas shipped from across the ocean. Don’t your ‘environmentalists’ know how liquefied natural gas is produced? By fracking. Ask the people in the United States where they produce this gas – sometimes they get slop instead of water running from their taps. Your ‘environmentalists’ who are in power in the government, don’t know that? They probably do.

Poland has closed its Yamal-Europe pipeline. Gas was going to Germany through Poland. We didn’t shut it down, the Poles did. You know better than I do the effect the termination of our ties in the energy sector has had on the German economy. It’s a sad result. Many large industrial companies are looking for a place to land, but only not on German territory. They are opening in the USA and in Asia, but the business conditions there make them uncompetitive. And this, by the way, can have severe consequences for the European economy as a whole, because the German economy (everyone is well aware of this, no offence to any other Europeans) is the locomotive of the European economy. If it sneezes and coughs, everyone else will immediately get the flu. France’s economy is also teetering on the brink of recession right now, everyone knows that. And if the German economy goes down, all of Europe will be shuddering.

I am not suggesting that the Euro-Atlantic ties should be broken. Otherwise, someone (not necessarily you) might hear what I am saying and infer that I am calling for breaking up Euro-Atlantic solidarity. Listen, your politics are flawed, and you are making glaring mistakes every step of the way. I think the current developments represent a major mistake for the United States itself. In a push to maintain their leadership using the means they are using, they are, in fact, causing harm to themselves. But things are even worse for Europe. Indeed, you could say, “We support you in this, that, and that, but this belongs to us. Look, if we undermine our economy, everyone will feel the consequences. You cannot do that, we are against it, it is taboo, do not touch it.”

But the federal government is not doing that, either. Frankly, sometimes I get confused and cannot see the logic behind this line of conduct. Okay, they were going to undermine Russia’s economy, and they thought it would take them three to six months to get there. However, everyone can see that this is not happening. Last year, our economy grew by 3.4 percent. This year, it grew by 5.4 percent in the first quarter. Moreover, according to international financial and economic organisations – the World Bank re-ran some numbers (it was our goal) – and we were in fifth place in terms of purchasing power parity in the world and we set ourselves the goal of making it to the fourth place. I think you are following the calculations of our colleagues from international financial institutions. Quite recently, last week, I think, the World Bank ran the numbers on our GDP only to find out that we were outdoing Japan in this regard. According to the World Bank, Russia is the world’s fourth largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity meaning that we achieved that goal.

That is not what really matters, though. This is not an end in itself. What is important, though, is to keep up the pace and progress. So far, we have been able to do so, because in the first quarter, as I said earlier, our GDP amounted to 5.4 percent. The reason I am saying this is not to brag about it. I want those who are trying to get in our way, to cause us harm and to slow down our progress realise that what they are doing does more harm to themselves than to us. They should realise this, draw conclusions and mend their ways for their own benefit. But we do not see it happening.

No offence, but I think that the level of professional training of the decision-makers, including in the Federal Republic [of Germany] leaves much to be desired.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Romanchik.

I think it would be logical to not wander away from the European theme and give the floor to France: a country that admits quite officially that European troops can be sent to Ukraine.

Our guest is Editor-in-Chief for Europe at France-Press, Karim Talbi. Mr Talbi speaks excellent Russian, because, like Martin Romanchik, he worked as a correspondent in Moscow for quite a long time.

Please, Mr Talbi, your question.

AFP Editor-in-Chief for Europe Karim Talbi: Mr President, my question also concerns Ukraine.

Why cannot you still disclose the number of losses among Russian soldiers in Ukraine during the hostilities?

Vladimir Putin: If this is the only thing you are interested in, I can say that, as a rule, no one ever talks about this. If they do, then, as a rule, they distort the real figures.

I can tell you with complete confidence that our losses, especially as concerns irreparable losses, unfortunately, then they are several times less than on the Ukrainian side.

I can tell you exact numbers captured by the both sides, or war prisoners. There are 1,348 of our soldiers and officers held by the Ukrainian side. I know the exact numbers because we work with them every day. As you know, there was an exchange just recently: 75 people were exchanged for 75 people. We have 6,465 Ukrainian soldiers.

If we talk about approximate irretrievable losses, then the ratio is the same: one to about five. This is what we will proceed from. This is precisely the reason of the attempt to carry out total mobilisation in Ukraine: because they suffer great losses on the battlefield.

You know, this is how it looks: according to our calculations, the Ukrainian army loses 50,000 people per month as sanitary and irretrievable losses both, although their irretrievable and sanitary losses are approximately 50/50. The total mobilisation effort, which is now underway, does not solve the problem, because, according to our data (we get it from various sources), they recruit around 30,000 [people] per month by force or without force, but mostly by seizing men on the streets. There are not many people willing to fight there.

According to our data, last month and the month before that they recruited about 50,000–55,000. But this does not solve the problem. You know why? Because this mobilisation can only cover losses. All of these men are sent to make up for losses. This is the basic problem that leads to a lowering of the mobilisation age: from 27 years old down to 25 now.

We know from the Ukrainian side (it’s an open secret there; there are no secrets there at all): the US administration insists that the threshold be gradually lowered from 25 to 23 years, then to 20 years, and then to 18, or immediately to 18 years, because right now they are already requiring 17-year-old boys to register. We know this for sure: this is a demand from the US administration to the Ukrainian leadership, if it can be considered leadership after the election was cancelled.

Anyway, as I have said in one of my recent public appearances – I think it was when I talked to the media while returning from my visit to Uzbekistan – I believe that the United States administration would force the current Ukrainian leadership to take these decisions on lowering the mobilisation age all the way down to 18 years, and once that is done, they will simply get rid of Zelensky. But first, he will have to do it. In fact, this is not an easy thing to do. They will have to enact a law and take specific steps to make this happen.

We are in June 2024 right now. I think that they would need a year to do this. This means that they would tolerate him until the beginning of next year, as least, but once he does everything they expect from him, they will just wave him goodbye and replace him with someone else. There are several candidates for this job, as far as I understand.

However, all this entails so many casualties. I mentioned the 50,000 figure, but this is as conservative as you can get. The 50,000 figure is what we see on the battlefield, but we can see that there were other losses too, without being able to count them. They happened deep in the rear, behind the lines, and once you factor them in, the number becomes much bigger. This is what I can say about the casualties.

Karim Talbi: Can I ask you a follow-up question on the loss we had at AFP?

Vladimir Putin: What do you mean?

Karim Talbi: Arman Soldin used to work for AFP as a reporter, but on May 9, 2023, he died in Ukraine. We believe that in all likelihood he died in a drone attack. The relevant ministry in France is investigating what happened to him. Considering that he was near Chasov Yar, Ukraine, they believe that the drone came from Russia. But this is not what I wanted to ask you.

A French ministry wants to investigate this matter. Is Russia ready to work with France on this investigation so that we can learn what actually happened there?

For us at AFP it was a huge tragedy, as well as for his family, of course. He was 32 years old. We would really like to see meaningful and serious efforts to investigate his death in order to find out what happened there, if Russia was involved, of course.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have never rejected any investigations. And do you know how many journalists we lost in the combat zone? (Turning to Dmitry Peskov.) Mr Peskov, do you remember the exact figure?

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov: About 30.

Vladimir Putin: We lost at least 30 journalists, while no one offers us an opportunity to find out what happened to them. This is the first thing I wanted to tell you.

Second, if we are talking about what is going on in Ukraine, an American journalist has been tortured to death in prison there. But unlike you, the United States did not even ask to investigate what happened to him. But he was a US citizen, and a journalist. They detained him on the border, threw him into jail and he died there. They literally tortured him to death. But no one thought about getting to the bottom of what happened to him.

My answer is yes. Despite all this, we are ready to facilitate these efforts. I do not know how this can be done in practical terms when a person died in the combat zone. But of course, we will do everything we can.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr Talbi.

And now, I invite Mr Ali Naderi, Managing Director of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), to join our conversation. Mr Naderi, we appreciate the fact that you have found the time to come to St Petersburg despite the recent tragic death of President Raisi in an air crash and the ongoing presidential election campaign in your country. We would like to express our deepest condolences to you, our Iranian colleagues and the Iranian people once again.

Please, Mr Naderi, ask your question.

IRNA Managing Director Ali Naderi (retranslated): Thank you, Mr President.

We are indeed mourning the loss of our President, our Foreign Minister and several other members of the administration. In your message, you mentioned the President’s personal contribution to the development of bilateral relations between our countries, as well as regional relations. Here is the question I would like to ask: What are the plans of your country and your administration regarding the further development of relations with Iran, and what do they boil down to? Did you make any agreements with Mr Raisi regarding this? And what is the outlook for Iran and Russia? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Relations between Russia and Iran are developing rapidly in many spheres. Both Russia and Iran are under various sanctions and face multiple sanctions regimes.

When we were recently told about the development level of some Iranian industries, I was impressed that even in these conditions our Iranian friends managed to maintain a high production level in some fields. Of course, you have not done this in all spheres, but you certainly have in some of them, which is amazing. This is a fact.

We have entire plan governing our joint efforts. We are working on our trade and economic relationship with Iran. Of course, we would like to take additional efforts to boost our ties in the sphere of high technology. It is possible even though not easy to do this in light of the restrictions, and we will certainly do this.

Regarding the tragic death of President Raisi, I would like to say that I had reliable and good businesslike relations with him. He was an interesting person, a serious politician and a reliable partner. He was an ironic person with a good sense of humour in private life. Knowing him was an interesting and useful experience for me. As I have said, when I made an agreement with him, I was certain that the subject we raised would not be forgotten. This does not mean that absolutely all issues would be settled, because solutions do not only depend on the top leaders, but we could be certain that the given issue would not be lost sight of. And we also worked on both sides to improve our relationship.

It was during President Raisi’s presidency that Iran became a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and joined BRICS. This shows that we were moving together towards a clear goal, primarily in terms of creating a multipolar word. Of course, Iran played and continues to play an important role in this.

The only thing I would like to add in conclusion of my answer to your question is that we strongly hope that we will continue to build on what President Raisi did for the Russian-Iranian relationship. I have little doubt in this because everything we are doing serves our mutual interests. We are aware of the stability of the Iranian state and the system of supreme power in Iran. We know that not only the President and his team are working on the further development of Russian-Iranian relations but that Iran’s Supreme Leader, its spiritual leader is also doing a great deal towards this.

We are looking forward to the presidential election in Iran. I hope that we will meet with the new president at the events of international organisations, such as the SCO and BRICS. I am confident that we will find common ground with him and will work to implement all plans which the late President Raisi made.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Naderi.

Our next participant is a good friend of TASS agency. It is Xinhua Editor-in-Chief Lyu Yansong. Mr Lyu is fluent in Russian, and we know that he loves singing Russian songs and watching Soviet films.

Mr Lyu, please.

Xinhua Editor-in-Chief Lyu Yansong (retranslated): Mr President, you paid a state visit to China only recently.

You have very close relations with China. They are an example of relations between major powers. What is your opinion of the cooperation with China and the impact that this cooperation has had on the two countries’ regions? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As concerns our bilateral relations, I want to note that they are not situational but rather built on deep mutual interests. China has been our main trade and economic partner for 15 years. This means that we started to build this relationship and reached the current level not in response to some recent political circumstances but long before that and based on mutual interests. We proceeded very carefully, step by step, with no haste. And I must say that we have succeeded in almost everything.

Russia-China trade is currently beyond expectations. According to China’s statistics, the turnover is $240 billion, and according to ours, it is slightly lower, around $230 billion.

The turnover is not even the most important aspect. More importantly, we successfully diversify our mutual trade. This is not limited to hydrocarbons and energy. We supply oil, gas, coal and electricity to China. We also build nuclear power plants in China. All these projects have been highly successful.

We have good prospects in high technology. I am talking about aircraft engineering and AI. You know, we enjoy seeing China’s success in many industries, including space.

China is making unique achievements, and the Communist Party is the leading political power in China. Of course, everything that has been done in China, has been done under the leadership of the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China.

You know, I would like to draw your attention to the following issue. As far as I remember, I am not sure if I have mentioned this before, and I am not sure if the people gathered here will find this interesting, but do you know what some of our experts and good economists are saying? They are young people but they are rather experienced. They are saying that a survey of Chinese economic developments and those in the economies of other countries, including leading economies, such as the United States, shows that the Chinese have managed to create a rather distinctive but highly effective economic development model, which is more effective than a US model. Judging by the Chinese economic performance, this seems to be true. Yes, one can criticise the Chinese leaders and argue with them, and this is exactly what some of our Western colleagues are doing. They say that China has a non-market economy, that the Politburo sets the yuan’s exchange rate, and so on. One can say anything, but all of us can see the result.

This result shows that this model is more effective. So, who can accuse China of having a free-market or non-market economy? China has a population of 1.5 billion. Chinese leaders have to think about everyone. Not all of these 1.5 billion people have the same living standards as the average European or American citizen. Consequently, Chinese leaders have the right to use specific economic management methods to meet the urgent needs of their people. By the way, the Chinese leadership, led by the President of the People’s Republic of China who is my good friend (as we always say) is doing this very effectively and reliably. Well, we can only be pleased about this.

We know about the economic situation in leading countries, including the Chinese economy. On the whole, this highly reliable economy is evolving into a more and more high-tech entity. I believe that the United States or certain European countries are making a big mistake by wishing or attempting to slow down the Chinese economy, one way or another, because, in my opinion, instead of trying to hinder these processes, they should participate in them for the sake of their own success.

The Chinese overproduce motor cars, including electric cars. Who is saying that? Is it being said by people, who regard themselves as free market supporters? Don’t they understand what determines whether there is overproduction or not? It is the market that determines this. If China manufactures a certain number of cars and the market absorbs all of them, what overproduction are they talking about? It is simply nonsense, isn’t it?

Can we really call this overproduction? No, it has a different name; we can call it an attempt to restrict growth by using non-market methods. And this is harmful, including in this case – harmful for the US economy. Why is that? Because they will no longer import goods from China. What will this lead to? They will either manufacture something on their own or purchase from another place, which is more expensive and will lead to inflation in the United States. Inflation will impact the entire national economy of the country that is doing this. This is harmful – in this case, for the US economy itself. It is a mistake, yet another mistake made by the current administration.

As for China, President Xi Jinping’s skilful and highly professional leadership is driving the country’s economic development at a rate needed by China.

As far as other areas and sectors are concerned, I always say this and can only repeat here that our international interaction is a restraining factor and an element of stability.

But apart from the economy and mutual security – as you know, we hold exercises and will do so in the future, including military exercises – we maintain military-technical cooperation, an area where we have much to offer to our Chinese friends, who are interested in working together with us along these lines.

But there is more to it than just the economy, military-technical cooperation, or international cooperation. This year, we have announced the start or cross-years of culture. I think what our moderator has said – that you know Russian songs and can speak Russian – is, in my view, at least as important as everything else I have mentioned. This creates the basis for relations between nations and a favourable environment for advancing relations in all other areas. Both sides will abide by this. I hope that I will soon have the opportunity to meet with the President of the People’s Republic of China and discuss all these matters at the venues I have mentioned. I mean the SCO and BRICS.

Lyu Yansong (speaking Russian): Mr President, as you know, I have interviewed you three times. It was a long time ago, of course. The first interview was in 2002. One interview took place in Moscow, and the other two were in Beijing. This fourth interview is taking place in your hometown. I am delighted that it is so.

Thank you. I wish you all the best.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Lyu.

We are giving the floor to Spain now. Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote, director of international relations at the Spanish news agency EFE (Agencia EFE). Apart from being an experienced journalist, he is also an excellent specialist in history and philosophy, and an expert on European integration.

Mr Sanz Mingote, your question, please.

EFE Director of International Relations Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): Mr President, thank you very much for this opportunity to meet with you.

I do not speak Russian, but I have read some Russian authors. I am aware of the enormous contribution that Russia is making to culture, science and art. From my personal perspective, it is just so unfortunate that we are going through such a difficult international situation.

My question may be sensitive. You know that 25 European countries are holding elections tomorrow through Sunday. And you also know that many analysts, experts, as well as high-ranking European representatives and senior officials are accusing Russia of propagating disinformation trying to disrupt elections in Europe.

How can you comment on this? Do you believe the Russian government is actually behind this misinformation campaign? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Look, I have just talked with your colleague from Germany, and we discussed the general situation in European economies.

Most social aspects derive from the economic situation, which influences people’s incomes, the availability of existing and new jobs, and the consumption of goods and services. European countries are mostly trouble-free states. Their citizens’ biggest concern is their material security. However, the policies pursued by the overwhelming majority of Western governments, including European ones, are putting this material security, which is something people have grown used to for decades, in jeopardy, even if they have not ruined it completely. People are well aware of this.

This, I think, is the main reason their major political parties, and parliamentary democracy in general, are going through difficult times. So, if someone, in Europe or elsewhere, refuses to analyse the mistakes they have made and tries to blame them on external players, well, they are making another mistake instead of drawing the right conclusions about what is really happening. This is my first point.

The second one is that Russian media, online or print media, have only a fraction of their Western counterparts’ capacity and capabilities for influencing various audiences.

If you ask your colleague (I am afraid I may simply give you inaccurate figures), everywhere our journalists try to work, they are met with obstacles – simply everywhere. Employees are intimidated; their bank accounts get closed; their transport gets taken away. There are other forms of persecution. Is this the freedom of speech? Of course not. The only thing that our media representatives, your Russian colleagues do is present Russia’s viewpoint on the events in the world, in our country and in Europe.

Our viewpoints differ but is this not the point? Are media outlets only supposed to serve governments’ interests? Even if it is the opinion of the Russian Government, why cannot we convey this opinion to audiences and internet users in other countries? Is it not what freedom of information means, whether somebody likes it or not?

What can be done if information does not appeal to somebody or somebody considers it unobjective? You present a different point of view and do it more compellingly than the point of view that somebody does not like, not shut down media outlets – in this case, Russian media outlets, which face relentless harassment in Europe and in the United States. There are just a couple of them, in fact, and still they are being strangled and pressured. Meanwhile, there have been claims that we can somehow influence public opinion in the Western countries. If you simply look at the amount of content that we are capable of releasing into the European media market, such claims sound ridiculous.

The problem is not that somebody is pursuing a malevolent policy against the European Union, in this case. The problem is that the ruling circles of the leading European countries have pushed their economy and social sphere into a deplorable state, along with how they conduct their international policy, whether people like it or not. I will repeat: do not look for someone to blame on the side; instead, look at your own actions carefully. Only this will help to conduct a proper analysis, draw conclusions and fix something – if somebody genuinely believes that things need to be fixed, of course.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you for your question, Mr Sanz Mingote.

Next is Kazakhstan. Director General of the Kazinform news agency Askar Dzhaldinov.

Mr Dzhaldinov, your question, please.

Kazinform Director General Askar Dzhaldinov: Mr President, what is the future of relations between Kazakhstan and Russia as neighbours?

Vladimir Putin: I believe the future is good, there is no other way to put it. Russia and Kazakhstan are bonded by what can be fully described as a very close strategic alliance.

This is true about our trade and economic links that are growing steadily every year, as evidenced by the growing turnover.

Our cooperation is multi-faceted. I will not be able to list everything right now. We cooperate in energy, industrial production, space and many other areas.

We share an enormously long border. People enjoy various exchanges. Seventy-six Russian regions have direct links with the administrative divisions in Kazakhstan. These links are probably more effective and productive because people are engaged in direct contact with each other, they know and trust each other.

I maintain continuous contact with President Tokayev. We enjoy a very warm and trusted friendship.

Now, speaking about energy, we plan to start supplying gas not only to Uzbekistan, but also to Kazakhstan. Northern Kazakhstan needs our energy resources. Yes, Kazakhstan has its own production facilities; however, there are extensive regions in Kazakhstan that need gas. It is easier and cheaper to buy gas from us than to lay new routes that will cost billions of dollars.

Frankly, I do not see an issue that would create a dispute or complicate our relations in any way. We spoke about cooperation with China. Trade with the People’s Republic of China in national currencies accounts for 90 percent of our trade. The same trend exists in our relations with Kazakhstan. Trade in national currencies accounts for almost 100 percent of Russia-Kazakhstan trade.

I have already said it – and there will be similar questions at the economic forum in two days, so we will talk about this. As concerns the United States, one of the US Administration’s colossal mistakes is that they prohibit using the US dollar in international transactions, making it a weapon of some sort. This is complete nonsense as they undermine confidence in the US dollar. It is simply ridiculous. Ridiculous. Grit your teeth and do whatever it takes to preserve the dollar, to boost its significance and authority. They are killing it with their own hands.

As a result, we have been prompted to shift to transactions in national currencies, for one. It turned out that this step did not cause any issues when it comes to developing our relations; on the contrary, this move has been helping us strengthen our national currencies.

We work together quite extensively in humanitarian affairs and education – in fact, across the board. And I appreciate President Tokayev’s contribution, among other things, because he supports our cooperation.

Soon we are going to Astana for the SCO summit. There will be other events there as well. I have been invited and I will certainly use this invitation.

Andrei Kondrashov: Let us move to our next participant: ANSA Deputy Editor-in-Chief Stefano Polli, Italy. Like Samia Nakhoul from Reuters, Mr Polli has a very rich experience of working in hot spots. In general, the Italian agency ANSA has never missed a single meeting like this with you; it is our regular guest.

Please, Mr Polli, you have the floor.

ANSA Deputy Editor-in-Chief Stefano Polli (retranslated): Thank you.

Good evening, Mr President.

Thank you for organising this meeting. I would like to ask a question about the latest events in Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg proposed that Ukraine be given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied from Europe. European countries and the United States agreed with this idea. Not all of them, but the United States did. At the same time, there is a discussion in some countries about sending military advisers and instructors.

I would like to ask you to comment on these two decisions and what Russia’s reaction to them will be. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: There is nothing new in terms of having advisers and instructors. They are present in Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, they suffer losses. I know this for sure. This is not done on purpose, but losses happen during hostilities. However, the European countries and the United States prefer to keep it secret. This is first.

Second, as for long-range precision weapons. We need to divide this topic into two parts.

First, conventional weapons: a multiple-launch rocket system, a long-range of 70 kilometres or something similar. It has been used for a long time. In fact, Ukrainian military personnel can do this on their own. And as for advanced high-tech, high-precision and long-range weapons, such as the British Storm Shadow or the American ATACMS, or French missiles, what can we say? I have also spoken about this, by the way, when I left Uzbekistan.

ATACMS: 300 kilometres. How are they used and how are they transported? They handed over a missile system (the Pentagon, the Americans did). But how is it used? Ukrainian military personnel cannot do everything on their own and launch strikes with this missile. They are simply technologically unable to do this because it requires satellite reconnaissance; then, based on satellite reconnaissance data (and this is American satellite reconnaissance), a flight mission is formed and then entered into the missile system. And then the soldier who is next to it does it simply automatically: he presses the buttons. He may not even know what will happen next.

What can the Ukrainian military – not the ones who are just sitting there and pressing buttons – but the higher-ranking ones do when it comes to target assignment? They can identify a target that is a priority for them. But they are not the ones who decide whether a particular target should be hit, because, to reiterate, a WTA (weapon target assignment) is formed and effectively entered only by those who supply the weapons. If we are talking about ATACMS, then the Pentagon is doing it. If it is Storm Shadow, then the British are. It is even more straightforward in the case of Storm Shadow, because the target assignment is entered automatically, without the involvement of the military personnel on the ground. The British do it, that is all there is to it.

And when the Bundeswehr military were pondering an attack on the Crimean Bridge or other targets, they were thinking for themselves. No one was doing it for them, right? They were going to do it. The same goes for the French specialists. Western specialists do it.

We have no illusions about it. How are we supposed to respond?

First, we will, of course, improve our air defence systems. We will be destroying their missiles.

Second, we believe that if someone is thinking that it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone in order to deliver strikes at our territory and to create problems for us, why can we not supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia? The response could be symmetrical. We will give it a thought.

Third, sure enough, such actions will wreck international relations, which have already hit rock bottom, and undermine international security. Ultimately, if we see that these countries are being embroiled into a war against us, and this constitutes their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, we reserve the right to respond in kind. Generally speaking, this path may lead to serious problems. I think that covers it all. If you have any leading questions, please go ahead. But I do not think I can add anything to what I just said.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Polli, do you have more questions to ask? Or, have all your questions been answered?

Stefano Polli: I have one more question, but I am not sure if this is the good time to ask it.

Vladimir Putin: There will be no better time, because we will wrap it up soon and go our separate ways. So, this is the right time for your question.

Stefano Polli: I would like to ask a question about Italy, if I may.

Italy supports Ukraine politically and militarily, but at the same time states that it is not at war with Russia. I would like you to comment on the stance adopted by the Italian leadership.

Vladimir Putin: We see that the Italian government has adopted a more reserved position than many other European countries, and we assess it accordingly. We see that Italy is not stoking the Neanderthal Russophobia, and we are mindful of that as well. We very much look forward to restoring relations with Italy after the situation surrounding Ukraine gets better, and maybe even faster than with other European countries.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Polli.

We have South Korea next, a question from Executive Director of Digital Media at Yonhap News Agency Park Sang-hyun. Please, go ahead.

Executive Director of Digital Media at Yonhap News Agency Park Sang-hyun (retranslated): Russia is cooperating with Korea in developing the Far East.

When you were at the ceremony for presenting credentials by the ambassador of South Korea to Russia, you said that Russia was willing to build relations with South Korea. What are your plans in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: You know, just like with Italy, I can say that we see that the leadership of the Republic of Korea is not affected by the Russophobic sentiment. There are no direct shipments of weapons to the conflict area, and we highly appreciate that. But we also see that there are all sorts of developments where the US companies are purchasing weapons to be then shipped to the war zone in Ukraine. We are following this closely. But we very much hope that Russia-South Korea relations will not get worse, since we are interested in expanding bilateral relations with the Korean Peninsula in general.

Unfortunately, ongoing developments have negatively affected trade and economic ties. We very much hope that the level of bilateral relations achieved in previous decades will at least partially remain there for us to be able to rebuild them in the future.

Unfortunately, South Korea has created certain hardships in many areas of our cooperation. We are working with other countries, though we would like to continue to work with South Korea, but this is not our choice. This is the choice made by the South Korean leadership. All channels are open from our side, and we stand ready to resume work.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Park, thank you very much for your question.

Mr President, may I ask you a question on behalf of the TASS news agency?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Andrei Kondrashov: To follow up on the Russian economy, it reminds me of a line from a joke that goes like “keep talking, I cannot get enough of it.” You have discussed the current state of the economy earlier.

Remember, there were wonderful people out there who stated that the Russian economy was already torn to pieces, then and now we are under the pressure of thousands of sanctions, we are in the third year of the special military operation. Are the future prospects for the economy as bright as its current state? What is your take on this?

Vladimir Putin: There are 16,000 to 17,000 sanctions, and there is no other country in the world with so many sanctions imposed on it. Clearly, they are a hindrance. So, our ill-wishers believed that they will negatively impact us in one way or another in the medium term, and there are reasons to believe that this is true. Those who think so are within their right to think so. This is especially true of advanced technology and some other cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence, microelectronics, and the like. In fact, everyone is aware of where things stand, and there are challenges out there.

However, there are two “buts” here. First, no one has ever cancelled the COCOM lists Russia was on, even at the height of our relations with the collective West. That is something to ponder. Restrictions remained anyway. I have every reason to believe that we would not have had a chance to establish close cooperation in the most sensitive high-tech areas anyway. There was no reason to count on it. But problems are being created. We see them. But strangely enough, perhaps even for ourselves, we are overcoming them.

When we were faced with the fact that we cannot import products that we used to buy in large quantities, we needed to use our brain and to reach out to our manufacturers and designers. They are not just taking the place of outgoing Western manufacturers but are picking up where they left off and are swiftly expanding the production. Our ill-wishers, and somewhat even we, did not expect things to turn out that way.

I will give you a basic example without mentioning the field. We used to buy a tank from France, a fairly basic tank, but it contained compound metals and so on. At some point, they stopped supplying it. They placed an order with a company in Nizhny Novgorod which built an even better tank at 30 percent of the cost. You see? This is a basic example from real life.

The situation is the same in many other areas. This explains the growth. I believe that this explains why our GDP has increased by 3.4 percent. However, this growth has a limit. The niches our producers have occupied in the market after Western producers pulled out, and their efforts to develop them will contribute to the growth, but it has a limit anyway. We are aware of this.

Therefore, technological independence is one of our main goals in the context of our development and our strategic priorities. We intend, and we have already started doing it, to invest substantial resources to catch up in the spheres where we need to do this. Or we could do something to skip over some phases. We understand this and are aware of it.

I cannot say if we will succeed, but we are optimistic, and I think that we will, especially if we are forced to do it. If things change overnight and we are offered access to cheap, high-quality products… this does not depend on the Government but on economic players. They might decide to deal with Western producers who can provide quality goods at acceptable prices. But if this does not happen, we will have to produce everything domestically. Yes, in this case we will have to shift some goals to the right, as the governments say, that is, postpone their achievement, but we will attain our main goals anyway.

I often cite the following example: we are working on the MC-21 liner, which is made of modern materials and its wings have special harnesses made of modern materials. The US Administration has sanctioned them, allegedly because they are dual-purpose products. This is ridiculous; it does not have a dual purpose. Why did they do it? Because our plane can compete with the Boeing 737 medium-haul aircraft, if I am not mistaken. They did that, and we were out of action for a while. We had to act, but we did it: we shifted our timeline by two years. But we ultimately did it: the plane is flying.

I have no doubt that we will accomplish all our plans. The timeframe may be affected. Of course, deadlines are important because while we work to solve problems, others surge ahead. We are aware of this, which is why we try to be proactive. In other words, thankfully, there are no critical problems with our efforts to overcome the sanctions, and I hope there will not be any in the future.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr President.

It would now be logical to discuss the country that has imposed the greatest number of anti-Russia sanctions. I am talking about the United States of America, which has imposed 3,500 sanctions on Russia.

James Jordan, News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press, is here with us today. Mr Jordan, your question for President Putin, please.

News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press James Jordan:Thank you very much.

Thank you, President Putin, for this opportunity to address you directly.

Over two years ago, you sent Russian troops into Ukraine, as you say, to protect Russians and Russian speakers of the Donbass region and to keep NATO from your country’s eastern border. Since then, thousands have died on both sides, and the fighting has even come to some regions of Russia.

In the last few hours, it has been confirmed to the Associated Press by a Western official that Ukraine has used US weapons on Russian soil in the last few days. Do you see this as a further provocation, to follow on from my colleague from ANSA’s question? Could you sum up for us what you feel Moscow has achieved in the last two years? And how does the fighting stop?

Vladimir Putin: First, we fulfilled our duty to the people suffering from the coup d’état and subsequent hostilities in southeastern Ukraine. We recognised the right of the people living in these territories to defend their interests, their lives and the lives of their children. I believe that this is the main aspect.

We also showed ourselves and the whole world that we do not just talk about defending our interests, but we are actually doing it, and we will undoubtedly continue to do it. This is something everyone will have to accept.

Regarding the second part of your question, specifically, what should be done to stop hostilities in Ukraine, I can tell you as a representative of the United States what I told Mr Biden in the past. He sent me a letter some time ago, and I replied to him in writing that, if you want to stop hostilities in Ukraine, you should stop supplying them with weapons, and hostilities will stop within two or three months, at most. That is all, and this is the first thing.

Second, we urge everyone not to hinder a possible peace process.

Mr Jordan, I am forced to recall the events of late 2022. We had agreed with Ukraine that we were ready to sign an agreement with them that would have resolved several key issues.

The first issue was establishing a system to ensure the security of Ukraine. Ukraine stated expressly in that draft agreement that it was not a NATO member and that it would remain neutral. However, the relevant security guarantees closely resembled articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. There is probably no need to go into details, but this implied that, if necessary, all signatories were to provide military assistance to Ukraine, etc. We consider this a complicated issue, and I have said that we should think about this; however, it is possible to discuss it.

The same concerns Russia’s interests. I repeat, this implies Ukraine’s neutral and non-aligned status where it should not join any blocs, as well as certain arms limitations, and so on. This is something the Russian Federation is certainly interested in.

Furthermore, as you remember, we mentioned the denazification of Ukraine. And I was quite surprised when people started asking me, “But what is denazification?” Denazification means prohibiting Nazi propaganda at the legislative level. Strange as it may seem, we did find common ground here, just as we did on other key issues necessary to resolve this crisis peacefully. And if the head of the Ukraine’s negotiating team signed off on the key provisions of the long agreement, initialled that framework document, I take that as proof that Ukraine found the terms generally acceptable. And if we accepted it, it means that it generally suited Russia as well.

I hate to make you feel uncomfortable, but I will nevertheless ask a rhetorical question: why did Mr Johnson go to Kiev and recommend that this agreement be thrown into the trash? Why did he encourage his Ukrainian colleagues to achieve victory on the battlefield, to seek Russia’s strategic defeat?

The Ukrainian side, Ukrainian officials have publicly admitted that if they had signed this treaty definitively, the war would have ended as early as in late 2022. We did not say this; Ukrainian officials in Kiev said this publicly.

So, I have a rhetorical question: why would anyone want to prevent us and Ukraine from signing that treaty? I can only assume that someone was pursuing their own foreign political agenda concerning Russia. They were aiming for Russia’s collapse, Russia’s strategic defeat at any cost, and so on and so forth.

You asked me what should be done. I hope that I have given a fairly comprehensive answer to your question. When you have an opportunity to talk to the leadership of your country, please ask them: why did you prevent the conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine?

What I have told you is my assumptions as to why they did it. Maybe they will have another answer for you, a more complete official version. I am certainly in no position to give you this answer – it is up to my counterparts in the US and UK.

However, I have no doubt that Mr Johnson’s move had full support of the US administration; he did not do it of his own accord. I am certain of that.

James Jordan: Thank you, Mr President. With your permission, may I ask you a very brief other question away from Ukraine? Regarding the American reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been in custody for more than a year now. There has been no evidence made public about what crimes he may have committed. Could you give us the latest on any talks that might be happening with the US as regards his release and when we might expect to see him?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you believe he is innocent, but Russian law enforcement agencies and special services believe that he committed illegal actions, which qualify as espionage. I would not like to go into details and specifics right now. I know that the United States administration is indeed taking vigorous steps to secure his release; that is true. But such issues are not resolved through the media; they require quiet, calm and professional approach and dialogue between intelligence agencies. And of course, they absolutely have to be resolved on the basis of reciprocity. The relevant services of the United States and Russia are in touch on this issue.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Jordan.

We have Turkiye here. Yusuf Ozhan, Deputy Director General and Editor-in-Chief of the Anadolu Turkish news agency.

Please, Mr Ozhan, your question.

Deputy Director General, Editor-in-Chief of the Anadolu news agency Yusuf Ozhan: Thank you so much for having us here today, Mr President.

Actually, I would like to ask a question, a follow-up question, to the question that I posed three years ago, again, during the anniversary economic forum. It was over Zoom. I am happy to see you face to face.

It is about Gaza, the war in Gaza right now. Millions of people around the world are opposing the attacks against the people of Gaza, which amounts to a level of genocide right now.

Does Russia intend to play a role in the solution of the situation right now in Gaza? Do you have any intention to get the Security Council in motion, because people, not only the Gazan people, but the Palestinian people in general, and the people of different origins, religions, ethnicity, free from any identity or backgrounds, the people of the world are actually asking for the big powers to finish what is happening right now on the ground in Gaza.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I want to say that we are against terrorism in any form and any attacks against civilians, anywhere, in any country.

However, what is happening in Gaza in response to the infamous terrorist attack in Israel does not look like a war. It appears to be the complete destruction of the civilian population.

The only thing I can do is to reiterate Russia’s official position on this matter. We believe that this is a result of the United States’ policy, which has monopolised the Israeli-Palestinian settlement process and pushed aside all the instruments created for collective efforts to resolve this complex issue.

Perhaps someone in the administration believed that the fewer opinions there are, the faster agreements can be reached. But reality has proven that it does not work that way. This is my first point.

Second, attempting to solve the issue with some kind of material gifts does not seem promising either. We have talked about this. We expressed doubt that it would be possible to replace the resolution of political issues related to the fate of the Palestinian people in the historical perspective by offering economic incentives. Yes, creating an atmosphere to address certain problems is necessary, but the problems themselves still need to be addressed.

The political issues must be addressed. And the main issue is the creation of two states, as originally envisaged in the UN decision. Two states must be established on this territory: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. Therefore, I do not believe it would be possible to resolve the issue without addressing its crucial aspects.

I must say that Russia’s position on this matter is a principled one and does not depend on the current political situation. We have recognised the Palestinian state since the Soviet times. In this sense, our position has not changed. We are aware that President [of Turkiye Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is making vigorous efforts to solve this very acute, long-standing problem. Given his authority in the region, in the world, and in the Islamic world in particular, we strongly hope that his contribution will be significant. For our part, Russia is ready to do everything within its power to resolve the situation, taking into account our relations with the State of Israel that have developed over the past decades, among other things.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Ozhan, do you have a second question to ask while you still have the chance?

Yusuf Ozhan: Also, another question would be regarding the Turkiye-Russia relations.

You have been in negotiations over the course of the last ten years. One of the mega projects that Russia and Turkiye have achieved together was the building of nuclear power plant in Akkuyu.

So, for the future, are there any developments on the Russian side regarding the production or the construction project of the gas centre that was being discussed in recent years? Is there any news from the Russian side about that? Or are there any other future projects that are being discussed between the two countries?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Everything regarding Akkuyu is going according to plan. We are on schedule; there are no delays. Many people, mostly builders, are working there. For large volumes of construction works, Turkish builders are employed. Our specialists also work in Turkiye. We are grateful to the Turkish leadership for creating favourable conditions for this work. The first unit is nearing completion, and work is underway on all power units.

As for hydrocarbons, I have already mentioned but I am willing to repeat that we are not just building the plant but also training personnel for it. We are ready to remove nuclear waste and so on. We are creating a whole new industry. It will be more than just a power plant, it will be a new economic and power sector in Turkiye. President Erdogan has made this strategic choice which I regard as an absolutely correct one. Among other things, it will reduce dependence on hydrocarbons. Overall, we have a highly reliable partnership.

Regarding the gas hub, we are pondering the issue. Gazprom maintains contacts with BOTAS and other partners. I would like everyone to understand – I have been trying to explain that all the time: it will not be just a gas storage facility but an electronic platform at the first stage for gas trading, largely with Europe.

Here is what I would like to point out. We are also protecting the Blue Stream running under the Black Sea towards Türkiye, including for Turkish consumers, and TurkStream, which is also used to deliver gas to Europe. We have to protect both these gas routes built under the Black Sea because Ukrainian armed forces have been trying to attack and destroy them. In any case, the ships that are protecting these routes come under constant attacks.

Some time ago, I am not sure if it was seven or ten days ago, Ukrainian drones attacked a gas pumping station built on the Black Sea coast, which is pumping gas to Türkiye.

I would like to note that Türkiye is cooperating with Ukraine in some spheres, but Ukraine is nevertheless trying to attack the gas pipelines that are pumping gas to Türkiye. It is not a joke or an exaggeration. Two drones have been suppressed by Russian electronic warfare systems and fell near the gas pumping station on the Black Sea coast. I am not hyping it up or inventing things; this is a fact. Please, tell our friend, President Erdogan, about the situation on the ground. And the ships that are protecting that gas supply route across the Black Sea are regularly attacked by sea drones, which European countries send to Ukraine, by the way. They attack our ships that are protecting these pipeline systems in the Black Sea.

We should speak about this more often and more clearly, but we are not always good at propaganda, which our Spanish colleagues complained about. But it is happening on the ground all the time. Nevertheless, our bilateral relations are developing quite well, and our mutual trade is growing.

Truth be told, I have a somewhat detached view of the situation. It seems to me that the economic bloc of the Turkish government has shifted focus to borrowing loans, attracting investment and receiving grants from Western financial institutions. This could be good, but if this is connected to restrictions on Türkiye’s trade and economic ties with Russia, the Turkish economy will lose more than it can gain. I believe that there is such a risk. This issue calls for a separate discussion. We look at the figures, and the Turkish government should now pay special attention to macroeconomic indicators. I will not go into details now, although I have them at the tip of my fingers. I have an in-depth knowledge of the matter. I understand what is going on there.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr Ozhan, thank you for your question.

Mr President, very recently you have been on a three-day state visit to Uzbekistan, which you found fruitful and successful. Now we have a guest from Tashkent here, in St Petersburg. This is Abdusaid Kuchimov, Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency.

Mr Kuchimov, you have the floor.

Director General of UzA Abdusaid Kuchimov: Thank you.

Mr President, you and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev discussed topical international issues at your recent talks in Tashkent.

Peace and stability in the neighbouring country of Afghanistan is very important for Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, we can see that developments in Ukraine have completely displaced from the global agenda the Afghan issue that we find no less pressing, although there is an objective need to build interaction with the new authorities of Afghanistan and help solve the socioeconomic problems of the long-suffering Afghan people. Moreover, we can see the strong desire of the new government of Afghanistan, that is, the Taliban, to establish peace in the country and build constructive cooperation with all states.

In this regard, my question is, how important is it for the Russian Federation to maintain dialogue with Afghanistan? Does Afghanistan currently have an important place in Russian politics? And what is your attitude to the processes around that country?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, I would like to confirm that my visit to Uzbekistan has been very substantive, fruitful, and effective. Perhaps we have not had this format with anyone before: at the initiative of President Mirziyoyev, we came to Uzbekistan with a large government delegation, but at the same time a meeting of regional leaders was held. It turned out that half of the Russian Government and a big number of heads of Russian regions came to Tashkent. Some of them enjoyed communicating with the leadership of the renewed Government of the Russian Federation in Tashkent, which was interesting, but they also interacted very actively with each other. This proved to be very unexpectedly useful even for me. This is the first point.

Second, we have also discussed Ukraine and, sure enough, President Mirziyoyev is strongly in favour of a peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis and has repeatedly laid out Uzbekistan’s concerns with regard to the developments in Ukraine. We are grateful to the President for Uzbekistan’s clearly neutral and very balanced policy in these matters.

We covered Afghanistan extensively as well. The problem that Uzbekistan faces is the problem of access to the world ocean, the seas, which is understandable. There are quite a few options to address this issue, including building logistics across the territory of Afghanistan, including pipeline transport, railway transport, motor vehicle transport, supply of energy, electric power, and so on and so forth.

In this regard, stability in Afghanistan is critically important for Uzbekistan and Russia. We have invariably proceeded from the actual state of affairs where the Taliban control power in Afghanistan, and, of course, it is important to ensure that all agreements at the level of the UN, such as inclusive government with the participation of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan, get implemented. This is a delicate and vital issue. All told, we need to build relations with the Taliban government.

Broadly speaking, we have contacts. I am aware that Afghanistan is developing this as well. We will move forward. After all, we need to build good relations with the neighbouring country, all the more so since Uzbekistan shares a long border [with Afghanistan], and it is important to ensure security and, to reiterate, to expand logistics.

We agreed to address these issues together and to study these opportunities.

Thank you very much.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Kuchimov.

And finally, our Far Eastern neighbour – Toshimitsu Sawai, Executive Director of the Japanese news agency Kyodo News. Mr Sawai is a highly experienced international journalist. Throughout his career, he has worked as a correspondent in many different parts of the world, such as Kenya, Thailand, Pakistan and the United States.

Mr Sawai, your question, please.

Executive Director of Kyodo News Toshimitsu Sawai (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President for giving me this valuable opportunity to ask you a question today.

Currently, there are several issues in the Far Eastern region of the world that are of concern to Japan. First, there are territorial problems with Russia. In addition, there is growing military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. We in Japan have been faced with these two problems.

Regarding the territorial issue, I have the following question. You said in Khabarovsk this year that you would definitely visit the four disputed Kuril Islands. Do you already have specific plans and a timetable for this visit? Do you think that if you visit these territories, our bilateral relations will experience an even greater setback, considering the suspended negotiations? Could you share your plans, please?

As for the Russian-Japanese talks and their resumption: during the special military operation in Ukraine, these talks were suspended. Could the descendants of former islanders be allowed to resume their visits to their ancestors’ graves on the islands?

Vladimir Putin: Our relations with Japan have been developing confidently and progressively. There were very many issues, especially those related to the pivotal aspect of our relations – a peace treaty. It is clear that a peace treaty was difficult to agree upon without resolving the issues connected to the Kuril Islands. We understood it.

Back in the 1950s, as we are aware, the Soviet Government adopted a decision – I think it was in 1956 – and signed a declaration stating that the Soviet Union was ready to give two of those islands to Japan. However, it did not specify the grounds or under whose sovereignty the islands would be, nor did it mention any other conditions, whether material or otherwise. But the idea of transfer was mentioned in this declaration. Furthermore, it was ratified by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. However, for some reason, the Japanese side refused to fulfil these agreements. Therefore, the Soviet Union declared the withdrawal of that ratification.

We resumed the discussion of these issues at Japan’s request. It was a difficult dialogue, but at least we talked with each other.

You have mentioned several problems.

Visits to the islands: The Russian Federation regards the islands as a sovereign territory of Russia, and so I do not understand why I should have scruples about visiting a Russian territory. It is the first point.

Why do we think so? We think so because the delegations of both countries signed relevant documents, including in the United States, as a result of the Second World War. And we will not revise the results of WWII.

This does not mean that it was impossible to come to an agreement on this issue. It is a delicate matter, but it is not a black-and-white matter. It is much more complicated than that. Anyway, we were not afraid to hold that dialogue.

The first thing I would like to say is that I see no reason not to visit these islands. However, I have not been planning to do so because I am currently busy with other matters.

You have said that my visit would create obstacles to addressing issues related to the drafting of a peace treaty. Excuse me, colleague, but do you think Japan’s statement on joining efforts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia could be an obstacle to continuing dialogue on the peace treaty? Japan has joined the calls for inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, yet you think the current conditions are suitable for discussing a peace treaty. Do you really believe that my hypothetical intention to visit the islands is a bigger obstacle than the Japanese government’s statement on inflicting a strategic defeat on the Russian Federation? I understand this is not your personal question and that it was suggested by your editorial board. But please, put this question to your superiors. That is the first point.

Second, we see Japan’s bias regarding the Ukrainian crisis. Currently, there are no conditions for continuing dialogue on a peace treaty between Russia and Japan. We are not refusing to resume it, but we will only do so if relevant conditions are created, primarily by Japan. We have done nothing in our bilateral relations to complicate Russia-Japan dialogue. Nothing at all. All the hindrances have been created by Japan.

Now, let us discuss the relations between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Opinions on the past and present may vary. Firstly, in my view, the DPRK has repeatedly shown a willingness to negotiate, including with the United States. I think that this readiness to engage in dialogue was likely the reason behind former US President Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong-un. The American side recognised this willingness.

Moreover, the North Koreans agreed with the Americans to halt tests and dismantle a test site. They followed through on these commitments in response to corresponding steps from the United States, including actions in the banking sector. What did they get in return? The United States unilaterally violated these agreements without hesitation. Naturally, the Koreans withdrew from these agreements. So, what prevents us from developing relations with a country with which we share a common border?

There are certain things that honestly make me wonder. Yes, there was a time when we supported certain steps with regard to North Korea, such as in the area of labour migration. Let me be frank, especially since you work in the field of information and are deeply involved in these matters: why did we do this, exactly? What was the rationale behind it? After all, we are talking about labour migrants here. What kind of threat do they pose, and to whom? It is rather strange. We show concern for the environment, for birds, sea animals, and all that. But when people face hunger – not because they are militants or anything like that, but simply as individuals, citizens of a country – when they are barred from working somewhere or their ability to earn a living is so restricted that they cannot feed their families, that is somehow strange. Strange indeed.

You know, even now I am speaking in general terms about all the problems that arise. This is always the case in the world: if someone feels threatened, they respond. If there were no threats, I believe the nuclear issue could gradually be resolved. But they are constantly threatened, so what should they do in response?

Regarding our relations with North Korea, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, they are our neighbours. We will continue to develop these relationships, whether others approve it or not.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you very much for the question.

Mr President, Samia Nakhoul from Reuters would like to take the floor. We cannot turn down her request, can we? Your question, please.

Samia Nakhoul:I have two questions. I have a follow-up question on Gaza. You know, the war has been going on for eight months. Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu said that he wants to eradicate Hamas, yet it is still there. So, how do you see the scenario? How do you see this conflict unfolding? And, given your diplomatic relations and clout with the Palestinian Authority and with Hamas, even with Israel, though now it is a bit strained, and with the Gulf countries, do you think of playing a leading role in mediating an end to the conflict based on the two-state solution as proposed at the Madrid Conference? Do you really believe that there is hope for the Palestinian state? This is question one.

Vladimir Putin: I believe there is hope. There is hope because there are people in the United States and Israel who advocate for the creation of two states. They believe that this option – the establishment of two sovereign states – can lead to peace, help find a formula for peace.

Does Russia believe it is important to play a leading role? I do not think so. There are many players in the region who are involved in the conflict and have great influence on current developments. However, we can contribute to a peace settlement, considering our relations with Israel that have evolved over the past few decades, as well as our traditional relations with the Islamic world that are based on a great deal on trust.

I believe that regional countries and organisations, including the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League, should make a decisive contribution. This includes neighbouring states, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, counties of the Persian Gulf, Turkiye, a leading player in the Islamic world, and, certainly, the United States. We strongly reject the extremist position that the United States should be excluded. What for? That is impossible. The same applies to Israel.

However, it is necessary to find a balance. I repeat, I believe it can be done, considering the sentiments in US and Israeli society, and especially those in the Arab and Islamic world.

We are trying to influence ongoing developments to the best of our ability, also bearing in mind the humanitarian aspect. As you know, we have played a certain role in securing the release of several hostages with a Russian background. We are continuing this work with our partners. You are right in saying that we maintain stable and trust-based relations that have evolved over decades.

However, we need to work together. This work should not be monopolised. This is harmful since monopolisation could prove beneficial only if those who monopolise the process adhere to a neutral position. However, a monopolist is unable to maintain a neutral position. They inevitably side with one of the parties, causing everything to fall apart and lead to tragedies like the ones we are experiencing.

This is the overall picture.

Please.

Samia Nakhoul: About the scenario: how do you see this conflict now, which is unfolding in Gaza? And one last question.

Vladimir Putin: We have put forward ceasefire initiatives multiple times at the UN Security Council, but they have been blocked and vetoed by the United States. Collaborating and reaching an agreement together would be the ideal scenario, but unfortunately, it does not work so far.

We have directly supported a ceasefire, but our proposal is vetoed; another initiative – also veto. If we had avoided reciprocal vetoes and instead focused on finding common ground to solve the issue, it might have paved the way for a resolution.

You wanted to ask one more question? Please go ahead.

Samia Nakhoul: My question is this: going back to Ukraine, what would trigger a nuclear war and how close are we to that risk?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they always try to accuse us of brandishing a ‘nuclear big stick.’ But was it me who just brought up the topic of using nuclear weapons? You did it. You push me to speak on this subject, but afterwards you will accuse me of brandishing a ‘nuclear big stick.’

You know, this is a very tough topic. The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in World War II: Hiroshima, Nagasaki – 20 kilotonnes. Our tactical nuclear weapons are 70–75 kilotonnes. Let us avoid not only their actual use, but even the threat of use.

Somehow, the West believes that Russia will never use nuclear weapons. However, our nuclear doctrine clearly states that if somebody’s actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we reserve the right to employ all available means in response.

It is crucial not to approach this matter lightly or superficially, but rather with a professional and serious attitude. I hope that everyone around the world will adopt this approach when addressing such issues.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Samia Nakhoul.

Ali Naderi from IRNA, Iran, wants to ask one more question.

Please, Mr Naderi.

IRNA CEO Ali Naderi: (retranslated): God help you!

We have been talking for three hours now. In your speeches, you talked about sanctions and also about Iran joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS, as well as cooperation within these organisations to create a multipolar world.

My question is: how do you see the world order in the future, considering the will of various independent countries? Do you think monopolism and a unipolar world will continue?

Vladimir Putin: Do you know what happened? We have talked about this many times; no one knows this better than you. The Soviet Union collapsed. It does not matter whether it collapsed or was destroyed; what matters is that it ceased to exist. There was only one superpower left, which considered that now it is done, God fell asleep on its shoulder, and now it can command everyone. But the world is complex and diverse, it is developing rapidly, with new centres of power emerging.

A European politician said – it was not me, just to make it clear to everyone – that all European states are small states, but not everyone has understood this yet.

Look at how Asia is developing. China has 1.5 billion people, and India perhaps even more. Other Asian countries, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia are developing at a tremendous pace. The development pace is high, and the population is growing. Apparently, the trends are such that development is gradually moving there.

Several processes are taking place in this region of the world, catching up not only with the growth rate, but also with the standard of living. All this will inevitably lead to changes in the configuration of the world. Today we cannot talk about any kind of monopoly; it no longer exists. The world, of course, can only exist in its diversity. If there is a monopoly, it will be terrible. Just like in nature, the world is always diverse in politics.

I do not know whether it is good for the United States that this monopoly emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union. That required some extra efforts from the United States.

Look, the United States spends more on defence than all other countries combined. If the expenses of all countries in the world are combined and added up, the United States still spends more on defence than all countries together. Why? Huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining bases abroad.

I am often asked how we manage to have cutting-edge weapons such as Avangard glide vehicles or other types. Well, we specifically focus our efforts, finances and administrative resources on the goals that matter the most. And the United States is forced to spend money on maintaining its armed forces because with bases deployed around the world, the costs must be huge, and the opportunities for embezzlement are endless. I am not pointing fingers now; I know we also have a lot of fraud. Embezzlement is widespread in Russia as well as in your countries, but in the United States it is mostly found in the army. Why? Because there is always more theft in maintenance; it is just inevitable.

Massive resources are spent on maintaining its imperial status. Does this benefit the American people? I do not think so. This is rather making the United States backslide, and analysts in the United States are aware of this. In fact, they are saying this directly. They openly write about it. I read them. The question is how fast that slide will be.

If they were smart people, they would read what their analysts write. They would have adjusted and remained on Olympus longer. But today’s leadership wants to maintain this imperial standing at all costs and only harms itself. But change is still occurring; it is inevitable, it is already underway – there is no unipolar world anymore.

I would say what we all need to do right now – in the United States, in Europe, in Russia and in Asia – having realised this, we need to make sure we do not go to the extreme that our British colleague has mentioned. Having realised this, each of us needs to restrain their ambitions and learn to negotiate, rather than dissuade others from reaching agreements. And then the world will change, but without any cataclysms that frighten everyone so much.

Ali Naderi (retranslated): I have one more question. The IAEA issued a resolution today aimed against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The resolution was passed, although America had withdrawn from the nuclear deal and did not participate in this.

I believe we need some kind of agency, some body that would be more professional, more competent.

What do you think is the reason for this situation?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure I understand your question. Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the well-known agreement that you have just mentioned. There can be no complaints against Iran.

However, the United States unilaterally decided to withdraw from this agreement, while the Europeans continued to insist on Iran’s fulfilling its obligations. Forgive me, but this is absurd. It was not Iran that withdrew from the agreement – the United States did. Former President Trump decided to withdraw from the deal. But the Europeans now say: yes, it is not very good that the Americans withdrew, but you, Iranians, still have to comply. Why on earth would Iran do that? Sorry, it sounds a little rude in Russian. But if a key player has withdrawn from the agreement, why should Iran bother to comply?

Nevertheless, you know, even we tried to talk Iran into not taking any rash steps and not to withdraw from this agreement in order to not strain relations with Europe. This is a secret I am willing to share with you, even though it is common knowledge. We kept telling the Iranian leadership to calm down and to honour this agreement in order to avoid the outcomes that may hurt them. But I kept thinking to myself: why should the Iranians follow it at a time where others are withdrawing from it? That makes no sense.

More broadly, though, we need to look for stable mechanisms. Everyone is clear about that. Today, a party signs an agreement, and next thing you know they withdraw from it. This is not the way to do things. They keep telling us that trust is important. But where is trust? Where will it come from? One administration is gone, another one comes to office and dumps all previously assumed commitments.

It is just like everyone today is pursuing their own agenda, and so do I. Our colleague from the United States asked about possible agreements with Ukraine. Indeed, we were one step away from signing an agreement with Ukraine. Truth be told, though, all of that was thrown out at the behest of the United States and Great Britain. Is there a way to come to terms today?

The current leaders of Ukraine decided not to hold elections. That is an issue. There is Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine which states that the president is elected for only five years. There is Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine which says that the term of office of the parliament gets prolonged under martial law. But it does not say anything about prolonging the term of office of the president.

There is a law that clarifies the status of martial law and says that the powers go to the parliament and that presidential elections are not held under martial law. But it does not say that they get prolonged, you see? It does not say that. It says that the presidential elections are not held. But it does not say that they are prolonged? It does not say that. And if it does not say that, it means they are not prolonged.

On the contrary, there is Article 109 of the Criminal Code, I believe, of Ukraine, which identifies it as a power grab. Who are we supposed to enter into an agreement with? Nevertheless, challenges can be overcome and things can be agreed upon. If the powers go to the Speaker of Parliament… If there is a desire to sign an agreement, we can always find someone to sign it with. That is a different matter.

I agree with you on matters concerning Iran. We need a tool – perhaps, it needs to be developed from scratch – which would be both legitimate and reliable, so that the parties to this process do not fear that all preliminary conditions would get cancelled tomorrow, and one of the contracting parties would be held responsible for not complying with something they did not actually break.

Ali Naderi (retranslated): I would like to hear what you think about IAEA’s steps regarding the publication of the resolution concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have not seen it yet. I need to look at the text. I am not familiar with what it says. We have been discussing things here for half a day now. Let me see what it says, and I will share with you what I think about it. I cannot do so now, because I have not seen this resolution.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr Naderi.

Mr President, we have been talking for almost three hours now. Shall we wrap it up?

Vladimir Putin: Please let us continue if there is anything that you consider important that we have not covered yet.

Andrei Kondrashov: DPA Agency, Germany.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, we have been discussing a number of issues over the past several hours. What do you think needs to be done to overcome these issues? We discussed this during our most recent two meetings with Minister Lavrov and during the G20 meeting. Brazil has assumed leadership this year.

Have you decided to take part in the G20 meeting?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure yet, but I do not rule it out. Above all, I must act based on today’s priorities. As you know, we have a lot of issues to deal with in our country, but I do not rule out the possibility of me going there. We are fully aware of the kind of world we are living in. I will not beat about the bush and be straightforward about it: it will depend on the situation in the country, the situation surrounding Ukraine, and the international situation, more broadly. It is not a good idea to go there and listen to someone who consider us aggressors besmirch Russia at a time where, I think, they are the aggressors, and to create issues for our friends. We are working in the G20 and will continue to do so. I am not sure whether I need to show up there in person. We will see. Time will tell, as we in Russia say.

Andrei Kondrashov: Karim Talbi, Agence France-Presse.

Karim Talbi: I have two quick questions for you. First, the American people want to know whether Tucker Carlson will moderate the SPIEF plenary session here in St Petersburg on Friday.

Vladimir Putin: Carlson? I am not sure who will moderate the session. Mr Peskov has not reported about this to me yet.

(Addressing Dmitry Peskov.) Who will moderate it?

Dmitry Peskov: I will report about it separately.

Vladimir Putin: He will report to me separately. I have no idea. We did not discuss this with Mr Carlson.

Karim Talbi: Here is my second question. It is getting dark, but I can still see three flags behind you: the flag of Russia, the flag of the Russian Empire and the flag of the Soviet Union. The flag of the Russian Empire is flying higher than the other two, let me put it this way.

Vladimir Putin: No, no, they are all equal.

Karim Talbi: Which one is closer to your heart?

Vladimir Putin: The official flag of the Russian Federation, the tricolor, the official flag of Russia. This is my first point.

Second, I can tell you this was not a political decision of the Government or the Presidential Executive Office. It may appear strange, but it was Gazprom’s decision. Of course, Mr Miller told me he was going to do that. I can share what we discussed with you, there is nothing secret about it. I asked him why do that, since we have a national flag. He told me it was part of our history. I think Alexander II established the flag of the empire. He thought it should include black and yellow colours, because these are the colours of the Russian coat of arms. This is how it was presented in the 19^th century. Peter the Great established the state flag, the tricolor. The flag of the Soviet Union is there, because victory over Nazism is associated with it. It has a rightful presence in our history and the public mind. I chose not to prevent them from doing so and gave them the green light.

Everything happens for a reason, that’s it. There is no need to look for something that is not here, or for some subtext, or for our imperial ambitions: there are none. There are none because the world is changing quickly. Take Uzbekistan: do you know how many people live there? You do not. How much is it in France now?

Karim Talbi: Many.

В.Путин: Yes, many. Sixty million, right? Sixty-five. There are 37 million in Uzbekistan. Now pay attention: a million adds every year. Population growth in Uzbekistan is one million [per year]. At this rate, they will soon overtake France. If you also subtract migrants, France’s population will be as large as that of Uzbekistan.

Now I am going to explain why. If someone suspects us of some kind of imperial ambitions, just imagine: we will restore the Soviet Union, and we will have a predominantly Islamic population. Has this ever occurred to you?

There is no need to make something that is not there. We are not against the growing Islamic population; on the contrary, we are glad to see what is happening in the Russian Federation. Some republics with a predominantly Islamic population have a very good birth rate, and we are glad. But what’s done is done; a page has been turned. We are looking to the future based on today’s realities. The flags you see are part of our history. There is no need to make up anything to make your opinion about Russia on, you should not make Russia out to be the enemy. You’re only hurting yourselves with this, you know?

They made up stories that Russia wants to attack NATO. Have you gone completely crazy? That is as thick as this table. Who came up with this? It is just complete nonsense, total rubbish. Or, this could be nonsense if it weren’t made up to fool their own citizens by telling them: “Beware! Russia is going to attack you soon! To arms, quick, and we must promptly send weapons to Ukraine!” And why is it being done? In order to maintain their own imperial position and greatness – that’s why. This is what these threats and scares are for, for citizens in Germany, France and other parts of Europe. This threat does not and cannot exist. We defend ourselves in Ukraine.

Where is the United States – across the pond – and where are we? Imagine us doing in Canada, or in Mexico, the things the United States is doing on our doorstep, in Ukraine; or us saying that the United States seized part of Mexico’s territories somewhere in the past, and encouraging Mexico to fight to return them. In fact, this is approximately what the Western countries are doing in relation to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Would you ever want to ponder this?

Do not look at these flags: look into the heart of the events. Believe me, we have no imperial ambitions; this is all nonsense, just like a Russian threat to NATO countries and Europe. Are you kidding? Look at NATO’s potential and look at Russia's potential. Did you think that we were crazy, or something?

Karim Talbi: In France, there is no flag of the last king of France hanging near the flag of Napoleon and the flag of the Republic near the palace at the same time. And these flags – forgive me, but when I came here, I was not the only one who immediately saw them. They are very visible.

Vladimir Putin: They are nowhere to be seen.

This is Mr Miller’s personal initiative, or that of his company, because he is interested in Russia’s history. Let me say once again: this has no connections with anything but history and paying tribute to the generations that lived under these flags and banners and achieved great success in developing our state.

Andrei Kondrashov: Thank you.

We will take another quick question from the Spanish agency EFE.

Vladimir Putin: We will sit here all night if we keep taking questions.

Can we put it off until tomorrow? We need to go to Pushkin, Tsarskoe Selo.

Andrei Kondrashov: Then let me ask you a closing question.

Vladimir Putin: That is okay, go ahead.

Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): I will keep it quick. Tomorrow, we will celebrate the 80^th anniversary of the D-Day landings, the landing of the US soldiers in Normandy. They fought alongside Russian soldiers. Do you rule out the possibility of Russians, French, and Americans joining hands and being partners?

Vladimir Putin: We do not rule it out. It is the Americans and the Europeans who are ruling it out. We are all for it. We were not the ones to impose sanctions on Europe, nor have we severed energy supplies to Germany or other countries. We are the ones on the receiving end of the sanctions.

You said that tomorrow will mark the 80^thanniversary of the Normandy landings and the opening of the second front. We have always had great respect for our allies, the Americans, the British, and the French.

Speaking of which, do people in France know that Stalin insisted on France attending and even signing the Act of Military Surrender of Germany? The United States and Great Britain objected, but Stalin insisted on France attending the signing of the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany as a victorious country. The French do not remember it. Either, they do not want to, or simply do not think it is important. But it is a historical fact nonetheless, and we have it all in our archives.

We have always held fighting France in high regard. Despite the fact that Nazi troops marched through Paris, we supported the Maquis and everyone who fought alongside us, including the Normandie-Niemen squadron pilots. We remember this very well. Our door remains open for talks, meetings, and discussions.

You just said there will be celebrations, but it turns out that we are not part of the festivities. How many American soldiers died in the war against Nazism? Is it 500,000 to 600,000? About 500,000. Even fewer British died during that war, fewer by an order of magnitude than in WWI. You may be aware of the fact that the Soviet Union paid the highest human price for achieving common victory. About 27 million lives were lost according to the latest data, and the RSFSR, Russia, accounts for 70 percent of these losses. Indeed, the Russian Federation officially accounts for 70 percent of the losses. And you are asking me whether we are ready or not. We were not invited to this event.

The main contribution to the defeat of Nazism – of course, it is obvious, all you have to do is to read what Churchill said then or Roosevelt about the contribution of the Soviet Union, say Russia, in the common victory over Nazism. It is obvious, everybody knows it. Only completely unfair people can twist these facts. God forbid, let them celebrate it without us, it won’t cost us anything. However, this is the answer to your question: who wants this dialogue and who doesn’t.

I think that the current Ukrainian leadership will attend. Just listen to me: how can you celebrate such a serious date in the struggle against Nazis together with those who put neo-Nazis on a pedestal of honour and make them national heroes? Bandera is today’s symbol of Ukrainian statehood. He was one of the main Hitler’s associates in Eastern Europe. It was the Banderites who shot thousands of not only Russians and Poles, but also Jews. This is Hitler’s closest associate. Yes, back then, at the end of the war, he began to sniff out and realise that victory was slipping away from Hitler, he began to look for allies already in the western direction, and the Germans noticed it. But he is a main collaborator. He walked around with his ”hands up“ and welcomed – not only welcomed, but worked directly with the Nazis.

The then acting, still legitimate head of the Ukrainian state, as you well know it, gave the former SS soldier a standing ovation in Canada. What, you don't know about it? Everybody knows about it. Only the European, US, and Canadian media are silent about this fact, as if it didn't happen, but it did. They told him: here is a man, who fought against Russians during WWII. Everybody stood up, including the President of Ukraine, and started applauding him. Who was fighting against Russians during the Second World War? It was Hitler and those who collaborated with him. And the person, whom they applauded, was a former soldier of the Waffen-SS Galicia Division, and everybody applauded him.

And tomorrow these people will be celebrating the Allied landing in Normandy. How's that? And Russia, which is the legal successor to the Soviet Union and which has suffered such huge losses, they somehow shy away from inviting us. It will not cost us anything, but this is just an answer to your question: who is interested in normal relations and in restoring them, and who is not so interested in them. We are for it.

Well, shall we call it a day?

Andrei Kondrashov: Final question, if I may, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, go ahead.

Andrei Kondrashov: A quick one.

Vladimir Putin (addressing Martin Romanczyk): You wanted to add something else?

Andrei Kondrashov: Go ahead, please, Martin. I will wait until you finish and then ask my final question.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): You have mentioned Nazism. You know that in Germany, we have a party that raises a certain concern among the public and other parties by being rather uncritical of this part of our history — Alternative for Germany. Many MPs of this party are under constitutional surveillance for their remarks and actions. If I am not mistaken, Mr Chrupalla, the party's co-chair, was in Moscow in 2020. To my knowledge, he has also been invited to the Russian Embassy in Berlin.

What is your opinion of the Alternative for Germany? How do you envision the development of this party’s relationship with Russia and Russia’s relationship with this party?

Vladimir Putin: Even though the person you have mentioned came to Moscow — and I think I even met with some of the party leaders, but I do not remember who — we do not have a systemic relationship with that party.

What we believe is happening in the Federal Republic of Germany is that any alternative view is seen as anti-government, and people holding such views are for some reason proclaimed Kremlin agents. But, as you know, if a political movement criticises the party in power, in a democracy there is no reason to immediately call it anti-government and work on shutting it down. If memory serves me right, when Hitler was jailed after the failed putsch in Bavaria, that immediately increased his rating and gave him a boost. He was not perceived as a national politician before that. His arrest made him one.

We see no indication of neo-Nazism in what the Alternative for Germany is doing. If someone speaks in favour of a normal relationship with Russia, we only welcome that. However, we do not decide whether such movements are acting within the remits of the Constitution. I repeat, we see nothing that would arouse any sort of concern. If the ruling government feels threatened by Alternative for Germany's policies, this, as we say, is not our concern. These matters pertain to the development of the political situation in the Federal Republic of Germany.

May I revisit what I was just talking about: Alternative for Germany is suspected of holding neo-Nazi views, while people collaborating with the Nazi regime in, say, Ukraine, are not. These are what we call double standards in domestic policy as well as foreign policy. We will work with anyone who wants to work with Russia. We do not offer any opinions on Germany’s domestic politics as it is the purview of Germany's government, the constitutional court and so on.

However, as I already said when citing the example of Hitler, those who use non-political measures in a political struggle will not achieve the result they want.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, you may already know, but just in case you do not, the Western press is very biased towards your personally and often portrays you as a villain or a monster…

Vladimir Putin: That is true. It is good that they are portraying me like that, they should be afraid.

Andrei Kondrashov: Does Dmitry Peskov show you these pictures? What is your attitude towards them? Is it important?

Vladimir Putin: No, he does not. He probably does not want me to get upset.

I understand that during times of heightened tensions between nations, governments try to frighten the general public. This is nothing new. Frankly, I do not have time to monitor this propaganda.

I prefer to focus on the substance of our relationships with our current partners, potential partners and former partners, in order to build normal relations that can help us achieve our national development goals. That is all there is to it.

Andrei Kondrashov: Mr President, thank you very much for this honest conversation on behalf of TASS and our colleagues. I wish you patience, good health and God's help in all your endeavours.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

I would also like to express my gratitude to all of you for coming, whether on assignment from your editors or independently, and for not being afraid to do so. In any case, I appreciate your interest in what is happening in Russia and its relations with other countries, especially considering the challenging circumstances. I do not want to go into the details of what is happening and why – I believe we all understand what I am referring to.

But I want to thank you for being here and showing an interest. I hope you will strive to be as objective as possible. I understand that you have your assignments, but I hope you will carry them out in a fair and unbiased manner.

I hope that our meeting today, along with your future work, will focus on ensuring that bilateral relations between our respective countries improve and that the overall situation stabilises and moves towards crisis settlement instead of perpetual escalation and aggravation.

Thank you very much. All the best to you!

Answers to media questions following the visit to Uzbekistan

2024-06-19T21:05:50+04:00

Vladimir Putin answered questions from the Russian media following his state visit to the Republic of Uzbekistan. The press availability took place at Tashkent Airport.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. What will we discuss today? Please go ahead with your questions.

Yegor Piskunov: Hello, Mr President. Yegor Piskunov, Russia Today TV channel.

Your visit to Tashkent was absolutely unprecedented in terms of its packed agenda. You spent two nights here, and some of us thought you might stay for the third. You had a lengthy face-to-face conversation with the President of Uzbekistan. What are your impressions? What are your expectations for cooperation with Tashkent, especially in trade and economic matters? And what are Uzbekistan’s prospects for taking part in integration structures in the post-Soviet space? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As you know, I arrived here on Sunday evening, so we did not have anything on our agenda for that day except for the official events – a flower-laying ceremony at the Independence Monument. That was it for the day. But the next day was packed with all kinds of formal contacts, meetings and talks. It all happened on Monday, and we worked late into the evening. This is true. The hosts scheduled our visit this way.

This was the first time we attended a meeting of the regions. Do you know why this visit was so effective? The composition of our delegation was impressive; it included nearly half of the Russian Government members, all the key ministers. Naturally, a meeting that involved heads of regions and Cabinet ministers from both sides featured a wide-ranging and fulfilling discussion. I am not even referring to the number of documents signed, but to the actual face-to-face contact between people who want to work together and know how to do it. Russia has a genuine interest in expanding our relations with Uzbekistan.

First, Uzbekistan is currently the second most populated country in the post-Soviet space, after Russia. Today, it is home to 37 million people, and it adds one million every year. That is how Uzbekistan’s population is growing.

It has a vibrant, fast-growing economy which has gathered substantial momentum. Last year, Uzbekistan’s GDP increased by six percent, which is a major achievement compared to other countries of the world. The President of Uzbekistan has implemented an effective governance framework and a growth-driven economic model.

We have a lot of joint plans in terms of industrial cooperation, energy, and infrastructure, as you have probably seen and heard.

Uzbekistan faces some problems because it is a landlocked country with no access to the sea or ocean. In this connection, we and other regional partners can take action to help our friends in Uzbekistan resolve this logistics task and create essential conditions for entering external markets. We have a lot to discuss here. So, there are very many issues, and there is a large volume of potential projects.

As you know, we have established a US$500 million fund for conducting joint work, and the Russian side has contributed US$400 million of this amount. This does not mean that we have more money, this is because we have major interests in this part of Asia, and we can see that it is possible to realise them, given the stability of the political system and specific terms for investing in Uzbekistan’s economy. I repeat, we are very much interested, and this explains such intensive contacts.

Speaking of integration processes, we never insist on anything. To be honest, Nursultan Nazarbayev, the first President of Kazakhstan, had initiated these integration processes, if you mean the EAEU (above all, we are talking about the economy, of course). This organisation has gained considerable momentum, and it is yielding real results for all participants. However, any sovereign state is free to decide whether to take part or not; this decision is motivated by specific interests, primarily economic interests, and economic expediency. We have different levels of economic development and financial system development. When any particular government makes a relevant decision on taking (or not taking) part in any specific integration association, it proceeds from these considerations, in the first place.

On the whole, if such an economy as that of Uzbekistan joins the association, then I believe the association would only benefit from this. However, Uzbekistan’s economy should also benefit. This amounts to a rather complicated negotiating process because while establishing the EAEU, we had debated for many days and nights on what specific mandatory terms and mutual obligations would arise. Consequently, this is a steady and smooth process.

Our economies are aligning and developing, and numerous joint projects are emerging. We will gradually chart our mutual interests in the sphere of subsequent cooperation and involvement in integration associations.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. I am sorry but I have two questions and both are extensive.

Here is the first one. You went to Tashkent and we arrived together with you, practically right from Minsk. Since then we have been interested in this issue: In Minsk you replied to a question about Zelensky’s legitimacy and with whom to hold talks if and when they become possible. You said it was necessary to look up in the Constitution of Ukraine what government authorities can operate without elections. But proceeding from the Constitution of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada is the only body that can work now. Not a word is said about extending the powers of the president. Zelensky seems to continue to stay in office exclusively on the basis of martial law. You said a legal analysis is needed. Are we conducting this analysis? Who are we going to talk to if we do?

Can I ask you a second question right away?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please. Whatever suits you best.

Pavel Zarubin: More and more bellicose statements are made from high Western rostrums. Now they are even saying that Kiev should be allowed to strike deep into Russian territory with Western weapons. The EU Defence Minister spoke about this issue today, and the NATO Secretary General said this: We are giving weapons to Kiev and consider them Ukrainian from this moment, so Ukraine can do whatever it wants with these arms, in part, strike at Russian territory where it deems necessary.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: The first question was about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian power. Indeed, it is necessary to conduct a serious, deep analysis of this.

The first point is on the surface and is mentioned by my colleagues. This is what it is about. The Constitution of Ukraine only extends the powers of the Rada. It says nothing about extending the powers of the president. This is the first point.

Second. Indeed, the law of Ukraine on the legal status, legal position and martial law reads that presidential elections are not held during martial law. However, this does not mean that they are extended. They are not held but who said that they must be extended? The Constitution says nothing about this. But Article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine reads that in this case the powers of the supreme authority, actually the presidential powers are transferred to the Speaker of Parliament. All the more so since the powers of parliament are extended during martial law. This is a preliminary analysis. We should take a deeper look into this issue.

Some specialists say that there are contradictions between the Constitution that provides only for the extension of the Rada’s powers under martial law and the law I have just mentioned – I think it is the 2016 law that defines the legal status of martial law. As I already said and repeat, this law stipulates that the presidential elections are not held but nothing is said about the prolongation, and this is a problem.

What is the point? The point is that in essence, the Ukrainian statehood is based on the idea of the parliamentary-presidential republic rather than the presidential republic. The main levers of power are concentrated in the representative state body. Therefore, it is quite logical that the Constitution itself and other legal acts adopted on its basis are construed in such a way.

Therefore, speaking strictly, in a tentative estimate – I am just talking about a tentative estimate – the parliament and the Rada Speaker remain the only legitimate power. And so, basically, if they wanted to hold presidential elections, they should have simply repealed martial law at that time and held elections. But they did not want to do this for a number of reasons.

I think, and this is not linked with the Constitution in any way, that maybe the current bosses of Ukraine, who are overseas, would like to place the burden of making all unpopular decisions on the current executive branch. This includes the adoption of yet another decision to further lower the conscription age. It was 27 years, now it is 25 and next it may be 23 years or even 18 years.

I believe that after this and other unpopular decisions are made, those who are acting today as representatives of executive government would be replaced with people who would not be responsile for the unpopular decisions made. These representatives will be simply replaced in a snap. If this is the idea, the logic is understandable in principle. Let’s see what happens next.

But as I said in Minsk, the final say should be made by the political and legal system of Ukraine. It should formulate and explain what is happening in Ukraine. I believe, this is not too difficult, indeed. I will repeat for the third time that the 2016 law prohibits holding presidential elections under martial law but nothing is said about extension of these powers. So, what? See Article 111 of the Constitution – all power is transferred to the Speaker of Parliament.

With regard to the strikes, frankly, I am not sure what the NATO Secretary General is talking about. When he was the Prime Minister of Norway, we communicated and addressed challenging issues concerning the Barents Sea and other issues, and generally, we were able to come to terms, and I am positive he was not suffering from dementia back then. If he is talking about potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precision weapons, he, as a person who heads a military-political organisation, even though he is a civilian like me, should be aware of the fact that long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. This is my first point.

My second point is that the final target selection and what is known as launch mission can only be made by highly skilled specialists who rely on this reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissance data. For some attack systems, such as Storm Shadow, these launch missions can be put in automatically, without the need to use Ukrainian military. Who does it? Those who manufacture and those who allegedly supply these attack systems to Ukraine do. This can and does happen without the participation of the Ukrainian military. Launching other systems, such as ATACMS, for example, also relies on space reconnaissance data, targets are identified and automatically communicated to the relevant crews that may not even realise what exactly they are putting in. A crew, maybe even a Ukrainian crew, then puts in the corresponding launch mission. However, the mission is put together by representatives of NATO countries, not the Ukrainian military.

So, these officials from NATO countries, especially the ones based in Europe, particularly in small European countries, should be fully aware of what is at stake. They should keep in mind that theirs are small and densely populated countries, which is a factor to reckon with before they start talking about striking deep into the Russian territory. It is a serious matter and, without a doubt, we are watching this very carefully.

The focus is on the developments on the outskirts of Kharkov. But they were the ones to provoke those events. I made it clear publicly, I think it was six months ago, that if they continue to target residential neighbourhoods, we will have to create a security area. Not long ago, we started doing what I said back then.

First, they provoked us in Donbass. For eight long years they have been pulling the wool over our eyes and making us believe that they were going to resolve the issue peacefully and eventually made us try to restore peace by using the armed forces. Then, they deceived us during the negotiating process and decided that they would defeat us on the battlefield by inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. We warned them against making incursions into our territory, shelling Belgorod and neighbouring areas, or else we will be forced to create a security area.

Look at what your Western colleagues are reporting. No one is talking about shelling Belgorod or other adjacent territories. The only thing they are talking about is Russia opening a new front and attacking Kharkov. Not a word. Why is that? They did it with their own hands. Well, let them reap the fruits of their ingenuity. The same thing can happen in case the long-range precision weapons which you asked about is used.

More broadly, this unending escalation can lead to serious consequences. If Europe were to face those serious consequences, what will the United States do, considering our strategic arms parity? It is hard to tell.

Are they looking for a global conflict? I think they wanted to agree upon strategic arms, but we do not really see them being really eager to do so. They are talking about it but are not doing much to make it happen. We will wait and see what happens next.

Viktor Sineok: Mr President, my name is Viktor Sineok, Izvestiya.

For several months before your visit, delegations from the US Treasury and other agencies implementing the sanctions regime were coming to Central Asian countries, including Uzbekistan. Unprecedented pressure was put on the Central Asian capitals in order to exclude and strangle all the possibilities and prospects for cooperation with Russia. How do you find this behaviour? Can Russia redress this pressure for the Central Asian countries, including Uzbekistan?

If I may, I would like to ask a second question very quickly. News came out that Russia was considering the possibility of removing the Taliban from the list of terrorist organisations. How has this decision been made and why? How will it affect our relations with Afghanistan, and when will it take effect?

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with the second part.

This is constantly being discussed, and I will not comment on it now, because relations with the Taliban and Afghanistan are constantly being discussed. It cannot be denied that there are problems in Afghanistan. Everyone known this very well.

How can we build our relations with the current regime? It is a different question altogether. However, we have to do it. These are the people controlling the country, its territory; they are the power in Afghanistan today. We must proceed from reality and build relations accordingly.

We stay in contact with many partners, including with many partners in the Central Asian region. We take into account each partner’s and friend’s opinion and will formulate this position together.

As for the first part of your question, there is nothing new about it. I mean the voyagers flying all around the world, be it Latin America, or Africa, or the East, threatening everybody. These are elements of imperial behaviour. American political observers and analysts say directly that the United States is an empire, and its imperial ambitions are connected with internal political events to a large extent. Presidential election is coming soon, and the current authorities want to confirm their status as an empire. Many in the United States do not like this, do not want to be an empire and bear the imperial burden. They do not want responsibility, and do not want to expose their country to any dangers or get it into a difficult position.

What about Central Asia? Uzbekistan is not only the biggest country in Central Asia. It is second after Russia in terms of population – 37 million. But voyageurs from the US are flying to all parts of the world. As you know, quite recently, the Secretary of the Treasury, I believe, also visited China. What did she talk about? I think I also recalled this in Minsk. She said the Chinese produce too many cars. They talked about overproduction of cars. I don’t think that the US Secretary of the Treasury is an illiterate person. This is simply juggling with facts.

What is overproduction? If we live in the market conditions, the market regulates whether this is overproduction or not. If people buy products and they are produced with a profit, there is no overproduction. And how else do you force another country to stop the production of different goods? By using force? Sanctions? And this is one of the variants of using force, and this is how they are trying to act all over the world.

Of course, countries that are weak, insecure, especially those with dozens of NGOs that feed off the American hand, are pecking at what they have been given, and, of course, it is easier to manipulate public consciousness in these countries, easier to pressure incumbent authorities. But the countries where the authorities feel confident, where they devote all their activities to strengthening sovereignty, the interests of their people and their country, do not respond to these peremptory orders from across the ocean. This is the case with large countries and small states if they are self-sufficient and dignified.

We know that pressure was exerted on Central Asia as well. So far I haven’t seen people kneeling ready to blindly obey any edicts from across the ocean.

They – the Americans and the Europeans – certainly take certain steps that deal damage to our partners but eventually this is also a sovereign choice of any country of how to create its policy, fight for its sovereignty or not, consider sovereignty a value or not and so on.

I think it represents a value. This is because if a country wants to be successful, it must be sovereign, even on the socioeconomic plane. If it wants to be successful, it must be sovereign. Otherwise, other states will always pressure it and subjugate it to foreign interests – like what they are now trying to do with China regarding cars.

They will do the same with fertiliser, chemicals, aircraft – you name it. We are facing this. Yes, we are seeing this and there is nothing good in it. This is damaging both international security and the global economy.

Konstantin Panyushkin: Good afternoon, Mr President. My name is Konstantin Panyushkin, Channel One.

Yesterday, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Alexander Syrsky was reported to have approved the deployment of French mercenary instructors, who can be called the military, on the territory of Ukraine. Now it is official and was finally made public. Moreover, Syrsky says he hopes that the Kiev regime’s other partners will also officially follow the French example. What do you think about this and how far can it go?

Please allow me to add a bit of clarification as a follow up on the question of legitimacy. It is clear from your answer that, until Western handlers replace Zelensky in Kiev, you have virtually no one to talk to in Ukraine. But I wanted to ask: did Alexander Lukashenko offer you the Ukrainian military as the ones to talk to?

Vladimir Putin: Who? The military?

Konstantin Panyushkin: Yes, the military.

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, Mr Lukashenko does not command the military in Ukraine yet. If he did, we would have ended this conflict long ago, and to mutual satisfaction. We would have found a solution on Ukraine if Ukraine were now managed by people guided by national interests, and not by the interests of their masters in Europe or overseas.

As for the fact that there may be mercenaries in Ukraine, we are well aware of that, there is nothing new about it. The fact that the military in Ukraine are now saying that they [the French] may come is because they have been there for a long time. We hear English, French, or Polish on the radio. We know that these mercenaries are there. But there are specialists there under the guise of mercenaries.

There was a question about long-range precision weapons. And who controls and maintains these weapons? Of course, the same instructors who are disguised as mercenaries. They exist and they suffer losses. Perhaps this statement has been made because it is apparently increasingly hard for them to conceal these losses. Therefore, perhaps the time has come to show that they are officially there, so that these losses can be shown realistically, legally. I do not know. Maybe.

As for various contingents, I have already spoken about it. The Polish authorities say they are ready to send their contingents. We can hear Polish language, so there are many mercenaries from Poland. If some contingents from European countries enter [Ukraine] together with the Poles, others will later leave whereas the Poles will never do. This is obvious, at least for me. I might be wrong but I doubt that.

Therefore, this pretext of “freeing some Ukrainian units along the border, releasing them so as to send them to the battlefield, keeping them along the borders to ensure their safety” is nonsense. If they are there, then they will also be in the engagement area of our Armed Forces.

I do not think that this is the right decision or a good way out. This is escalation and yet another step towards a large conflict in Europe and globally. Do they need it? They are welcome. We will continue to do as we see fit, regardless of who is on the territory of Ukraine. And this is what they must remember.

Alexei Golovko: Alexei Golovko, Rossiya TV channel.

There have been reports in Western press that Western countries allegedly want to hold another conference in Saudi Arabia after the Swiss conference on Ukraine, and officially invite Russia there in order to show Moscow a purportedly consolidated position and begin some kind of talks.

Mr President, if we receive such a proposal, will Russia attend this conference? If yes, on what conditions?

Vladimir Putin: I do not have an answer now, because I do not know what you are talking about. They say that now they are not ready to invite Russia, and later they will be. We never refused them: not now, nor later, nor a year ago. We have said that we are ready.

It wasn’t us who stopped the talks. We were told: that’s it, we will no longer have talks with you. They could have said we are not satisfied with the agreements that were reached in Istanbul. The talks were launched in Minsk and were completed, brought to a certain stage in Istanbul. They could have said this this had it not been for the signature of the head of the Ukrainian negotiating team on the digest of the agreement that we had prepared as a draft.

He initialled this which means it suited Ukraine. They were ordered to throw it into a rubbish can and try to beat Russia on the battlefield, to inflict strategic defeat on it. But he said directly and publicly – had we not been ordered from abroad (from Britain in this case, that is, from the US – the same thing), the hostilities would have stopped a year and a half ago. He did say this.

We have never refused to talk on this basis and we are ready to continue the negotiating process. But we do not know what and who will offer us at some other stages, in view of the legitimacy of Ukrainian representatives. Therefore, I do not have an answer to this question.

I am always looking with surprise at some antics of our “friends” and partners that are saying that Russia is rejecting talks. I have said a thousand times but it seems they don’t have ears. No, we are not rejecting talks. Ukraine rejected them in public. They initialled the agreement and rejected it with a view to beating us on the battlefield. They are not succeeding in this. Now they are ready. Well, if you are ready, come back. What’s the problem?

They want to paint something, to create a semblance of global support for what they have painted on their own free will, proceeding from their own wants and wishes and present this as a consolidated position of the international community. They won’t succeed. This shows that they do not want to come to terms but are still wishing to get something and turn the tide on the battlefield but all in vain. The more attempts they will make, the more losses there will be, and these losses will by no means be in favour of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

Why is this happening? The current rulers of Ukraine do not feel sorry for these people. They do not consider them their own people. This is the gist of Ukraine’s problem and tragedy today. They do not consider these people their own people. They do not protect the interests of the Ukrainian people today. I am hoping that people will still realise this eventually.

Press statement following Russia-Uzbekistan talks

2024-06-19T21:03:04+04:00

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, friends, colleagues,

I would like to begin by thanking the President of Uzbekistan once again for inviting me on a state visit to your country.

This is one of my first foreign visits after forming the new Government and following the presidential election in Russia. Importantly, even during this period of changes, our partnership continued uninterrupted thanks to the level of cooperation that was achieved in our relations over the previous period. This partnership continued to expand dynamically and progressively.

I certainly agree with President Mirziyoyev that today’s talks were constructive and very useful. We have reviewed virtually all important political, economic, cultural and humanitarian issues of Russia-Uzbekistan cooperation.

The joint statement that we signed following the talks defined long-term guidelines for expanding bilateral contacts and set the corresponding goals.

A number of intergovernmental agreements and commercial contracts were concluded during the visit. Many of them are aimed at intensifying practical cooperation primarily in the economy. This is quite natural, since Russia is one of Uzbekistan’s key business partners.

Uzbekistan’s trade statistics and our trade statistics showed slightly different numbers as of the end of last year, but trade has nevertheless grown significantly and amounted to almost US$10 billion. Of course, there is room to grow, which we just discussed with the President. If we manage to implement all the projects and programmes that we discussed, and I have no doubt that we will, because both sides are committed and willing to work on it, we will then certainly see trade grow even more. It increased by almost 20 percent in the first quarter of this year.

Importantly, our countries are in the process of switching to settlements in national currencies, which we believe is vitally important. Cooperation between lending and banking institutions in financial settlements is expanding. The share of the ruble in mutual commercial transactions reached 58 percent as of late 2023 and continues to grow.

I have mentioned at the expanded and the restricted format meetings that over 3,000 companies with Russian participation are operating on the Uzbekistan’s market, which is a good start. More broadly, Russian capital investment in Uzbekistan’s economy has exceeded US$9 billion.

Energy is a strategic area, or at least among the most important ones. Our country reliably supplies Uzbekistan’s economy with hydrocarbon fuel on favourable terms, thus contributing to the stable operation of energy-intensive sectors of agriculture, as well as the public utilities sector.

Mr Mirziyoyev has already mentioned this, and I will say this, too: last October, the President of Uzbekistan, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and I launched Gazprom’s pumping of Russian gas for consumers in Uzbekistan, by transit via Kazakhstan’s territory. I remember how it all started. The winter before last, Uzbekistan faced a difficult and critical situation due to the abnormally cold weather. I remember how Mr Mirziyoyev was worried looking for every opportunity, of course, to solve this problem, and, naturally, we all began to think about the future. The climate is changing, and we need to proactively take some steps.

Right now, work is underway to increase the capacity of the Central Asia – Centre gas pipeline system, which will make it possible to increase gas supplies to Uzbekistan to 11 billion cubic metres as early as next year.

Major Russian energy companies, such as Gazprom and LUKOIL, have been operating in the republic for a long time and quite effectively. They are developing gas fields. Tatneft and Zarubezhneft work on petrochemical production, refining, processing, fuel supplies, and increasing the output capacity of oil fields.

There are good prospects for cooperation in hydropower. RusHydro is providing assistance to Uzbekistan in creating flexible generation capacities that will help level out the country’s energy balance and ensure uninterrupted operation of the entire energy system of Uzbekistan.

The agenda includes the construction of two large pumped-storage power stations on lakes Aydarkul and Karateren with a total capacity of one gigawatt. This will be a great and significant contribution to the energy sector of Uzbekistan.

Peaceful atom, as Mr President has just mentioned, is another priority area. The protocol signed today to amend the relevant 2018 intergovernmental agreement creates an opportunity to build a small nuclear power plant in Uzbekistan using up-to-date Russian technology that meets the strictest safety and environmental protection requirements.

Rosatom works actively abroad, and is perhaps – not perhaps, but certainly is – the world leader in this sphere, the number one company in terms of the number of power units being built outside the Russian Federation.

Alexei [Likhachev], how many units are we building?

CEO of Rosatom State Corporation Alexei Likhachev: Twenty-two units are under construction and six are being negotiated.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, 20 blocks are under construction abroad and contracts for six more are being negotiated. Of course, Mr Mirziyoyev, we are ready to do everything in order to work effectively on Uzbekistan’s market.

Incidentally, with Russia’s assistance, Uzbekistan has built and successfully operates high-tech industrial technoparks in the Tashkent and Jizzakh regions. Two more technoparks are to open before the end of this year.

Joint projects are being discussed to build a copper concentrator and to launch a full-cycle integrated metallurgical cluster at an iron ore deposit.

Consistent efforts are being made to increase the volume and expand the range of mutual supplies of agricultural produce and food. During the expanded format talks, we recalled that not long ago the trade was under US$300 million.

Shavkat Mirziyoyev: 250.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, 250, and now, according to our colleagues, it stands at US$1.3 billion. We can do more, and we will expand this work, no doubt about it.

A comprehensive cooperation programme for the development of rail transport and infrastructure in Uzbekistan is under development. It includes supplies of Russian railway equipment and its production localisation.

Interaction on a large-scale project to create an International North-South Transport Corridor from Russia and Belarus to the Indian Ocean coast looks promising. One of its routes will pass here, next to Uzbekistan or across the territory of Uzbekistan. This is quite feasible and interesting from the point of view of creating additional opportunities, including Uzbekistan’s access to the ocean.

It is a well-known fact that over a million citizens of Uzbekistan live and work in Russia. President Mirziyoyev has always paid great attention to this and mentioned it now. We appreciate the significant contribution they are making to the development of the Russian economy, especially such fast-growing sectors as construction business, housing and utilities, transport and logistics. I hope their money transfers back home are a serious help to Uzbekistan’s economy and families across that country.

Importantly, the Russian authorities are doing and will continue to do everything necessary to ensure decent working conditions and social protection for the citizens of Uzbekistan working in Russia. We will continue to cooperate with the Uzbekistani authorities on all important migration-related matters. Today, we have discussed this separately with the relevant ministers, and we will step up our efforts in this regard on both sides.

Bilateral cultural and humanitarian ties are traditionally multifaceted. We are grateful to the leadership of the Republic of Uzbekistan for caring about the Russian language and Russian culture in general. We believe it is important that Russian is used as a language for interethnic communication in Uzbekistan. People use it in their everyday life, on television and on radio, and it is much needed in socially important spheres of life, including healthcare and education. We understand that this would be impossible without support from the top, from the President.

In this context, I would like to note the joint Class! initiative that is being successfully implemented. It is aimed at improving the quality of teaching Russian in Uzbekistan. This project covers 85 schools with over 26,000 students and more than 100 Russian teachers, as well as retraining of local teachers. I know the position of the President of Uzbekistan. He believes that this is not enough. He is asking us to increase the number of teachers. We will try to do so. I believe this is perfectly right. We will work on it.

Today, 63,000 citizens of Uzbekistan are studying at Russian universities, including 14,000 at the expense of the Russian budget. About 8,000 more study in 14 branches of Russian universities in Uzbekistan. A large network of branches of Russian universities has been created here, perhaps the largest one in the CIS.

Cooperation in the field of sports is developing. We welcome Uzbekistan’s readiness to host the Games of the Future international tournament in the future. As you know, the first games took place in February and March in Kazan. This is a fundamentally new format that combines physical sports and e-sports. I have already said so publicly, and I can say it again: I was surprised to discover that this new sport attracts such an enormous number of fans.

Of course, we discussed an entire range of issues on the regional agenda, as well as acute international topics. Let me stress that Russia’s and Uzbekistan’s positions largely overlap or are similar.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank the President of Uzbekistan for the hospitality and excellent organisation of our joint work. I presume that this visit and our talks today will help further strengthen the entire range of Russian-Uzbekistani partnership. Obviously, all this will benefit both the peoples of Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation.

Thank you for your attention.

News conference following Russian-Belarusian talks

2024-05-25T16:23:14+04:00

Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko made statements for the media and answered media questions following Russian-Belarusian talks.

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko: Ladies and gentlemen, friends.

Mr Putin and I have just had productive talks in restricted and expanded formats. First of all, I am grateful to the President of Russia for making time for an official visit to Belarus despite his very busy schedule. This is a positive signal, and not only a signal.

This gave us an opportunity to have an in-depth discussion of Belarusia-Russia cooperation focusing specifically on the economy. You have probably noticed that we have been devoting a lot of time to defence and security issues lately. As earlier agreed, we discussed defence and security yesterday, and today we mainly focused on economic issues.

The Belarusian-Russian relations have grown noticeably stronger in recent time, with interaction and trust between our countries reaching a truly unprecedented level in all spheres. We can safely say that both economies are growing rapidly, despite all kinds of obstacles, the ones that we are all aware of.

Belarus intends to further develop its nuclear industry relying on Russian technology. We have thoroughly discussed all aspects of industrial cooperation, the development of mechanical engineering, machine-tool manufacture, and microelectronics, primarily in terms of stepping up import substitution, which should make us independent from imports and enhance our technological sovereignty. Ultimately, this will guarantee the security of our states.

We are confident that the new Russian Government will maintain continuity of policies regarding Belarus.

There are no irreconcilable differences between our countries. There are issues that require closer attention and deeper study; those will certainly be addressed. We must honestly admit that we have resolved all issues – there are no unresolved issues as of today. I am sure that we will continue to work in the same way in the future.

In this context, we have discussed plans to draft a common industrial policy of the Union State. Essentially, what we need to do is root out the remaining protective measures and restrictions once and for all. Otherwise, not only our peoples, but even the two of us will have trouble understanding each other.

Special focus was given on the development of transport and logistics. We are at one thinking that an additional major investment is necessary for this high-potential sector.

In recent years, we have taken a new look at regional cooperation and seen its true potential. Without exaggeration, today Belarus and its regions cooperate with almost all Russian regions, and its exports are growing. I have already said that on June 27 and 28, the XI Forum of Regions of Belarus and Russia will be held in Vitebsk, Polotsk, and Novopolotsk.

We expect you, our Russian colleagues, to attend this forum. I know that there will be a compelling agenda there.

Naturally, we will discuss the current international agenda today: security issues in the world and in the region in the context of the unprecedented level of tensions that we always have to deal with. We have absolutely identical approaches to this. We will not deviate from our chosen path of creating a fair multipolar world order.

I would like to thank my colleague, President of Russia, for detailed results of his visit to China. Belarus is also committed to developing comprehensive partnership with Beijing but we also keep in mind our own development. Every year, Belarusian-Chinese relations are going from strength to strength. We hope that we will join the SCO at the summit of this influential international organisation in Astana in July.

I would also like to thank the Russian people, the Russian leadership and the Russian Foreign Ministry for your great support for us when we were joining the SCO.

In conclusion, I would like to note that I thank my Russian colleague for the warm brotherly conversation, for our fruitful and substantive meeting, and for finding mutual understanding on all topics. We can count on further comprehensive reciprocal support.

Thank you for your attention.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mister Lukashenko, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

First of all I want to thank the President of Belarus for the invitation – I have said it already and I will repeat – to visit Minsk and for the traditionally warm welcome.

As it is well known, this tour is one of the first visits abroad after my re-election and taking office of president, and after the Government of the Russian Federation was formed. Thereby we wanted to underscore the importance that Russia attaches to fraternal relations with our closest neighbor, reliable ally and genuinely strategic partner.

I agree with Mr. Lukashenko that today’s talks were very productive. We, deputy prime ministers and respective ministers considered practically all key issues of the Russian-Belarusian cooperation in the economy, cultural and humanitarian area, in security and defence.

This year we will mark two important anniversaries: they are July 3, when we will jointly celebrate the 80^th anniversary of liberating Belarus from Nazi invaders. This is our common victory. We do remember what price we had to pay for it and we cherish the memory of our fathers, grandfathers and great- grandfathers, who defended the life and freedom for us and the generations to come. And on December 8, the Union State of Russia and Belarus will turn 25. Over the past quarter of a century we have managed to really achieve a lot on the integration tracks.

We have succeeded in implementing 28 sectoral programmes. We have unified Russian and Belarusian legislation. We have formed legal and organisational framework in many areas of our common economic space.

We have provided for the necessary conditions for conducting single macro-economic and monetary policy. Mr. Lukashenko just has mentioned it.

Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme State Council of the Union State adopted on January 29 in St Petersburg, we have identified new promising integration areas. A plan of specific actions on further deepening economic interaction, minimising losses from illegitimate Western restrictions, technologic development and import substitution is about to be endorsed.

I want to note that mutual trade has been steadily growing year after year. Russia, being the core economic partner of Belarus, accounts for about 60 percent of the Belarusian foreign trade balance. At the end of last year, trade increased by more than five percent and reached a record of 46.5 billion dollars. We count this in dollars, but meanwhile over 90 percent of all payments in Russian-Belarusian commercial transactions are made in our national currencies. It means that we can say that mutual trade and investments are protected from the impact of third countries and unfavourable trends on the world currency markets.

Russia has invested over $5 billion in the Belarusian economy. There are 2,500 Russian companies operating in the republic, with joint project being implemented in strategic sectors such as automobile and machine tools manufacturing, agricultural machinery, microelectronics, and civil aviation. Cooperation in agriculture is actively developing. The areas that are priorities for us in the agricultural complex seamlessly complement each other which provides a reliable and uninterrupted supply of food for the two countries’ people and sends agricultural surpluses to foreign markets.

Energy sector is a priority sector of bilateral cooperation. Russia traditionally supplies oil and gas to Belarus on very favourable preferential terms. In November 2023, the largest joint project was successfully completed, as Mr Lukashenko also mentioned several times during the talks: the construction of a Belarusian nuclear power plant. The station is operating at full capacity. As of today, its two units have generated more than 30 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and we are certainly determined to continue helping our Belarusian friends develop their own nuclear industry, as well as strengthen cooperation in related high-tech sectors such as digitsation, nuclear medicine, and the creation of energy storage systems.

The railway freight volume from Belarus through Russian territory is growing: it more than doubled in 2023, exceeding 14 million tonnes. Our joint plans envisage further increase of Belarusian goods transit through Russian territory. In order to achieve this, we are increasing the capacity of transport corridors and working together to upgrade trade and logistics infrastructure.

Russian-Belarusian cultural and humanitarian cooperation is multifaceted: scientific and educational exchanges are carried out, joint programmes are being implemented for the patriotic education of youth and the preservation of common historical memory, and much is being done to create the most favourable conditions for reciprocal travel of people and for enhancing their contacts and person-to person communication.

Soon we are planning to cancel roaming service across the Union State, that is, mobile communications for all subscribers in the two countries will be fully provided in home network mode.

Considering the tensions on the outer border od the Union State, we have discussed at length the creation of a single defence state during the talks. Advanced Russian defence systems and tactical nuclear weapons reliably cover the western borders of our countries and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

We reviewed the progress in the implementation of the instructions issued we issued on holding simultaneous exercises in Russia and Belarus to practice the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The public was informed about it on May 9.

We also discussed the further coordination of our actions in the international arena. Let me note that Russia and Belarus have common positions on most global and regional problems and support each other at various multilateral platforms. In this context, I would like to stress that Russia has comprehensively assisted Belarus in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, as Mr President has just said. We proceed from the fact that the Astana summit in July will announce that all the necessary procedures have been completed and Belarus becomes the 10^th SCO member country. This will obviously enhance the authority of the organisation and will help strengthen security and stability throughout the Eurasian space.

I also took this opportunity to share with the President of Belarus my impressions of the state visit to the People’s Republic of China I have just completed. By the way, when talking with the President of the People's Republic of China, our friend, we remembered about cooperation with Belarus and discussed it.

In conclusion, I would like to once again thank Mr Lukashenko for his hospitality and for our substantive talk. This visit will undoubtedly contribute to the further development of Russian-Belarusian allied relations in all areas.

Thank you for your attention.

Natalya Golub, Belarus-1 TV Channel: Good afternoon, President Lukashenko and President Vladimir Putin,

You mentioned that you discussed security issues. Considering the current difficult, tense situation – foreign threats and build-up of the NATO contingent – will any steps be taken in the near future to enhance security of the Union State? How do you assess exercises on the use of non-strategic nuclear arms?

Alexander Lukashenko: As I said earlier, we are not only discussing issues of our security and defence of our states. The President of Russia has just said the main thing – we have created a joint force to defend the Union State.

We are continuously watching everything unfolding on our borders. We see this and know this, starting from the building of all kinds of fences to fuelling hysteria by exercises near our borders. As I said, about 90,000 foreign troops are taking part in them. It is truly surprising what the Americans, Germans and the rest are doing on our borders.

Therefore, we give priority to security, and I will even say more than that – that many of our meetings (you have probably noticed, we meet often), 90 percent, maybe more, are about security and defence issues, with the exception of the current meeting, where we spent much time discussing the economy, even more than security issues, because the economy, among other things, is at the heart of security. This is why we have been and will continue to pay attention to it.

As for exercises you mentioned, why should we assess them? I said if you are a machine gunner… We all understand what a machine gun is used for. To attack or to defend oneself. We do not want to attack anyone. We want to defend ourselves. How can we do it? We must know how to use these weapons. These are deadly, dangerous weapons. They cannot even be compared to a machine gun. So we have to practice.

I frankly admitted that this is our third training session since the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus. The Russians might have had dozens of such training sessions -–they did not publicise them before. This is hardly surprising.

We are doing everything they [Western countries] did before us and are doing now. They are training foreign pilots. In part, the Americans are training German pilots in Germany to fly with nuclear weapons carriers – with bombs if they fly planes and with missiles. We are not doing anything special, we are getting ready, undergoing training. We must be prepared. The world is unstable and dangerous. We cannot afford to miss this strike. We cannot afford to miss an attack as we did in the middle of the past century. We will not allow this to happen and they must know about this.

But we are not fuelling tensions. We do not need war. Today we talked only about peaceful prospects. I am grateful to the President of Russia for including the head of the group of strategic initiatives in his delegation. He told us what is even hard to comprehend, but this is our near future. So we stand for peace but keep our powder dry. Nothing special.

Vladimir Putin: Actually, I have almost nothing to add. Russia has regularly conducted strategic nuclear exercises as well as manoeuvres involving its non-strategic nuclear deterrence forces, and continues to do so. The only difference is that, after deploying part of Russia’s non-strategic nuclear potential to Belarus, we began holding joint exercises with our Belarusian allies.

Second, we treat Belarus’s security the same way as the security of the Russian Federation. And this is probably the central element of our cooperation in this area.

As for our compliance with the relevant norms and obligations, Russia fully complies with every nuclear arms control obligation it has. We are not violating anything here; we are not doing anything unusual or anything that NATO doesn’t do. Mr Lukashenko has just said so. NATO countries regularly hold the same kind of exercises in areas where US tactical nuclear weapons are deployed, involving those countries’ military personnel, combat aircraft and other delivery vehicles.

What we are doing is a scheduled routine drill; I mean, we are not aiming for an escalation or anything, but, as we said, this needs to be practiced. This is a domain where we cannot allow any failures, mistakes, or incoherence. The exercise you asked about is aimed at perfecting coordination.

Kirill Vorobyov: Good afternoon, Mr Putin, Mr Lukashenko. A question from the Izvestia multimedia information centre, Kirill Vorobyov.

As you said, one of the main issues discussed today was energy security and everything it entails.

However, reports about the common energy market project are usually scarce. And just before your meeting, some of our Belarusian colleagues wrote that you appear to have found common ground and built a roadmap for this project.

Would you say it is now clear what we can expect from this project? What will we all get? Are there any other countries that might be interested in participating?

Vladimir Putin: What project?

Kirill Vorobyov: A common energy market.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We cooperate in three major areas: power generation, oil and gas, and nuclear energy. We have made decisions in each of these areas, and those decisions are working well.

In oil and gas, we do have a few current issues that we discussed quite substantively today. There are no unresolved issues. We have agreed on all the parameters of gas supplies for the coming years. Yes, beyond this horizon, we will need to review our agreements to ensure that they meet the interests of both our Belarusian friends and the Russian economy. The work is proceeding as planned.

In the power industry, we have discussed general operating modes, cross-flows and so on; it all works smoothly as well.

I have talked about our nuclear energy cooperation at length. The nuclear power plant is working, and new opportunities are opening up in related industries.

As for creating a common market, we are moving forward on this track. I have mentioned this with regard to gas. Again, everything is going according to plan; we have no disagreements here. Russian and Belarusian specialists might take slightly different approaches, but I think that by the time the common market is ready to operate, we will have agreed on every point.

Vladimir Matveyev: Good afternoon, President Lukashenko, President Putin.

I have a question about Ukraine. In view of Vladimir Zelensky’s expired presidential term, what are the prospects for resuming peace talks with Ukraine? The key question here is who to talk with even if such a request comes from the Ukrainian side?

The second part of my question: Do you see any real forces in Ukraine, political or military, that are really capable of being clear-eyed about the current situation, reaching tradeoff solutions and, most importantly, that are able to reach and honour agreements?

Vladimir Putin: Is this question for me?

Vladimir Matveyev: It is for both presidents.

Vladimir Putin: I will start, then.

Alexander Lukashenko: You know better.

Vladimir Putin: As for the negotiating process, I have discussed it many times. I would like to emphasise it once again here in Minsk: Russia has never turned these negotiations down. Moreover, we started these talks in Belarus at some point and then moved them to Istanbul, Turkiye, at the request of the Ukrainian side. We reached certain agreements and drafted an agreement. Moreover, the head of the negotiating group from Ukraine initialed an extract from the potential agreement, meaning that the Ukrainian side was overall satisfied with it, as was the Russian side. Some of its provisions needed to be finalised, but, to reiterate, since Ukraine signed this document it was happy with what it said.

For reasons that are known quite well now, after the former British Prime Minister arrived in Kiev, the Ukrainian side tossed out these agreements and stopped acting on them. Moreover, they said the talks were over. They said so publicly, we were not the ones to terminate these talks. They did it and made it illegal for themselves to continue these talks. We did not forbid anyone to negotiate, since we are in favour of negotiations.

After that, at the direction and at the behest of their Western sponsors and masters, a new goal was set to inflict a strategic defeat of Russia and achieve victory over Russia on the battlefield. The discussions about the need to resume talks are back. Let them be back, but they should return not because one country wants then to return, but they must return on the basis of the principled agreements that had been reached during the difficult talks in Belarus and Turkiye, and on the basis of today’s realities on the ground. We are ready for this.

Who to negotiate with? This is certainly not an idle question, I agree. Of course, we realise that the current head of state is no longer legitimate. I think one of the goals of the conference to be held in Switzerland is precisely to have the Western community and sponsors of the Kiev regime confirm the legitimacy of the current head of state, or no longer the current head of state.

But these PR steps are irrelevant for legal documents. But if it comes to this, we will, of course, have to and I proceed from the premise that peace talks must be resumed and not via ultimatums but via common sense. They must rest on common sense. But if it comes to this, we, of course, must understand with whom we need and can deal with a view to signing legally binding documents. In this case, we must be absolutely sure that we are dealing with the legitimate authorities. This question must be answered in Ukraine itself, primarily, I think, by its parliament, the Constitutional Court or some other government authorities.

As far as I know, we must look at what is written in the Constitution of Ukraine, which government bodies have the right to be extended under the Constitution of Ukraine without elections and electoral procedures, and which cannot count on these rights. This may be done through a judicial analysis. These are questions for the Ukrainian political and legal systems.

Alexander Lukashenko: I absolutely agree with what Mr Putin has just said.

As for the expiration of Vladimir Zelensky’s powers, there is no legal clarity on this issue. Nor can there be any because as you understand they have deep democracy and everything has been stifled. I and we are often reproached or being dictators. Some others are also accused of this. Here is democracy in action: neither the Constitutional Court nor other courts can say anything. Therefore, the legal clarity that the President of Russia was talking about is ruled out in this situation.

As for war and peace – the main issues mentioned by Mr Putin as well – what importance do they have? In any case, I believe neither the current nor the future president will resolve these major questions that the state and the people of Ukraine are facing. You know who will resolve them: many have already been resolved overseas and they will resolve later what is still outstanding. The President of Russia has just presented evidence of this. When someone unknown came and ordered, the agreements were crossed out. It was hard to reach them but they were put on paper and initialed. So, this was the result. I myself thoroughly analysed these problems about Vladimir Zelensky’s authority but now I understood that all this is pointless.

As for the real force in Ukraine, you know Ukraine well – its society before the special military operation and now. There are more forces there now and everyone thinks of himself as a hero – those whose position we support and those whom we do not support. Once again, I have to recall that they have democracy. There are enough people there both among the military and civilians willing to head the country and lead it to war or against war in a new way.

The situation evolves as it evolves. I think this year will determine much. We will wait and see; we are not in any rush, and less so is Russia. We have a common position; we are not hiding it and we will work together.

Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.

May I ask you, how, in your opinion, the death of the Iranian President can affect bilateral relations, cooperation in regional organisations and in the military area?

And let me touch on the second aspect. I can see a somewhat strange trend regarding all the leaders who disagree with the collective West. The Prime Minister of Georgia has recently said that one of the EU commissioners threatened him with the fate of the Slovakian Prime Minister if the Foreign Agents Law is passed. What do you think about this? Is this a new world order or a new policy of the collective West? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I cannot comment on what some EU commissioner said. There are many commissioners and they are constantly being changed and talking rubbish, you know. If it is as you have said, it just cannot be called anything but political rubbish. It is simply outrageous. That’s that.

Unfortunately, the irresponsibility of mid-level officials, especially in this area, is growing. We are often facing it ourselves. This is only regrettable.

I cannot comment on anything in this respect, but as for Iran’s foreign policy, these are the country’s sovereign decisions. Iran is a major regional power that plays a noticeable role in the world affairs; however, we are unlikely to face any changes in the policy of the Iranian leadership after that tragedy, meaning that the fundamentals of the Iranian statehood are steady, solid and reliable enough.

We have established very good relations with Iran as a state, with the Iranian people, and with the Iranian leadership. In this regard, I personally cannot see any possibility of serious changes, whatever they may be; but, of course, I expect the continuity of Iran’s policy regarding Russia and our cooperation on key international issues to be preserved.

Alexander Lukashenko: As for the death of our good friend, I met with Mr Raisi more than once and think the President of Russia will support me. He was a normal, kind person who conducted a sincere and honest dialogue with us and was concerned over the development of his own state and the protection of the interests of his people.

What was it, what happened – there is much talk about this now. I think Iran is a country that will find out what happened there. But as a man, not as a president, I will say – this is a result of an atrocious and disgusting US position. I am primarily referring to sanctions. These scoundrels had no right to impose sanctions against aircraft, jets, helicopters and other vehicles that carry people. As I remember, they have introduced sanctions against aircraft in Russia, against us, against my jet. They will not get to President Putin – he has a Russian-built jet, but they have imposed sanctions here.

Is it normal? People are traveling. You have sold this helicopter after all. It does not matter whether it is 40 or 50 years old. Maybe it made only three flights in 50 years and would have been okay if it were serviced properly. But they banned their companies from servicing it. They are in part to blame for this. They are all believers, and if they are – they will ultimately face a response. This is not the way to behave in the world.

This shows once again the efforts that Russia and other countries that support it are taking for the unipolar world to fall apart. A multipolar world will emerge. These insane people are only bringing it close by their actions. Who likes this?

They didn’t like something and stole money, in this case from Russia, and not only from it. They didn’t like something and arrested a vessel, seized a tanker and took the goods. They think they can do anything because they are strong. I am not a mystic, but what I am saying is if they are believers they will ultimately answer for all these doings and answer in full. They will not hide across the ocean.

They are to blame for this if nothing had affected the helicopter – probably nothing affected it and they will be taken to task. They prohibited the servicing of this helicopter – this is for sure. I know this from my own experience.

Vladimir Putin: Incidentally, I think their attendants flew in two Russian helicopters, right? These Russian-built helicopters were flying without any extreme conditions.

Alexander Lukashenko: In the same conditions.

Vladimir Putin: They were flying in the same conditions and actually in the same corridor without any problems.

Thank you.

Alexander Lukashenko: Thank you.