Part Two of Putin's Valdai Club Appearance

With Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club.

And now comes the plenary session’s interactive, Q&A portion of the program. This will consist of two parts. All emphasis will be mine while commentary will await the completion of part three. Again, the link to original transcript and video.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you very much, Mr Putin, for such an extensive and voluminous description of the world and Russian views on it. Of course, we are particularly pleased that last year you outlined the basic principles here, and this time you developed them.

It seems to me that this is already beginning to attract such a doctrine. "Valdai", of course, does not claim to be named after us, but it is nice that it is born here.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we discussed many of the topics that you mentioned, of course, at the XXI Conference. And I would like to share with you, we would all like to share some conclusions–-not from all of the sessions, of course, because there were a lot of them, but they [sounded] on the ones that we thought were the most important. This is also the topic you mentioned.

I would like to ask our long-time participant, colleague and well-known to you Ruslan Yunusov to start. He took part in a session about--excuse me—artificial intelligence, the most fashionable thing.

R. Yunusov: Good evening, Vladimir Vladimirovich!

Indeed, we discussed what you mentioned in your speech today-–the topic of artificial intelligence. There was a separate session at our conference, it was called "Artificial intelligence—revolution or fashion?"

But before I turn to the results of this session, I would like to highlight a unique fact that happened this year: two Nobel Prizes were awarded at once for achievements in artificial intelligence. These are prizes in physics and chemistry at the same time–-this has never happened before. And does this highlight that a revolution in artificial intelligence is taking place? Probably more likely yes than no, although the Nobel Committee is often guided by fashion in making its decisions.

Turning to the topic of our discussion, the Valdai discussion, I will highlight several aspects that we discussed.

We started with a question that many people are concerned about. But artificial intelligence will come, and will it replace humans or not? And especially in areas where creativity is required, such as science and art. And what do we see in science today? Indeed, artificial intelligence has already entered the scientific process. Many achievements have been achieved thanks to and with the help of artificial intelligence. But at the same time, we also see that the displacement of a person does not occur from the scientific process, rather, progress itself is accelerating, and new personnel, qualified young people are needed even more, so we do not see any risk here yet. We also discussed aspects of the economics of artificial intelligence. At one time, during Covid, in about 2020, there were expectations that the way out of the global recession would be provided primarily by a driver, such a driver as artificial intelligence.

We discussed whether the predictions came true or not. Yes, of course, artificial intelligence has already begun to be introduced into the economy, in various sectors of the economy. But if you look at the numbers, it turns out that those very optimistic expectations did not come true. It turned out a little more conservative for today. And what's more, these expectations continue to be there today. And we see the formation of bubbles in the investment market, which threatens to have negative economic effects in the future. Although artificial intelligence itself as a technology, it seems, will continue to develop and will be the basis of the economy. [The or a basis?]

Again, we discussed security issues. Today, it should be noted that terrorist and extremist organizations are actively using artificial intelligence technologies to recruit new members or in broader aspects of propaganda. Fake news and videos are now a standard tool for such groups. [Those tools predate AI]

But, on the other hand, there is also the use of artificial intelligence in counter-terrorism, in counter-extremist activities, when it is possible to identify these very extremist elements in society. But, moreover, it is possible to influence the doubting part of society and turn it away from these steps, so that it does not go over to the side of extremism. This also works.

When we discussed what the balance is, what is more positive or negative, it seems that the positive phenomena of artificial intelligence in the field of security are still more, and we would like to continue this balance in the direction of the positive.

And, of course, it is impossible not to discuss the political issue of artificial intelligence at the Valdai Forum. There have been studies that showed when researchers ran basic models of artificial intelligence, generative models through testing for political views. It turned out that artificial intelligence is not neutral. Its political views are strongly skewed towards left-liberalism and are largely related to the views of their creators.

Moreover, in the last couple of years, we have seen that artificial intelligence training comes from synthetic data more than from actual, real-world material, and this also contributes to the fact that the views of these models will be more radical.

In the next couple of years, we will receive the first university graduates who use artificial intelligence in their activities and training. Previously, if we took term papers, essays, then the guys treated the primary sources, comprehended them, and carried out their work. Now you can simply make a request to artificial intelligence, and you will have the result ready. It is clear that the quality of training will fall. But much more dangerous, in our opinion, is the influence that artificial intelligence gradually exerts, shaping the worldview of young children, introducing ideology into their heads. Moreover, this ideology is formed in many ways not in our country, but abroad or even overseas.

And here, as a conclusion, we, of course, understand that it is necessary to strengthen control over the regulation of artificial intelligence, but at the same time, if you are guided by prohibitive measures, it seems that the result will not be achieved. Rather, it is necessary to support and develop domestic artificial intelligence technologies.

It is good that we have a great deal of groundwork in place today, and we can see that there is a lot of progress. It is necessary to continue it further. This will probably be the basis of technological sovereignty in this area.

It should be noted here that Russia is one of the three countries in the world that has a full stack of IT technologies, this is really the basis of sovereignty.

And to conclude my short report: our foreign guests noted that some countries already have restrictions, even a complete ban on the use of artificial intelligence technologies. For us, for Russia, this is rather an opportunity. We can prove ourselves as a technology leader and prove ourselves in this role by exporting artificial intelligence technologies to our partner countries.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: If you'll excuse me, I'll also say a few words.

First. Of course, artificial intelligence is the most important development tool. And one of our priorities, first of all, of course, in the economic sphere, but not only in other areas, in the use of big data, is the development of artificial intelligence. Taking into account the fact that we have a large shortage of workers, the minimum unemployment rate of 2.4 percent, this is, consider it, a shortage of workers, and in the future, of course, we see a solution to these problems, problems in the economy on the way to the development of modern technologies, of which the use of artificial intelligence is one of the most important, the most important directions.

What is more important here–-pros or cons? Development of nuclear energy–-are there more pros or cons? The use of peaceful nuclear energy in medicine, agriculture, and transport plays a huge and crucial role, and I am sure it will continue to do so, especially given the challenges of climate change.

But at the same time, there are nuclear weapons. This poses great threats to humanity. It's the same, absolutely the same, in artificial intelligence. Question: How is it regulated and how do people use it? Q: How is it regulated? Of course, in many countries, in many countries, this is regulated. In many countries, some of them, as you say, it’s banned. It seems to me that it is impossible to prohibit it. But it will still find its way, especially in a competitive environment. Competition is increasing. I'm not talking about armed confrontation right now, but in general, competition is growing in the economy. Therefore, in a competitive environment, the development of artificial intelligence is inevitable. And here, of course, we can be among the leaders, bearing in mind certain advantages that we have.

As for sovereignty, this is the most important component. Of course, these platforms, they are most often formed abroad, and they form the worldview, absolutely true. And here we must understand this and develop our own, sovereign artificial intelligence. Of course, you need to use everything that is available, but you need to develop your own areas here.

We have "Sber", "Yandex" actively working on this and in general are working very successfully. We will certainly do all this, there is no doubt about it, especially where it is already reproducing itself–-this is very interesting and very promising.

But there are also threats, of course. We need to see and understand these threats and organize our work accordingly. As I have already said, this is one of the most important areas of our joint activities. When I say "our", I mean the state, specialists in this field, and the whole society. Because here, of course, there are a lot of moral issues. Be sure to pay attention to this.

You said that radical views are being formed and so on. Yes, we just need to counteract this in a timely manner with our worldview, our point of view on all the processes that are taking place in our society and in the world. That's what we'll do together.

Thank you for paying attention to this.

R. Yunusov: Thank you very much. We will continue to analyze what is happening.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

R. Yunusov: And indeed, artificial intelligence in Russia should be trained on Russian data to reflect our culture in the end.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely. And we have such an opportunity, absolutely, it is obvious. I am sure that we will succeed, and this will be a good support in our development, and we will benefit greatly.

Thank you.

R. Yunusov: Thank you.

F. Lukyanov: Mr. Putin, when we have a sovereign artificial intelligence, will it be able to offer us a Russian idea for the 21st century?

Vladimir Putin: It can only help us solve the tasks that we face, and it is very important how we formulate them.

Since it also works with big data, we have all the possibilities here: intellectual capabilities, technological capabilities, and a large amount of free energy. We have a lot to work on here, and I think we can also work on such philosophical and fundamental issues as you have just mentioned.

We need to attract everything. And it's up to you to believe it or not to believe it, when we get the results of research based on modern principles and using artificial intelligence, among other things.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

A related topic, of course, we discussed: where artificial intelligence and digitalization are, there is information and everything that is happening with it now, and a lot is happening too–-both pros and cons in everything.

Our Indian colleague Arvind Gupta participated in this session. I ask you to.

:(as translated)Mr. Gupta Thank you.

My name is Arvind Gupta.

Mr. President, I'm from India. I work at the intersection of social technologies and building a digital public infrastructure for information management problems.

Thank you, Mr. President, you have already mentioned some of the questions that my colleague Ruslan raised about artificial intelligence. Thank you for listening to our summary. Our expert panel discussed issues related to artificial intelligence, among other things. I'll mention it at the end.

Regarding the manipulation of information, the use of these technologies for surveillance, and the lack of transparency in all systems and technologies today: Mr. President, our group discussed and said that the Internet was created about 45 years ago to be a global public good.

Unfortunately, now, as in many other things, it has become unipolar. It is controlled by several tech giants with specific ideological approaches. Some of these firms, big tech giants, can't operate in countries like Indonesia, India, Russia, and many others because of regulations on information manipulation, surveillance, and surveillance.

The second issue we discussed is algorithms. Again, we discussed this earlier, including during the session on artificial intelligence. They really determine how we think. Artificial intelligence is actually becoming a buzzword, but algorithms have been around for a long time. They really determine our thinking, our consumption, and how we choose government.

Many of us have agreed that they have ideological leanings, and of course they are not neutral: they have biases. What we discussed is weaponization, the use of information and data as weapons. This, together with the biases of specific platforms, gives some nation-states enormous power. They can affect national security, democracy, and public order in general. So, Mr. President, you know that this was the way Western technology platforms operated.

But India offers an alternative model. It was presented during the G20 presidency. This is a public platform, our platform that takes into account the needs of society. This is a platform that grows from the bottom up, starting from common identity systems, common payment systems. It is used by more than a billion people in India, and more than 20 other countries also use it.

I want to introduce you to how India has created a different vision for technology development than the Western vision that exists today. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate Russia on the success of the Mir payment system. In a very short time, it became a success. It also showed the strength of the technological sovereignty that was just mentioned–-that success can be achieved if necessary.

Mr. President, the issue that you just discussed, what I said about the biases of technologies and technology platforms and their non–neutral nature, what we are facing is the era of artificial intelligence.

Given that we have allowed a few big companies to control the Internet, how can we make sure that our culture, our society, and our national interests are protected in this era of artificial intelligence? What standards of support do we need from the very beginning in order to achieve fair and honest artificial intelligence? How do we ensure that like-minded States work to combat the use of artificial intelligence as a weapon?

And finally, Mr. President, as you know, we would be interested to hear from you how we can strengthen confidence in the information that we see today in general in technology, how to increase confidence in it.

This was the most important issue of our debate. I hope for your answer.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is a very important topic, and it is, of course, similar to the previous issue-–artificial intelligence, its use and development. And here are a few aspects.

First, the use of the Internet, of course, should be based on sovereign algorithms, and we should strive for this. First.

Second. It is very difficult for us on the part of the state–-that is, it is possible, but it will be partly counterproductive–-to prohibit everything, namely on the part of the state. In Russia, the professional community came to the need and decided on the rules for doing this business, the Internet as a business. And it has taken upon itself–-independently--certain self-restrictions, especially those related to some possible destructive impact on society as a whole, especially on the children's audience. It seems to me that this is one of the ways to ensure the interests of the majority of people and society as a whole.

Of course, the Internet must comply with the domestic legislation of the country where work in this area is carried out. This is an obvious thing.

What we're seeing is information manipulation–-unfortunately, yes, it's happening. But I repeat once again: if the activity of the Internet is subordinated and placed under domestic laws, it will have to be subordinated to domestic legislation, then we will minimize the possible negative consequences.

I understand that there are technological limitations, technological difficulties, in order to implement all this. But if you take the path of this work, which is connected with the professional community itself, which sees where it is possible to create threats to society as a whole, it works independently to stop these threats, and the state, of course, should be close by.

For countries like India and Russia, this task is quite solvable, because we have very good specialists, very good mathematical schools, and there are people who are already leaders themselves, if not their companies, then they themselves are absolutely leaders in this field of activity. We have all the cards in our hands, especially in countries like India or Russia.

As for the Mir payment system, yes, it is a success to a certain extent. It works, works well, confidently. It would work even better, even more broadly, if no artificial obstacles were created for its development. But even though these obstacles are being created, it is developing, and we will replicate the success of this kind.

And the topic of the Internet is eternal, in my opinion, it has already become eternal. You said that it was created so that it could be used in the interests of humanity. It was created, of course, for other purposes, but at some point its purpose categorically changed. And it is necessary that activities on the Internet, as well as any human activity, should be subject to the moral laws and legal laws of those states where this system operates.

I repeat once again: technologically, it is not always easy to do this, but it is certainly necessary to strive for it. The society should protect itself from destructive influence but do everything possible to ensure that the exchange of information is still free and that it goes to the benefit of the development of a particular state and the entire international community as a whole.

We will strive for this here in Russia. I know that India is following the same path. We will be glad to cooperate with you in this direction.

Thank you for noticing this at all. On the other hand, it is impossible not to pay attention to it and not to do it. I wish you every success.

F. Lukyanov: Mr. President, do you use the Internet yourself?

Vladimir Putin: You know, in a very primitive way–-sometimes I press a few buttons to see something.

F. Lukyanov: But still it happens, right?

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

F. Lukyanov: Our search engines?

Vladimir Putin: Yours, yours.

F. Lukyanov: Fine. Thank you, that's comforting. (Laughter.)

We discussed the environment in great detail, the state of the world in terms of climate, and so on. I will ask our good friend Rasigan Maharaj from South Africa to tell us.

: (as translated)R. Maharaj Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for telling me that the dialectic of history still works and operates.

Environmental issues, as you said, cannot be resolved without addressing the problem of global inequality.

The World Meteorological Organization, a global weather organization, recently reported that anthropogenic climate change is leading to rapid changes in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, cryosphere. 2023 was the warmest year on record, as well as the most intense in terms of extreme weather events.

This trend has continued in 2024, and it will continue, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible.

We are far from achieving the most important climate goals. Climate change is reversing development gains and threatening many people. We are seeing record greenhouse gas emissions. We also see a large gap in achieving the ambitious greenhouse gas targets.

To a large extent, the modern system was formed during the era of colonialism, and, as you said in your speech, much of this system was based on an unequal exchange between the Global North and the Global South, or, as you can paraphrase, between the global minority and the global majority.

Colleagues at the London School of Economics have pointed out that the Global North is extracting huge resources that were worth $ 10.5 trillion in 2015. This amount of resources it extracts could have solved the problem of global poverty long ago.

In recent years, we have seen an estimated $ 250 trillion outflow from the Global South to the Global North. We see that unequal exchange is a significant driver of uneven development, as well as inequality in the economy. Of course, the national liberation movement called into question the system of colonialism, but the institutional mechanisms that were created after the Second World War, after the Great Patriotic War, nevertheless allowed the Global North to maintain its leadership and hegemony. The covid-19 pandemic has exposed and highlighted institutional inequalities in this system. As you said, no one will feel safe until we all feel safe.

Our collective scientific and technological expertise has created solutions that have helped us save lives. But at the same time, we are once again seeing attempts to weaponize intellectual property by imposing restrictions on the exchange of knowledge, as well as the exchange of technology. Such attempts must be collectively resisted. All countries should strive to deepen cooperation and expand collaboration in order to accelerate the exchange of knowledge, ensure the fair flow of such knowledge, and ensure the transition from extractive exploitation to the reform of international institutions. Such efforts to reform international institutions are necessary because they preserve previous systems. However, these reforms, unfortunately, are stalling, causing despair.

At the same time, a successful BRICS summit was held in Kazan. At that time, the UN Secretary-General himself said that the existing financial architecture was unfair and inefficient. More recently, this was also discussed in Germany at the global political forum. It said that international financial institutions had failed to prevent and mitigate crises, and they had also failed to attract sufficient resources to meet the internationally agreed development goal.

We need to work together to reduce these inequalities. It is necessary to create systems that will facilitate the exchange of knowledge and ensure equal opportunities for everyone's development, because if we fail to achieve this, our survival is at risk. Our rhetoric must be supported by concrete actions.

Resources are also needed to help countries that are facing environmental degradation, climate change, and other challenges caused by climate change. Moreover, such a transformation would promote world peace.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, what you have just been doing in your conversations and discussions with your colleagues here at the Valdai Club is one of the most important areas of research for humanity. This is obvious. Now we will not go into details, we will not discuss what is happening, because of what.

That is, what is happening is clear–-climate change, global warming. Why is this happening? Because of human activity, either some other factors affect, up to global space, or something happens to the Earth periodically, and we don't really understand what. But the changes are obvious, they are happening--this is a fact. And it would be careless to do nothing at all, you can't argue with that.

And we in Russia know this firsthand, because we are warming faster than in all other regions of the world. In our country, over 10 years, warming has occurred by 0.5 degrees plus, and in the Arctic even faster–--0.7 plus. For us, this is an obvious thing. For a country where 60 percent of its territory is located in the permafrost zone, this has practical consequences. We have entire cities on permafrost territories, villages and so on, production facilities are deployed. This is a very serious matter for us and will have serious consequences. That's why we know what it is.

By the way, we have one of the greenest energy systems in the world. In our energy sector, gas generation accounts for 40 percent, while nuclear generation and hydrogenation account for 85 percent of the total low-emission generation in the Russian economy. This is one of the greenest structures in the world. Moreover, in my opinion, we have 20 percent of the world's forests, which is an absorbing value if you take into account.

We are thinking about it, we have plans, we have made them public a long time ago, we have said this publicly, by what year we will achieve a reduction in anthropogenic emissions. And, of course, we will do it.

By the way, those who have been making the most noise on this issue, unfortunately for everyone and for them, probably, too, are acting in a completely opposite direction.

For example, coal generation in Europe has increased dramatically. Just recently, everyone in Europe was making a big fuss about shutting down coal-fired generation. Now we have not only not closed it but increased it. Oddly simple, but true. Also for some far-fetched political reasons. But this is a separate topic.

On artificial barriers to the development of developing economies related to the environmental agenda. Yes, these so–called "green" barriers, which some countries are starting to create for developing countries, for emerging markets, are just a new tool they have come up with in order to restrain development.

Please, if everyone is so concerned–-and genuinely concerned–-about climate change, which of course we should think about, then provide those countries that are also ready to work in this area with sources of funding and technologies so that they can safely and break-even switch to these new technologies. Otherwise, what, they have to drag along at the tail of progress?

And rightly so some say: well, you, those who demand that we immediately switch to new technologies, you used all the energy sources earlier, you polluted everything here, the entire atmosphere, and now you demand that we immediately jump to new levels of generation. So how can we do this? Or should we spend all our last resources on new technologies, which we should buy from you and pay you again for this? This is also one of the tools of some kind of neocolonialism.

Give people the opportunity to live normally and develop, if you really, sincerely believe that we should all take care of this together. Please provide sources of funding and transfer technologies, rather than limit these technologies. I totally agree with you, if that's what your speech hinted at. Well, how else, I just don't understand.

The same goes for finances. Indeed, I have already said that according to our experts, and I fully trust them, just on the fact that the dollar is the world's currency, the United States has received $ 12 trillion out of thin air over the past ten years. Just like that, due to the fact that they imitate, distribute, then the same money goes, as a rule, to their banks, to their financial system – and there they also cut coupons, get a win from this. This is a counting position, just like that, this money falls from the sky. And this, of course, should also be taken into account by everyone.

If this money exists at the expense of the issue, they receive income just like that from above--this is the source of funding, including the environmental agenda. Give it, then share this income that fell from the sky to you, if you are so concerned about the environmental situation. If you had a hint about this, you're absolutely right, it's hard to disagree here. That's the way to do it.

Perhaps this is my comment. There is nothing to add here. That is, there is a lot more to add, but this is the most important thing.

Thank you.

F. Lukyanov: Mr. President, did President [of Azerbaijan] Ilham Aliyev by any chance invite you to the climate conference next week?

Vladimir Putin: He did.

F. Lukyanov: Will you go?

Vladimir Putin: I was there not so long ago, and President Aliyev and I agreed that Russia will be represented at a high level, and Mikhail Mishustin, Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation, will take part in this event.

F. Lukyanov: Fine.

We are moving smoothly to the topic that concerns us all, because we are mostly international specialists. You also expressed the idea of Eurasian security. We devoted a lot of discussions to this, and the Valdai report is largely about this this year, and the session was very interesting.

I would like to ask our friend Glenn Diesen from Norway to outline the main findings.

:(as translated)Mr. Diesen Thank you, Mr. President.

My name is Glenn Diesen, a professor of political economy from Norway.

Our session was devoted to Eurasian security. I would like to focus on three main conclusions.

First, the source of conflict at the moment is probably the conflict between the unipolar and multipolar worlds. In many ways, this is a new phenomenon in international relations.

In the 19th century, Great Britain was the leading maritime power, which opposed the land power-the Russian Empire. In the 20th century, it was a confrontation between the US sea power and the land power of the USSR. Now, in the twenty-first century, we once again have a leading maritime power–-the United States.

However, on the Eurasian continent, we are witnessing the formation of multipolarity, which creates numerous opportunities. China's large economy does not have the ability or even the desire to dominate the continent. Instead, we see other initiatives aimed at creating multipolarity in Eurasia. That is, it is a conflict between a unipolar system–-the United States is trying to restore such a system—against a multipolar system. The global majority seems to prefer multipolarity. I think this is largely why BRICS is so attractive to many countries.

At the same time, in our discussions, we found a consensus, concern, or at least a desire to make sure that Eurasia creates an anti-hegemonic movement, and not an anti-Western movement, because the goal should be to harmonize interests. In other words, we must make sure that Eurasia does not turn into another bloc. I think that again, this largely explains the success of BRICS, which can serve as a tool for overcoming bloc thinking.

Also, Eurasia is so attractive because it demonstrates the attractiveness and multi-vector nature of foreign policy, when it is possible to diversify economic policy by interacting with different poles of power. The need that we see is to ensure political independence, the independence of economic policy, when countries are no longer just spectators in international relations.

That is why many countries do not want to choose one of the competing blocs, but instead seek to harmonize their interests. The global majority seeks Eurasian multipolarity, which is essential for achieving a genuine multilateral approach. This stands in contrast to what Washington is promoting.

Finally, multipolar Eurasia has certain incentives for harmonizing interests, because the major powers in Eurasia have a different format for Eurasian integration, they have different interests. We see this also between Russia and China, but also that neither of them can achieve their goals or the format of integration without cooperation with other centers of influence. This creates incentives for the harmonization of interests. It seems that this is indeed what has made BRICS so successful.

I remember that 10 years ago, many people expected that Central Asia would become a source of conflict between Russia and China. On the contrary, we see that this is a territory of interaction. This gives an optimistic mood for other parts of Eurasia. This is radically different from unions that are commonly used to promote unipolarity.

You yourself referred to the imperial impulses to divide the countries. A division is always expected in the system of alliances: between Russia, India and China, between the Arabs and Iran, between Europe and Russia–-simply because it makes it easier to divide the region into dependent allies, those who will serve.

Therefore, in the spirit of harmonization of interests, I would also like to ask a question that would be based on the premise that Europe failed to create a mutually acceptable way out of the cold war. It seems to me that this has become a source of much tension. The principle of undivided security instead led to fragmentation, and saw the expansion of NATO as well.

So, my question is: could Eurasian multipolarity introduce a new format of interaction between Russia and Europe? I ask this question because a few years ago there was a book called "Europe as the Western Peninsula of Greater Eurasia". And really, maybe there is such a way forward?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, can you repeat what you said at the end? Please state the question again.

: (as translated)G. Disen My question was this. I proceeded from the principles that throughout Eurasia we saw that many countries were able to overcome their contradictions, political contradictions through economic cooperation. For example, the agreements that China promoted between the Arabs and Iranians. I was thinking about a new format of Greater Eurasia, where Europe would be part of this Eurasia. Is there any way to use BRICS or any other institution to also strengthen better relations between Russia and Europe, so that we can overcome this bloc policy in Europe, which we have never been able to overcome since the Second World War?

Vladimir Putin: You know, after the Cold War ended, in principle, there was a chance to overcome this bloc thinking and the bloc policy itself. I repeat: after the end of the Cold War, there was a chance to overcome both bloc thinking and bloc politics.

But as I said in my speech, I'm just sure that the United States didn't need it. Apparently, they were afraid that control over Europe would be weakened, they wanted to keep it, and they are doing so, moreover, they have strengthened control.

I think that this will eventually lead to the weakening of this system of vassalage anyway. I don't mean anything bad in what I'm about to say, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything, reproach, God forbid. We see that many European countries, almost all European countries--members of NATO--to the detriment of their interests commit actions that benefit American politics and the American economy.

In the United States, in some states, energy costs are three, four, or even five times cheaper than in the European Union. Consciously make decisions in the tax system, reduce the income tax, for example, create conditions for the transfer of enterprises, entire enterprises or industries from Europe to the United States. And some are moving out.

First, it affected those that are directly related to the primary energy source: this is the production of fertilizers, the glass industry, and some other industries. They just curtailed their activities, it became unprofitable, and they are moving there.

At the second stage of redevelopment, this is somehow connected with the metallurgical industry, but now the automotive industry has been affected.

Governments can blame as much as they want on the allegedly inefficient work of the management of a particular company, but this is the result of their policy, first of all, government policy, and then in these conditions management had to do something to save their enterprises and jobs. But this is not always possible.

Therefore, the conflict in which we are, unfortunately, participants has allowed the United States to strengthen its leading role, to put it mildly. In fact, the countries found themselves in such semi-colonial dependence. To be honest, even I didn't expect it, but it's their choice.

The same thing is happening with Japan. Amazing! What have we done wrong to Japan? Nothing at all, not a single step, not a single word. They took it and imposed sanctions against us. Why should I? From what fright?

Now the question is: what should I do about it? We didn't do anything. There are colleagues from Japan here, and there will probably be some questions.

Europe is even worse. I have already said this, but I will not deny myself the pleasure of recalling a conversation with former German Chancellor Kohl in 1993, when I was lucky enough to be present at his conversation with the former mayor of St. Petersburg. I had not yet forgotten the German language and was working as a translator between them. He dismissed the interpreter altogether and said: come on, go get some rest. I stayed and translated.

For me, a former Soviet foreign intelligence officer, it was surprising to hear what he was saying. To be honest, I listened, translated and was, to put it mildly, very surprised, because after all, in my head there were still cliches of the Cold War, and I am an intelligence officer of the KGB of the USSR.

Suddenly Kohl began to say that the future of Europe, if it wants to survive as an independent center of world civilization, should be only together with Russia, we need to unite our efforts. I opened my mouth. He continued in the same spirit, talking about how, in his opinion, the situation on the American continent will develop, where and how the United States will build its efforts. I won't reproduce it now, but he didn't say anything bad about the United States, no. He is just an analyst, an expert, not even as the Bundeschancellor said, but as an expert.

But in fact, 80, 85, 90 percent of what he said is happening. That's what I'm seeing right now, and we're all watching it. Of course, we must try to build a security system on the Eurasian continent. It's huge, this continent. And of course, Europe can and, in my opinion, should be an integral part of this system.

You said that the PRC does not have the opportunity and does not want to play a dominant role. You mentioned Central Asia, and I'll tell you about it now. I think there are probably some of our friends from China here. There is no such thing in the Chinese philosophy, they do not seek to dominate. This is the whole trick, this is the appeal of the theory or the proposal formulated by the President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping: "One Belt, One Road". One belt and one common road. This is not only the Chinese way, it is the common way. This is exactly what it sounds like, at least in bilateral relations, and we act in the interests of each other.

What is happening in Central Asia? Everyone was counting on some kind of clash or friction between Russia and China in Central Asia. Do you understand what's going on there? These are countries with a very young statehood and an economy that requires serious development. Demographic processes are growing there: For example, in Uzbekistan every year plus a million people. Plus a million, can you imagine? 27 or 28 million is already the population and plus a million every year. In India-plus ten, as my friend, Mr. Prime Minister Modi, told me, but in India, one and a half billion people live, and in Uzbekistan – 37-38, soon 40 million, and every year millions. That's a lot. There are a lot of problems there.

If the People's Republic of China comes and helps these economies, it means that as a result of economic cooperation, domestic political processes are also being stabilized, statehood is being stabilized, and Russia is only interested in this. We want a stable environment and stable development there. This is also in our best interests. Therefore, there is no competition, there is cooperation. This does not hinder the development of our traditional ties with this region of the world. The countries of Central Asia, which were part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for centuries, not only remember us, but also cherish our special contacts and ties. This is only good for everyone.

If we are creating a security system on the Eurasian continent in this way, and now again, by the way, I see, I hear what is happening in some European countries, what is being said, we have again started talking about creating a single security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok, and we have again returned to what de Gaulle, in his opinion, said. I think he did at the time. However, he said "to the Urals". But in fact, it should go to Vladivostok. These ideas have come up again. If our colleagues come back to this…

And the most important thing is what you said, what I mentioned and what is written in the OSCE documents, so that the security of some does not contradict and does not violate the security of others. This is very important. If we do all this, if we raise the level of trust, as you also mentioned... the most important problem on our Eurasian continent right now, the main thing between Russia and European countries, is the lack of trust.

You can scold Russia in any way you want, and probably we also make a lot of mistakes, but when we are told, listen, that we went to sign the Minsk agreements on Ukraine only to give Ukraine the opportunity to rearm and did not intend to resolve this conflict in a peaceful way, what kind of trust can we talk about? What are you guys doing? What kind of trust? You directly and publicly stated that you cheated us, lied to us and deceived us. And what kind of trust? But we need to return to this system of mutual trust gradually. I don't know if we can discuss it here until morning, but this is the first step towards creating a unified system of Eurasian security. Can this be done or not?

Mr. Kohl, whose memoirs I started with, believed that this was not just necessary, but absolutely necessary. I share this view.

F.Lukyanov: Mr President, why do you think that Mr Kohl was more sincere than Mrs Merkel, whom you mentioned later, who speaks about the Minsk process?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the three of us were sitting together–-it was still in Bonn, the German government was in Bonn–-and we were just talking. And Mrs. Merkel, whom you mentioned, still spoke under certain public pressure and in a crisis. This is still a different situation. Kohl spoke calmly, just freely expressed his point of view not only in the absence of the press—Merkel spoke to the press and for the press, but he did not speak for the press, he even removed his translator, you know? Therefore, I assume that he was an absolutely sincere person.

F. Lukyanov: One more question, if possible, to follow up on the topic that Glenn raised and you mentioned. The population is growing in neighboring countries, and in your speech you spoke about migration flows. Now this is a very hot topic everywhere, including in our country.

Do you see this as part of Eurasian security? Do you discuss this with your colleagues in Eurasia?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, we discuss this very often.

I have already said that we now have a historically low unemployment rate of 2.4 percent, and there is virtually no unemployment. We have a shortage of workers. And of course, we need workers to develop our economy.

Moreover, the lack of an adequate number of workers is currently one of the main obstacles to our economic growth. We have about half a million, 600 thousand people in construction right now, the industry will take and not notice. The industry needs 250 thousand people right now–-and it will also not be enough.

As the first stage, we need to create conditions where people who come to work with us will be ready for this: they will have a good command of the Russian language, know our traditions–-we have said this many times—know our laws, and not only know all this, but also be internally ready to observe it all.

And then there will be no irritation and rejection on the part of our citizens, and we should think first of all, of course, about the interests of the citizens of the Russian Federation. These are quite obvious things. I want my colleagues, regional leaders, to hear me in the regions of the Russian Federation, as well as law enforcement agencies.

And as for the people who come to us, they should also live in modern, humane conditions, enjoy all the benefits of civilization in the field of health care, education, and so on. There are also distortions here. I won't go into details now, but we need to work on it.

My colleagues, my friends, and the leaders of the former Soviet republics are constantly discussing this issue. And they themselves want to train those people who would like to come and work for us, to prepare them for such work on the territory of the Russian Federation.

What is needed for this? Also our question. We need to create schools, we are currently creating schools, creating them. We need to send teachers of the Russian language who are not enough and whom they are happy to accept and would accept ten times more. So here, too, the ball is to a certain extent on our side. They are ready for it and want to. We will do this together.

But in the long run, and I hope in the near future, we need to ensure that the Russian labor market primarily includes people with good education, well–trained professionals, and that some of the people who come to us today would remain working in their home country, and that we create production facilities there that will be able to meet the needs of our employees included in the overall production chain of certain products. We would load them with orders, they would produce some components of something, we or they could have the final assembly, and then people not only in Uzbekistan, but also in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan would have jobs there, at home, and live in their own environment. your native language and culture. In general, this would be a general cooperation.

To a certain extent, we need to recreate the cooperation chains that were still in the Soviet Union, but, of course, on a new technological base, on a new logistics base. And then the overall system will be more stable, and the growth rate for all participants in this process will be guaranteed. And there will be no such tension in this area.

We were just talking about artificial intelligence and other opportunities. It is necessary to replace the shortage of workers–-of course, all our experts say this–-with new technological capabilities, to carry out production on a new technological basis, increasing the level of return and efficiency. It seems to me that this is quite possible.

F.Lukyanov: Thank you.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, there was a big event yesterday, and the whole world was watching with bated breath: the United States elected a new President. In your presidential century, this is the sixth, it is also the fourth, but it happens.

Do you have any memories left, maybe about some of them more pleasant, less pleasant? Who was more interesting to work with?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they're all really interesting people. It is hard to imagine a person who would be at the top of power in one of the leading countries of the world and would be absolutely some insignificant, stupid, uninteresting person.

What's the matter? The fact is that the internal political culture of the United States is such that the internal political struggle is becoming sharper and sharper, all sorts of tricks are used by opponents and political opponents of the current head of state in order to somehow protect them. Moreover, such tools are used that are often unflattering and far from the indicator of this political culture.

Remember, there were so many attacks on Bush: he is so illiterate, unintelligent, ignorant. It's all a lie.

We had a lot of contradictions. I believe that from the point of view of the attitude towards Russia, the policy in the Russian direction, many of them, almost all of them–-I told you: everything that was done, in the end, all together looked like a hidden intervention.

But on a personal level… I assure you, the same Bush who was governor of Texas before–-this is a complex state, by the way, and a huge one--and he was a successful governor. I've talked to him–-and I can assure you that he is as good as anyone in this room, no matter how he is presented–-as someone with a low IQ and so on--as any of his political opponents. I know, I talked to him a lot, personally, spent the night at his ranch house in Texas. I met his parents several times–-both at their homes and when they came to visit me.

I will tell you: when I talked to his father, who was also a former US President, he was no longer, of course, President at that time. He told me sincerely--he says so calmly: "We made a huge mistake when we started blocking the Olympic Games in Moscow. Then Russia started doing the same for the Olympic Games here. Such nonsense." He said this to me personally: "Such nonsense, such a mistake. Why are we doing all this?"

So what? And all this goes on. Under pressure from outside, the International Olympic Committee turned into some kind of, I don't know, circus performers simply. They have completely commercialized the Olympic movement and are destroying it with their own hands.

But what am I talking about? Now I'm not talking about that, but about the people I had to work with. Each of them is a person and a person who did not accidentally get to this Olympus.

F.Lukyanov: And what about the future President from this point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can also treat it any way you want. After all, everyone initially–-in the first iteration of his presidential campaign--said that he was basically a businessman and he didn't understand much about politics, he could make mistakes.

But first of all, I can tell you that his behavior at the time of the attempt on his life, I don't know, but I was impressed by it. He was a brave man. And it's not just a matter of raising your hand and calling them to fight for their common ideals. It's not just that, although, of course, it's on a drive like this. A person manifests himself in extraordinary conditions–-this is where a person manifests himself. And he showed himself, in my opinion, in a very correct way: courageously, like a man.

As for the policy in the first iteration, I don't know if he'll hear it, but I'll probably say it here. I say absolutely sincerely: I have the impression that he was harassed from all sides, did not allow him to move. He was afraid to take a step to the left or right, to say an extra word.

I do not know what will happen now, I have no idea: for him, this is still the last deadline, what he will do—these are his questions. But what has been said publicly so far is mostly… I don't want to comment now on what was said during the election campaign, I think it was said deliberately in the fight for votes, but it doesn't matter. And what was said about the desire to restore relations with Russia, to contribute to the end of the Ukrainian crisis, in my opinion, I think it deserves attention at least.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his election as President of the United States of America. I have already said that we will work with any head of State who has the confidence of the American people. This will also be true in practice.

F.Lukyanov: And if he fulfills what he has been saying all along, he will call you in the near future, before the inauguration, and say: Vladimir, let's meet.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I don't think it's shameful to call him either. I don't do this because the leaders of Western states called me almost every week from some stage, and then suddenly stopped. If they don't want to, then don't. As you can see, we are alive and well, but nothing–-we are developing, we are moving forward.

If any of them want to resume contacts, I have always said, and I want to say again: we have nothing against it. Please, we will resume contacts and conduct discussions. But there are a lot of people who want to conduct a discussion, there is a whole hall here, but if not, we will conduct a discussion with you then.

F. Lukyanov: So you're ready to talk to Trump?

Vladimir Putin: We are ready, we are ready.

F. Lukyanov: All right.

Well, while Trump is not here, let's have a discussion with those who are here. Let's start with Professor Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Dear Mr. President,

I am very glad to see you again. First of all, I would like to convey my gratitude from my Chinese colleagues for the excellent organization shown by our Russian friends at the Kazan Summit.

But I would also like to say a big thank you for your personal support for the work of our club, including a very lively discussion.

I remembered that eight years ago, also at our forum, I had the honor to ask you: what are your thoughts on the relations between Russia, the United States and China? You answered me very precisely that they should be mutually respectful and mutually useful. It's been eight years now. The world is changing a lot. On the one hand, the competition and sanctions are terrible. But on the other hand, Russia's strategic partner is China, and BRICS cooperation is developing very successfully.

My question is: what is your assessment of the current and future development of the strategic partnership between Russia and China?

Second, will it be possible to normalize relations between Russia, the United States, and China in the new environment?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: As for relations between Russia and the People's Republic of China, they are of an unprecedented high level and are based on mutual trust, which we lack in our relations with other countries, especially with Western countries. I've already said why.

I know that if there were representatives of those who have stones in their garden from my side, they would now post a whole page of complaints about Russia, in my personal address. Well, we won't discuss it now. I just want to say that the level of trust between Russia and China is at the highest point in recent history. This and our personal and friendly relations with President Xi Jinping of the People's Republic of China are a very good guarantee for the development of interstate relations.

I won't go into details now, but still, 240 billion dollars of trade turnover is not the largest, but it is still the fourth largest trade turnover among China's leading trade and economic partners. This is already decent. This is a very important circumstance. And we complement each other really well. We started with energy, including nuclear power. As our technological capabilities grow, we share these technologies, which is very important, and this value is growing. That is why we are expanding the range of our cooperation, the range of our opportunities, paying more and more attention to high technologies, and in various, very different areas.

China has achieved a lot. I have already said it, I don't remember whether I spoke here last time or not, but I have spoken at other public events: according to our experts, the model of the economy that China has adopted, it has developed it, this model, naturally, based on the needs of life. It is much more efficient than in many other leading economies in the world. To put it bluntly, such elements combine both the planned economy and the market. Chinese specialists manage to do this, and from the political level, our friends manage not to interfere with these specialists—this is very important. And it turns out the effect is good. In other words, the Chinese economy is working more efficiently than other economies, even though there is a certain correction in terms of economic growth rates.

Unfortunately, the United States is pursuing a policy of double containment, which is an attempt to contain both China and Russia. Why this is necessary, especially to work on two fronts, is completely incomprehensible. That is, it is clear: they believe that the growth of China's economic power poses a threat to them, a threat to their dominance.

In my opinion, if they want to work and act effectively, they should not use these methods. It is necessary to prove our advantage in a fair and open competition, and then the internal forces of development in the United States itself would be called to life. What do they do? They prohibit one, two, and three things, and ultimately only harm their own development. Banning Chinese goods or the use of Chinese technologies in the US market will lead to what? It will lead to inflation, to an increase in the cost of production–-that's what it will lead to, that's all.

As far as our cooperation is concerned, the areas where they are trying to restrain China's development may well be supplemented by our cooperation with the People's Republic of China.

For example, we started with energy. This is being developed very actively in the oil, gas, and nuclear technology sectors. We are also actively working on the creation of new units of nuclear power plants, as well as on the supply of oil and gas. But this creates an absolutely reliable energy security system for China. We have a common border. No one can prevent this, no storms, no blocking of sea routes, nothing can interfere with our cooperation, because we have a common border. As the delivery goes, so it will go–-a full guarantee.

I think that if the United States were to change the vector in relation to both Russia and China, that is, it would not pursue a policy of double deterrence, but would pursue a policy of trilateral cooperation, everyone would benefit from this and there would be no losers.

F.Lukyanov: There was also a question about triple cooperation.

Vladimir Putin: That's what I just said, and I'm done with it. You weren't paying attention.

F.Lukyanov: Sorry, I was distracted.

Vladimir Putin: I thought about my own business.

F.Lukyanov: In my opinion, General Salik from Pakistan asked, raised his hand.

:(as translated)N.Salik Thank you, Mr. President.

My question is about the stability of global parity. START-3 expires in 2026. So far, no negotiations are underway, and there is no chance of an extension. When this treaty expires, how do you see the possibility of maintaining the stability of nuclear capabilities?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have never refused to continue the dialogue in the field of strategic stability. I will not reveal a secret, everyone knows very well, and not only in this Hall, but all over the world knows very well that the United States and its, excuse me for saying this, satellites–-it is impossible to say otherwise in modern conditions and in relation to the leaders of these countries who follow the path proposed by them to the detriment of themselves. On the way to Russia–-the United States sets itself the goal of defeating Russia, a strategic defeat.

What is a strategic defeat? What does it mean to achieve a strategic defeat of a particular country? If you don't destroy this country, then, I don't know, reduce this country to an insignificant role. Then why do we need nuclear weapons? At the same time, they want to engage in a dialogue with us on strategic stability. How is that? Like normal adults. We are ready to conduct this dialogue, but in the current conditions there are many issues here.

Your colleague from China just asked about relations in the Russia–China–United States triangle. I deliberately, frankly, did not want to aggravate this issue, and I took international security issues out of the scope of my answer.

Cooperation between Russia and China is one of the most important factors for international stability in general, but it has to do with strategic stability in the field of nuclear weapons. All the time, at least in previous years, we were constantly whispered in our ears: let's work with your friends in China; we need them to join in the conversation about reducing their nuclear arsenals. To which our Chinese friends say: "What are you guys doing? We have fewer carriers and fewer warheads. What will we reduce? Either you reduce it yourself to our level, or let us grow up to yours, and then we will talk together about some reductions." Logical, right? Everything else is just nonsense.

At the same time, NATO countries other than the United States, Great Britain and France have nuclear arsenals, and they are growing. They are not only growing, they are changing qualitatively. Quite recently I was told: NATO is not a military-political union, it is first of all a political union, and then a military one. No, we see that this is not the case at all. In fact, the United States, whether purposefully or not, I think purposefully, returned the military component of NATO to the forefront, and all together announced that they were going to inflict a strategic defeat on us. And how can we not take into account the nuclear arsenals of Great Britain and France?

Therefore, today this issue is not easy, it is even more difficult than it was 20 or 30 years ago. But we understand our responsibility as a country that, in terms of its capabilities, the number of carriers and warheads, and the quality of modern weapons, which are being improved in our country, we are already approaching putting into service our latest developments, which I mentioned five years ago, and now we are completing tests gradually. we understand everything, and in general we are ready for this dialogue. We need the other side to approach this honestly, taking into account all aspects of our relationship.

It can't be that they are going to inflict a strategic defeat on us here, and they are saying to their citizens: guys, everything is calm, everything is normal, business as usual, don't be afraid, don't think about anything. It doesn't happen like this: we [in the context of the treaty] are a strategic failure, and you don't think about anything. So let's just talk about it calmly, in a businesslike way, without any double, triple, or five-point standards, with our cards open. By the way, we have repeatedly suggested this. But when we start talking about it in detail, there is a pause immediately. Let's see how the new future administration will formulate its proposals, if any, in this regard.

F.Lukyanov: Mr President, you mentioned the demonstration of the latest developments. Do you have any new, up-to-date developments?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, something is constantly emerging. Yesterday I just spoke with one of the leaders of one of our largest concerns, and he reported on his ideas in this area. It's just too early to talk about it yet.

F.Lukyanov: Thank you.

Professor Nogueira in the front row, Brazil.

:(as translated)Paulo Batista Nogueira Thank you for this opportunity.

My name is Paulo Batista, from Brazil.

I want to ask you a question. Can you tell us in more detail about the topics that you discussed during your comments and in your speech–-BRICS and the US dollar? What role do you see for the BRICS in building alternatives to unreliable and dysfunctional systems that use the dollar?

Russia in 2024, during its BRICS presidency, proposed a detailed and interesting plan for cross-border payments based on national currencies. How do you see the future of this discussion? Can we build on that?

The second question is more complex. Would you agree that there are certain restrictions on payments in national currencies and that we will gradually, step by step, carefully move to new means of payment, a new reserve currency? By the way, President Lula mentioned this in his statement during the Kazan summit. I would be interested to hear your perspective on this issue.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I base my position on what our experts offer us, and I trust them. They are certainly international-class experts. And I've already discussed our offer. And when an idea is generated, then my role is to pump these ideas, these proposals in the country, in the expert community, in the Government and in the Central Bank, to somehow formalize them in an appropriate way and, having understood what we are talking about, offer these ideas to our partners.

I suggested one of these ideas to President Lula. He was interested, and he hosted our experts in Brazil, and at a very good level. He invited representatives of the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance–-in general, almost the entire economic bloc--to these meetings. Our colleagues and friends in Brazil were also interested. I will now say a few words about what is being discussed.

We have done the same with other BRICS countries. I had a great conversation with almost all the managers, with all of them, and all of them liked these ideas in general.

What is it about? First, what is the novelty? We propose to create a new investment platform using electronic assets, developing them. In other words, we are talking about creating an electronic payment platform that can be used to invest in emerging markets, primarily in South Asia, Africa, and partly Latin America.

Let me repeat: why do we think so? We think so because there are very strong demographic processes taking place there. Population growth, capital accumulation is carried out there. There is still an insufficient level of urbanization, and it will definitely increase. And if urbanization expands and increases, new centers of economic growth will appear there, and people there will strive, and therefore governments will follow them, to raise the standard of living and well-being. In our opinion, it is these regions of the world that will develop at the fastest pace. In our opinion, China, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia and some other countries will also grow, but the regions of the world that I have just mentioned will show much more serious growth and rapid growth. They will need investment, technology, human resources, and training. Using new investment opportunities and a new platform, we think this can be achieved.

Moreover, we can make these tools, electronic tools, practically non-inflationary, because if there is an excess, too much, we can withdraw them. If there is not enough, we can issue additional ones and regulate them with the help of control by central banks and the New BRICS Development Bank. The management of the New BRICS Development Bank also liked this idea.

There are different points of view, different approaches. In general, some were more interested in these ideas, some less, but we agreed to create a working group at the expert level and at the government level. We'll be working on this at the government level right now. We're in no hurry.

This is not a response to the events of today, no. This is not even an answer to counteract financial restrictions in any way. Now I will also tell you more about this. No, this is just an idea of how we can organize our work in promising and rapidly growing markets. This applies not only to the BRICS countries, but also to those countries that are not members of the BRICS. This is just an opportunity for us to invest, enter these markets, and for them to take advantage of our opportunities.

And if it is impossible to do it any other way, we will rely only on promising projects that will be implemented and give a return, then this mechanism can be launched, in our opinion, it will work.

As for today, the use of national currencies still gives its results. For Russia, for example, two-thirds of our trade turnover is already serviced in national currencies. As for the BRICS countries, 88 percent is serviced in national currencies.

We are now talking about using electronic tools for the exchange of financial information between the central banks of our countries, this is the so-called BRICS Bridge system. We discussed it at the expert level with all our BRICS partners. And the second system is also within the BRICS framework: we talked about settlements on the stock exchanges. Today, it seems to me that this is optimal. This is something that we are working on and should work on in the near future.

I have heard a lot, at the expert level and in journalistic circles, about the need to think about creating a single currency. But it's too early to talk about it yet. And we don't have such goals between us. Because in order to talk about a common currency, we need to achieve greater integration of economies with each other-this is the first thing. And secondly, we need to raise the quality of our economies to a certain level, so that they are very similar and compatible in quality and structure of the economy with each other. Just the rest will be unrealistic, and maybe even harmful to go. Therefore, there is no need to rush anywhere.

I want to finish with what I usually start with when answering questions of this kind. We did not seek to abandon the dollar and do not seek to do so. This is done by the political and financial authorities of the same United States or Europe, when they refuse to pay in euros. The euro has not yet found its feet as a global currency, and they are already limiting it with their own hands. It doesn't make any sense.

As far as Europe is concerned, the problem is that economic decisions are made by politicians, who often, unfortunately, are not even experts in the field of economics and finance for these countries. And this is only to the detriment of these countries. That is why we, in Russia, in any case, are not giving up the dollar and did not intend to do so. We are not allowed to simply use the dollar as a payment instrument. Well, denied and denied. But this, in my opinion, is a terrible stupidity on the part of the US financial authorities, because this, the dollar, is the basis for all the power of the United States today. They took it and cut it all with their own hands.

And I would have thought that no matter what was going on, the dollar was like a sacred cow, it couldn't be touched. No, they took her horns there with their own hands, they don't wash the udder, but, on the contrary, they exploit it for nothing. What is it? But it's your own fault. Calculations in dollars are not declining much in the world yet, as the means of accumulation are also slowly decreasing, even in the countries of the closest partners, but they are being removed, narrowed, and this is already becoming a trend. They do everything with their own hands.

And we are not fighting, our proposals are not aimed at fighting the dollar. We are simply responding to the challenges of the time, to new trends in the development of the global economy, and we are thinking about creating new tools, and first of all, as I said at the beginning, it is important to create a system, use existing systems in each country, exchange financial information, and the tools that I have indicated, we will develop it.

Thank you.

And there’s still more to come with Part Three.

*
*
*
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!