At St. Petersburg Putin Talks to Media and Praises His Late Mentor

Laying flowers at the monument to Anatoly Sobchak. His widow, Lyudmila Narusova, stands behind in the long fur coat.

Cornered by media at Radar MMS research and production enterprise, which specialises in the development of homing systems for high-precision weapons, radar systems, and unmanned aerial vehicles for military and civilian purposes. Putin awarded the staff the Order of Alexander Nevsky for its contributions to Russia’s national defense.

While visiting a vital national security industrial facility and paying homage to his first political mentor in St. Petersburg today, Putin was caught by Russian media while in public and asked about the talks in Saudi Arabia. Putin also gave a speech at a concert honoring his mentor Anatoly Sobchack who certainly made an impression on a younger Vladamir Putin. First the media then his speech:

Question: Interfax News Agency. Everyone is interested in the outcome of the talks in Riyadh. I'm sure you've already been informed. How do you rate them? Are there any positive results, so to speak, from these negotiations?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I was informed. First. Second, I rate them highly, and the result is there.

The first thing I would like to say is that we have agreed to resume the normal work of our diplomatic departments. Constant expulsions of diplomats from both Washington and Moscow do not lead to anything good. If things go on like this, we will have only one cleaning lady working in these buildings, whose work should also be appreciated, but this is not what diplomatic missions are created for. This is the first one.

Second. In my opinion, we have taken the first step to resume work in various areas of mutual interest. This includes the Middle East in the broadest sense of the word, including our presence so far in Syria, the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, and so on. There are a lot of issues in which both the United States and the Russian Federation are involved despite the fact that, of course, we pay primary attention to the situation related to the Ukrainian direction.

But we also have other issues: the economy and our joint work in the global energy markets. So, in general... yes, space, of course, because, despite all the problems of the previous three years, we continue to work in space, and both American astronauts and Russian cosmonauts work on the ISS. The work continues, and the prospects are good. All this was discussed and discussed at the meeting in Riyadh. The rating is positive.

And in general, as I was told, they were very friendly. As our participants told me, they were completely different people from the American side, who were open to the negotiation process without any bias, without any condemnation of what was done in the past-–in any case, there was nothing like this in bilateral contacts—determined to work together, open to joint work.

Question: But just the Europeans are agitated, everyone is almost in a panic, that they do not participate in the negotiations in any way, and the same mood among Ukrainian leaders. Everyone wants to have the right to vote. What to do with them all?

Vladimir Putin: What is the right to vote? As I said just now, the goal and subject of our talks was to restore Russian-American relations. Does anyone want to mediate between Russia and the United States? These are probably redundant requirements.

And the most important thing here, in resolving all the very acute issues, including the Ukrainian settlement, is that without increasing the level of trust between Russia and the United States, it is impossible to resolve many issues, including the Ukrainian crisis. The purpose of this meeting was precisely to increase trust between Russia and the United States.

As for the other participants, first of all, Russia has never renounced contacts with Europeans. Russia has never abandoned the negotiation process with Ukraine, never. It is our, so to say, partners in these negotiations who refused. The Europeans stopped contacts with Russia, and the Ukrainian side forbade itself to conduct negotiations, withdrew from the negotiation process in Istanbul, directly and publicly announcing this. Well, we don't impose anything on anyone. We are ready, I have already said it a hundred times: if they want to, please let them conduct these negotiations, and we will be ready to return to the negotiating table.

As for Euro-Atlantic relations, we do not interfere here. We do not speculate on all the issues that arise between the United States and its allies. But if we talk about these allies, they are to blame for what is happening now.

Trump has been accused at one time of having a special relationship with Russia and that Russia interfered in the election when he won his last term as president. They created a team, dragged him through the courts, even created a special commission in Congress. Nothing was confirmed–-and it couldn't be confirmed, because it never happened.

And what have we just seen in the course of this election campaign? All European leaders, without exception, actually directly interfered in the US election process. It came down to direct insults of one of the candidates. We, for our part–-of course, it was clear to whom we sympathized–-but we did not allow ourselves to interfere, and certainly did not allow any harsh statements or offensive attacks against any of the candidates. We just didn't do it. And the Europeans did.

In general, to be honest, I am surprised at the restraint of the newly elected President of the United States Trump in relation to his allies, who behaved in a similar, frankly, boorish way. After all, he still behaves quite intelligently in relation to them.

But they don't shut themselves out. After all, if we are talking about the Ukrainian settlement, the United States is working with its European allies. Mr. Kellogg, as far as I know, is currently in Kiev, right? Before that, he met with Europeans. Now the President of France is going to Washington, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Nothing is closed there, the Americans are discussing all this with them.

But we have, for example, such a question as the extension of START-3. Everyone has probably forgotten, but I will remind you that exactly one year later, in February 2026, the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms ends. Do they want to sit here at the negotiating table and mediate between Russia and the United States? Probably not. But why get hysterical here? Hysteria is inappropriate.

As for the negotiation process, President Trump told me during a telephone conversation, and I can confirm that, of course, the United States assumes that the negotiation process will take place with the participation of both Russia and Ukraine. No one excludes Ukraine from this process.

Therefore, there is no reason for such a reaction to the Russian-American meeting.

Question: There seems to be more [US Secretary of State] Rubio promised to keep European allies informed.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we know, we see. But we, for our part, will inform our BRICS friends without any doubts. We know their interest in resolving Russian-Ukrainian relations, in resolving this crisis, and in ending hostilities. We treat their proposals with respect, as I have repeatedly said, and we will inform them about the results of the Russian-American talks in the very near future.

Question: And when do you meet with Putin... excuse me, [when] do you meet with Trump?

Vladimir Putin: I meet with him [Putin] every day, I look in the mirror. (Laughter.)

You know, it has to be prepared. I'd love to meet Donald, we haven't seen each other in a very long time. We don't have any close relations with him, but still, in previous years, during the four years of work when he was President, we met and discussed our interstate relations very evenly. I will be happy to meet him again today. I think he did, too, as was evident from the nature of our phone conversation.

But we are in such a situation that it is not enough to meet, just to have tea, coffee, sit down, talk about the future. We need to ensure that our teams prepare issues that are extremely important for both the United States and Russia, including, not only, but also on the Ukrainian track, in order to reach solutions that are acceptable to both sides. And this, of course, is not an easy task.

I've already talked about this. When Mr. Trump was a candidate for President of the United States, he talked about the terms, rather short terms of resolving, say, the Ukrainian crisis. But after he began to receive information from the security services and so on, as the President-elect, he changed his position, he said: yes, it will take six months.

Now we won't talk about the timing, but it's natural, by the way, absolutely natural, there is nothing special here. He just started getting information, objective information, and this information changed his approach. So it takes some time. How long it will take, I am not ready to answer right now, but we have a desire to hold such a meeting, and I would like to hold this meeting. But, I repeat once again, it is necessary to prepare it so that there is a result.

We have many areas of cooperation, as I have already said. This includes strategic stability, the Middle East in the broadest sense of the word, and economic cooperation, primarily in the energy sector.

You know, I still remember our three-person conversation on the phone: I, your humble servant, participated, US President Trump and the King of Saudi Arabia. The three of us talked on the phone, discussing issues of the global energy market. These issues and discussions in this format are still in demand today.

By the way, I would like to sincerely thank the leadership of Saudi Arabia, the King of Saudi Arabia, and the Crown Prince for not only graciously providing a platform in Riyadh for high-level meetings between Russia and the United States but also creating a very friendly environment.

I think that in the next couple of days–-impossible today, since I am on a trip to St. Petersburg--I will definitely call the Crown Prince and personally thank him for this assistance.

Question: Let me clarify the dynamics of SVR. Despite the negotiations, the special military operation continues. What news is coming from the front lines now?

Vladimir Putin: You know them, the war correspondents, your colleagues, people who are extremely well-informed, courageous, frankly speaking, heroically carry out their mission, fulfill their duty–-both civil and professional-–and objectively inform the public of Russia, and the whole world, about what is happening on the line of contact.

The most recent information that was reported to me just an hour ago: Last night, soldiers of the 810th brigade crossed the border of the Russian Federation and Ukraine and entered the territory of the enemy. And our troops are advancing along the entire line of contact.

Question: The drone attack on an oil station in the Krasnodar Territory–-can this be Zelensky's response to the positive relations that are now gradually developing between Russia and America, to the process?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know this, and it is difficult for me to give estimates of what happened, but it happened, it happened, and, of course, it is necessary to explain it somehow. There are many questions that arise here and it is very difficult to answer them right now.

But first, I may say an unexpected thing, but nevertheless, after all, attacks of this kind are impossible without space intelligence, and Ukraine receives high-precision space intelligence data on objects of destruction, in relation to objects of destruction, only from its Western allies. And who exactly gave this data, provided satellite images on the objects of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, I don't know now, but I can tell you with full justification that the Ukrainian armed forces are not able to do this on their own. They do not have the appropriate space satellite groupings. This is the first one.

The second is that there were no Russian air defense systems at this facility, and there are still no Russian air defense systems. And it is clear why: because we proceeded from the fact that it cannot be an object of attack-–this is, strictly speaking, not a Russian object, but an object of international energy infrastructure. The shareholders of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium are American companies (Chevron, I think), European companies (including Eni), and Russian companies such as Lukoil.

We even get five kopecks for this transit, figuratively speaking. This doesn't make any economic sense for us. We simply provide a service to our Kazakhstani friends and those partners who work in Kazakhstan. And the oil that is produced, we can generally say, because it is produced under the PSA, the production sharing agreement, is actually the property of the companies that produce it, in this case, American companies, European companies. This, of course, is not a critical volume, but still a noticeable volume on world markets.

And, of course, the defeat of such an object–-six drones were used in the attack—affects, will affect the global energy markets, primarily because, unfortunately, it is impossible to quickly restore this object. And it is impossible to restore it quickly due to the fact that mostly Western equipment is present there, and Western equipment has suffered.

By the way, I have just been told that the Europeans have extended sanctions against Russia, including specifically the impossibility of supplying us with Western equipment in the field of oil and gas production. What does it mean? This means that two days ago the Ukrainian armed forces launched a strike, and two days later the Europeans announced that it was impossible to repair this station, because the main equipment there is of European production, including the German company Siemens. If this equipment arrived tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, then even then it would take one and a half to two months. Now what does that mean? That it will not be delivered at all.

Of course, if you look at it purely formally, it looks like some kind of coordinated action. But I don't want to believe it. I think it's random. It's just that the Europeans go their own way and don't pay attention to what's happening. But technically, if you look at what's going on, it looks like some kind of coordination.

Why do they need it? Unclear. Because this leads to consistently high energy prices on world markets, which consumers of energy resources, such as European companies, are certainly not interested in.

By the way, the current Administration has also repeatedly announced that it is striving to stabilize or even lower energy prices. But actions of this kind, of course, are directly opposite to achieving the goals that the American Administration sets for itself.

I know that yesterday the consortium members held a meeting on all these problems that have arisen, and they decide for themselves what to do next. I repeat, this is not so much our problem as the problem of foreign investors and foreign CPC participants. [My Emphasis]

Well, there you have it. The meeting was only about Russian-US relations and not specifically about anyone or anything else; so, the hysterical meltdown by Europeans was unwarranted yet gave away their feelings about the entire process—they want the war to continue so more Ukrainians and Russians can die.

Now we move to the speech Putin gave prior to a memorial concert performed to honor the Late Mayor of St. Petersburg Anatoly Sobchak where Putin will tell us about the relationship he had with the man who IMO was his mentor:

The word next to Sobchak’s image is Remembering.

Vladimir Putin: Dear friends,

We have gathered today to honor the memory of Anatoly Aleksandrovich Sobchak.

He became the first mayor of St. Petersburg at the peak of his all-Union and truly national fame. This is exactly how bright and unusual he was for his university colleagues and, of course, for us, for his students, among whom I was also.

As a professor, teacher, and high-class lawyer, he won the election and literally broke into politics. Having become a People's Deputy of the USSR, he immediately declared himself a brilliant speaker and educator throughout the country. A strong supporter of such values as the power and culture of law, justice and human dignity. As a legislator who proposed not just draft legal norms, but ideas and approaches that were expected in society and demanded by time.

Sobchak, during his parliamentary career, gained a huge reputation as a responsible politician on a national, then-union scale. It is no exaggeration to say that he was among those who laid the very foundations of modern Russia. And as mayor, he thought just as big, deep and meaningful. I can say this for sure, because I witnessed how he thought, how he talked, what he talked about. He was able to infect others with his ideas and projects.

You know, I spent a lot of time with him, including during the election events of the Union, on a large scale. It was a very difficult time. Many of those present here in the hall, of course, remember this. You know, I traveled with him then to the regions of Russia during various election events of a national nature and significance. Sometimes I thought: why are we coming here? We can't expect anything good here. And when we entered the hall, I thought to myself: "I'm right." Because as soon as he appeared in the hall, the hall was buzzing, to be honest. And he came out to applause. It was amazing. He was A very talented orator, a talented person.

And why did this happen? I think so: in addition to the fact that he was talented, he knew how to infect with himself, with his ideas. He spoke from the heart, spoke as he thought. And this is always met with trust from the audience. He himself firmly believed in what he said and proposed, in what he defended.

The Sobchak era is undoubtedly a time of very great upheavals for the country and for himself. Anatoly Alexandrovich took the collapse of the Soviet Union with pain, very hard. I can share with you such things that I know only he knew. But today, on his memorial day I will tell you. I remember I was in Smolny, at work, he came from Moscow. He sat down, threw some papers, looked somewhere in the distance, and then said: "Why are they doing this?"

I will not comment further now, but I repeat, many of those present here in the hall understand what was being discussed then. Yes, our left-wing political spectrum, to put it mildly, did not like him, because he was a great critic of the Communist Party and everything that was connected with it. But, I will say more about this, he was a statist. He never advocated the destruction of our former common Fatherland. Never.

And his phrase, in my opinion, has already become famous. With regard to the power elites of some republics of the former Soviet Union, he said so, and publicly: if you want to leave the Soviet Union, leave with what you came to Russia with. And it sounds prophetic today. This lesson of Sobchak could warn all of us against many tragedies and losses.

You know, when else will I have the opportunity to tell you. Maybe as I said, this is well known. He was constantly in conflict with representatives of the Communist Party, and our views here did not always coincide and do not coincide now. But that is not important; what is important is how he treated history, some of the foundations of our statehood.

I remember that I was also in the office, Bella Alekseevna Kurkova came, put a piece of granite on his desk, said: "Look, revolution, we in Moscow have demolished a monument to Dzerzhinsky." Anatoly Alexandrovich took this piece, looked at it and said: A revolution is good, but monuments should not be broken. I am honest, believe me, I was surprised, I am absolutely sure, just surprised, because I knew his mood–-if not anti-communist, then such, you know, with criticism of this political spectrum. And suddenly–-such things, such words. It was unexpected for me.

Anatoly Aleksandrovich Sobchak was certainly a statesman by nature, education, and legal beliefs. As I have already said, he put the importance of sovereignty and unity of the country on a par with the values of democracy and human rights and never deviated from these views. He was a straightforward, honest and decent person.

He had to solve a variety of issues, including many urgent, current, economic, daily, literally in manual mode, dealing with the life support of St. Petersburg. He paid a lot of attention to this. He had to deal with a wave of problems - both left over from the old time and new ones, when many had to be created from scratch.

I have heard the opinion that the intelligent Professor Sobchak was not up to it. I do not agree with this point of view, because I worked next to him and saw how he coped with extremely complex, current, it would seem, technical tasks.

Of course, he was not a specialist in the municipal economy. Here are my current and former colleagues who, together with Anatoly Alexandrovich, worked, one was engaged in economics, the other was engaged in property and finance. Of course, the first person does not fit into every paragraph of the decisions made, and it is not necessary, but he, when necessary, immersed himself in problems and solved them with his usual glitter. Although it was impossible to solve everything, it was just that the conditions were completely different. And today it is difficult, but not to compare with the situation in which both the city and the whole country found themselves at the time when he headed a five-million metropolis.

He defended the principles of a professional approach to solving any problems, fought and won, showed will, courage and determination. If it was necessary for the city and people, he argued with the highest officials, gave his arguments and convinced them of the correctness of his position, achieved the implementation of large projects, the necessary funding, and support for the federal center, as they say now.

He perceived the post of mayor not just as an administrative position, but looked more broadly, looked to the future. The city developed and was reborn as open and modern, as a real cultural and historical capital of Russia.

Sobchak was the initiator of returning the city to its historical name and did everything possible to return not just the name, but also the glory of St. Petersburg. Only under Sobchak could all this become a reality.

Anatoly Alexandrovich was very fond of his city of ours, and as mayor he was organic, consonant with St. Petersburg, and invested his talent, intelligence, and exuberant energy in its development.

Yes, he has also experienced some difficult times here. He survived both betrayal and slander. But he never responded in kind to anyone, never stooped to it. Always kept the height of nobility and dignity. This is how we will remember him.

Thank you. [My Emphasis]

I suggest watching the 11-minute video even if you understand zero Russian. And for those whose Russian is rusty, Putin’s delivery is very easy to follow. Of course, the audience and concert hall also provide additions. And having just read the speech, it’s possible to match the text to the audio and Putin’s body language. In the text above, I’ve provided emphasis for those traits Putin ascribes to Sobchak that we now also see in Putin. I recall Sobchak and the extremely turbulent 1990s in Russia for I was following events there as closely as I could at the time—a chore that’s much easier today. 19 February 2000 is the day he passed, his death aroused great controversy. He was one of the authors of Russia’s current constitution. He’d be 87 today.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!