Putin's Annual SPIEF Meeting with Heads of International News Agencies

Very Long Read

As the annual St. Petersburg International Economic Forum gets moving, Putin has held his now traditional meeting with the heads of international news agencies on the events sidelines. This year’s meeting takes place high up in Gazprom’s global headquarters which is one of the planet’s most fantastic constructions and energy efficient buildings of its type—the Lakhta Center:

A very different form of palace.

As you see from the table configuration, Putin’s in command, while the view from the conference room is distracting.

Representatives of news agencies from Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the United States, Uzbekistan, China, Iran, Great Britain, Turkey, Korea, Italy, Germany, Japan, Spain and France took part in the conversation. Russia was represented by TASS Director General Andrey Kondrashov.

* * *

Alexander Kondrashov: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear guests,

Before we begin, let me thank you, Mr President, for helping to preserve this wonderful tradition over the years. It is a tradition that the Russian news agency TASS gathers its foreign colleagues to meet with you. And I do not know how you always manage to find time in your very busy schedule to meet with foreign journalists.

Vladimir Putin: Have you been offered a guided tour of this building?

A. Kondrashov: They offered it. After the conversation, we'll probably go up to the roof.

Vladimir Putin: Don't agree.

A. Kondrashov: You can't? Dangerous?

Vladimir Putin: No. You won't be able to escape Mr. Miller's clutches. For three hours he talks in detail about each element of this building. He's in love with it. It's not easy to break out.

Alexander Kondrashov: Did you like the building?

Vladimir Putin: I liked it, of course.

Alexander Kondrashov: How can you see St. Petersburg from the 87th floor?

Vladimir Putin: It's beautiful. I hope you enjoy it too if you go.

Alexander Kondrashov: Mr President, there are currently 16 countries represented by their main and leading news agencies. In general, there should have been more of us. But our Indian and Brazilian colleagues were not able to arrive, because they are summing up the results of the recent elections. Our colleague from Egypt broke his leg just before the meeting, and we wish him a speedy recovery. And those who have come, welcome to this wonderful, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, the city of St. Petersburg and in this new fashionable place called "Lakhta Center".

Here are the people, Mr Putin, we have calculated, who make up about 80 per cent of the world's total news flow. Since we haven't met, many of the countries they represent have suddenly become unfriendly towards Russia. But, probably, it will be more interesting to see what these countries breathe, what issues they consider to be the most important for themselves.

In general, despite the fact that this will be the eighth meeting in a row and we are pleased to note that it is being held in the year when TASS is celebrating its 120th anniversary, this will probably be the first meeting in conditions of such international tension. The feeling is that the world has gone mad, that someone is deliberately pushing it to disaster.

We really want to count on the fact that after this meeting we will come at least one step closer to understanding how to reduce the degree of tension, the degree of double standards, this misunderstanding of each other and just hostility.

Dear colleagues, as moderator of the TASS news agency, I will give each of you the opportunity to ask your main question. Whether you will be able to ask the second and subsequent questions depends only on the President of Russia.

And we also have a wonderful tradition: we give the first word to the best half of humanity – women. Why? Because in Russia, women are traditionally treated not only with respect, but also with love and awe.

So the first question is asked by our wonderful Irina Akulovich, Director General of BelTA, the Belarusian Telegraph Agency. Vladimir Vladimirovich, she still has a musical education, so we will count on her to set the right tone for our entire conversation.

Irina Borisovna, your question.

Vladimir Putin: If I may, I would like to welcome you all. You must have been held in this tower for half a day – I apologize. I repeat: here it is very difficult to escape from the clutches of the head of Gazprom, who tells everything about every element, infects with his optimism.

There are very well-informed people here, I just can't imagine what I could tell you that you don't know. You know everything, and you probably know it better than I do. No matter what I say, you'll still think you know better than I do. Therefore, I suggest that we have an exchange of views rather than an evening of questions and answers. It will be more interesting this way. And I would also be interested to hear your opinion on those issues that interest you.

Perhaps this is all I would like to say at the beginning.

Irina Borisovna, please.

Igor Akulovich: Thank you.

Hello, Vladimir Vladimirovich!

Thank you so much for this opportunity and for talking to you. We are well aware that, indeed, your schedule is quite busy. Not only we are waiting for this meeting now, but also the world's largest agencies and the world's largest media, of course, are also following it.

But I would like to say that I think I have the right to ask the first question not only because we are trying to regulate gender issues here, but also because Belarus is the closest country to Russia. This is not a question, this is an exchange of opinions, this is a statement, of course.

You met Alexander Lukashenko somewhere in the mid-90s, that is, you have known our President for about 30 years. There were very different times in the history of our countries and in our mutual relations, but you always managed to find solutions to any issues: security issues, economic problems. I want to ask you, how easy or difficult is it for you right now? And are there any leaders in the European Union with whom difficult issues can be resolved today? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, the President of Belarus and I have known each other for a long time. And indeed, our relations have developed differently at different times. But since relations are based on the fundamental interests of both peoples (Russian and Belarusian), it is always based on this that it has always been possible to find solutions to even the most complex, seemingly simple questions to which there are no simple answers. That is why we were initially engaged and are now continuing to work on the construction of the Union State. We do this based on the mood of our peoples, we do it very calmly and carefully.

We always look at our interests, first of all in the economic sphere, in politics, including foreign policy, when solving any issue and taking any step in this direction. Oddly enough, in the field of ecology and culture. All this complex, when we address the complex of everything that unites us, always allows us to solve small issues, perhaps of a complex nature, if they arise.

You know, the volume is such that there is always something to do. After all, our trade turnover in dollar terms (this is not a secret, everyone knows it well) is $ 48 billion, almost $ 50 billion. This is a decent amount.

These economic relations are very diversified. This also applies to agriculture – almost 90 percent of all Belarus ' exports go to the Russian market in the field of agriculture, industrial production and cooperation. We have just discussed it in Minsk. It seems that we meet all the time and discuss all issues, and my trip after my re-election as President of Russia seemed to be of such a symbolic and ritual nature. But no. Key government employees were gathered, and there were some disputes. This concerned industrial cooperation, the level of localization of production, the volume of supplies of our goods, oil, first of all, to Belarusian refineries, and the mutual supply of petroleum products to the Russian market. In other words, these are all very specific, very tangible issues that, of course, affect the quality of life of our citizens.

And I repeat once again: taking into account such a friendly nature and attitude of societies on both sides, it allows us to always find solutions. You know, they are sometimes non-trivial, no matter how strange it may seem, it seems that we have such a large volume of relations and everything seems to be on track. No, all the time you need to make some effort to find answers to the questions that arise. Everything is working out, and I'm sure it will continue to do so.

Igor Akulovich: So there are no complicated issues with Belarus.

Vladimir Putin: No, there are complex issues.

Igor Akulovich: But a solution can be found.

Vladimir Putin: But we always find a solution, because these decisions are based on the interests of two peoples on both sides.

Igor Akulovich: Can such solutions be found with the leaders of the European Union?

Vladimir Putin: We can also talk to leaders if they feel more confident and have more courage to defend their national interests. I think that our colleagues here will probably talk about this again.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Irina Borisovna.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Irina Borisovna.

I invite Ms. Samia Nakhul, Editor-in-Chief of Global News at the British news agency Reuters, to continue our conversation. Samia traveled through a huge number of hot spots and was very badly injured in Iraq. Please ask your question, Ms. Nakhul.

Vladimir Putin: When did this happen to you in Iraq?

:(as translated)With.Nakhul During the 2003 invasion.

Vladimir Putin: It's clear.

S. Nakhul: Thank you for hosting us.

Mr. President, given your recent interactions with President Trump and with President Biden, could you present your vision of who you would prefer as a candidate for the U.S.-Russia relationship, given the current war that is currently taking place in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that everyone took my statement about Mr. Biden with a grin and saw it as some kind of hidden "attack" on President Biden. Indeed, because he is an old-school politician, and what he did not like, he then to a certain extent even began to attack me. I thought it would be like this. So I'm right, he's predictable. This only confirms our thoughts about what I said.

If so, we don't really care. Because so is Mr. Trump, who was accused of almost spying for Russia… As we understand it, this is complete nonsense, just some kind of nonsense, it was just an element of the internal political struggle in relations between Democrats and Republicans. Ridiculous accusations against Trump. We have always perceived this as an element of the internal political struggle in the United States itself. Then all this was confirmed as a result of all sorts of investigations inside the United States. Mr. Trump and I have never had any special ties.

But the fact remains that he, just as president, began to impose some massive sanctions against the Russian Federation. It has withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The same thing was done during his presidency.

I say quite sincerely that after the elections something will change in the Russian direction in American politics, I would not say so. We don't think so, we think that nothing, in fact, so serious will happen.

What is happening in the United States, you all know perfectly well what is happening there in the course of the internal political struggle, they are burning themselves from the inside, their state, their political system.

I must say, whether it is pleasant or not, but their imaginary leadership in the field of democracy is also being burned right on the vine. Because it is obvious all over the world that the prosecution of Trump, especially in court, on charges that were formed on the basis of events that took place years ago, without direct evidence, is simply the use of the judicial system in the course of an internal political struggle, directly. This is obvious to us in Russia. I am sure that this is obvious to the UK, and everyone around the world thinks so. And the main thing is that in the United States itself they think so. Because after the well-known court decision, where the jury returned a verdict of "guilty", as we all know, Mr. Trump's rating increased, in my opinion, immediately by 6 percent, and fees immediately increased to his campaign headquarters.

What does this mean? This suggests that people in the United States do not trust the judicial system that makes such decisions, but on the contrary, they believe that they were made for political reasons.

Oddly enough, in the sphere of international politics, domestic politics, and economic policy, I think that the current administration is making one mistake after another, one after another. Even sometimes you are surprised when you look at what is happening. Therefore, we look at it from the outside, we have never interfered in the internal political processes in the United States and we are not going to interfere, but we will see what it will lead to.

I want to finish answering your question where I started. For us, the final result, as we believe, does not matter much. We will work with any president the American people choose.

S. Nakhul: As for Ukraine. Do you think that anything will change in terms of supporting Ukraine in the war if Trump returns? Don't you think there will be a change?

Vladimir Putin: It's hard to say. I can't make a clear conclusion whether something will change or not. You understand, you need to look at the priorities of the future administration.

If the next administration is focused on national interests and if they believe that the national interest will be to stabilize the situation at home, to rely not on immigration, but on consolidating society within the United States, to get rid of the mistakes that led to high inflation and huge debt within the United States Then, of course, based on the internal national interests, if they act in this way, they will pursue the goals of global liberalism, which, in my opinion, is being destroyed by the United States itself from within. This is the desire to be a leader of global liberalism.

If they are guided by national interests, then there may be some changes in foreign policy both in relation to Russia and in relation to the conflict in Ukraine. But, as you can see, I said "if", "if", "if". In this case, changes are possible.

But I think you will agree with me that no one in the United States is interested in Ukraine. I am interested in the greatness of the United States, which is fighting not for Ukraine or the Ukrainian people, but for its own greatness and leadership in the world, and in no case do they want to allow any success for Russia, precisely because they believe that in this case the leadership of the United States will be damaged. That's the whole point of what the US is doing. But if the next administration changes its goal-setting vector and sees the meaning of its existence and work in strengthening the United States from within, in strengthening the economy and finances, and building normal relations in the world that are more respectful of everyone, then something may change. It depends, in my opinion, on the mood of society. The public mood is still shifting in this direction to a certain extent, and if the future administration catches this wind in its sails, then changes are possible.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Ms. Nakhul.

Now it's the men's turn to ask questions. I would like to ask the President of Russia a question from Vugar Aliyev, Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency.

Vugar Aligeydarovich, please, your question.

Vladimir Aliyev: Hello, Vladimir Vladimirovich! Thank you for all the time you've given us.

Today, relations between Azerbaijan and Russia are developing dynamically. President Ilham Aliyev's recent visit to Moscow provided an opportunity not only to celebrate the 50th anniversary of BAM, which is memorable for both our countries, but also to discuss bilateral relations.

How do you assess the future prospects of bilateral cooperation, in particular, the development of the North-South transport corridor?

Vladimir Putin: Our relations are developing successfully, reliably and very pragmatically.

You know, we feel the attitude of the Azerbaijani leadership to build interstate relations on the basis of mutual interest, I would even say, to a certain extent, sympathy for each other. There is no other way to explain the existence of 300 schools that operate in Azerbaijan, work in Russian and teach children. And I know that President Aliyev strongly supports the study of the Russian language in the republic. This can be seen in all vectors.

What does this mean? This means that the Azerbaijani leadership assumes that the citizens of Azerbaijan will need the Russian language. What for? For the development of bilateral relations. And they are developing.

The total volume of our trade turnover (I repeat, I will speak in dollars), in my opinion, is somewhere between 4.5 and 4.6 billion dollars. And the pace is good, the pace of development is very good.

We are increasingly diversifying our relationships. And I am sure that if this attitude is maintained on both sides, and we are in the same mood in Russia, I am sure that the results will be, and will be good.

In this sense, a lot needs to be done, and you are absolutely right, from the point of view of logistics development. This applies not only to the North – South road, but also to other vectors, the construction of logistics centers, including on the borders of Russia and Azerbaijan on the Dagestan section, is already underway there. This applies to other areas: we have quite a lot of students studying in Russia, including on a Russian budget basis from Azerbaijan, and we see that the interest of young people in getting an education in Russia is also quite large.

As for this North-South road. It can turn into a very good and popular international corridor, when cargo directly from here, where we are located, from the port of St. Petersburg, will go through the entire European part to Azerbaijan, then to Iran and with access to the coast of the Persian Gulf. In my opinion, it is almost 10 days faster than through the famous Suez Canal.

We don't want to say anything bad, the Suez Canal, on the contrary, is very necessary for world trade. But it will be an additional and very efficient way to deliver goods to the north, to the south and in the opposite direction. In my opinion, it is 10 days faster, it is a big saving, and the route will be very efficient and profitable.

But there is still a lot of work to be done. We work on both sides. I know that President Aliyev supports this project, and we have discussed it many times. The Iranian leadership also supports it. And since it promises to be very profitable, there are also foreign investors who have expressed their interest in this project, non – regional ones-countries located nearby, including sovereign Arab funds. It is understandable, because sovereign funds are always looking for reliable investments. This is one of the most reliable investments, because its profitability will be guaranteed.

There are some questions that require additional research. What land plots, including across the territory of Azerbaijan, will we finance? Will it be a loan, will it be direct financing from Russia? How will it connect with those branches that will go West through the territory of Azerbaijan?

Then we need to finalize everything with our Iranian partners and friends: how will we build this track? Will it be a wide or narrow track that runs through the territory of Iran?

But the most important thing is that everyone is set up for implementation. We have actually created a directorate, VTB is actively engaged in this, and I have no doubt that we are implementing it. The question, of course, is in terms of time and cost, but in general they have already been practically finalized. So this is a very good project, but not the only one that we are implementing together. Among other things, Azerbaijan is a Caspian littoral state, one of the "five" Caspian littoral states, and here we also have many common interests, including issues related to the ecology of the Caspian Sea.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Vugar Aligeidarovich!

And now a word to the country, to which, probably, you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, will never have an indifferent attitude. This is Germany.

Our guest is Martin Romanchik, head of the news service of the German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur.

By the way, Martin definitely knows firsthand about our country, because in the 90s he worked as his own DPA correspondent in Moscow. Please, Mr. Romanchik, your question.

:(as translated)M.Romanchik Good evening, Mr. President! Good evening to all!

Chancellor Scholz agreed to supply weapons to Ukraine. Please tell me if Scholz changes his mind, how would you rate it? And what do you think is waiting for Germany? Did you somehow warn, warn or threaten Mr. Chancellor when he decided to supply weapons to Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Why did you think that we were threatening someone? We do not threaten anyone, especially the head of another state. This is bad manners and bad manners.

We have our own position on certain issues. We know the position of European states, including the Federal Republic, on the events that are taking place in Ukraine.

Everyone believes that Russia started a war in Ukraine. But no one – I want to emphasize this-no one in the West, in Europe, wants to remember how this tragedy began. It began with a coup d'etat in Ukraine, an unconstitutional coup d'etat. This is the beginning of the war. But is Russia to blame for this coup? No. But remember those who are trying to blame Russia that the foreign Ministers of Poland, Germany and France came to Kiev and put their signatures under the document on the settlement of political crisis, as guarantors that the crisis must be completed through peaceful, constitutional means? This is something that people in Europe, including Germany, prefer not to remember. And if we recall, then the question arises: why, then, did the leadership of the Federal Republic, as well as other signatories of this document, not demand that those people in Ukraine who carried out the coup d'etat return to the legal constitutional field? Why did they neglect their obligations as guarantors of agreements between the opposition and the then government? So they are to blame for what happened, along with those forces in the United States that provoked the seizure of power in an unconstitutional way. Don't you know what followed? This was followed by the decision of the residents of Crimea to secede from Ukraine, followed by the decision of the residents of Donbass not to obey those who carried out the coup in Kiev. This is the beginning of this conflict.

And then Russia made every effort to find a formula for a peaceful settlement, and in 2015 the so-called Minsk Agreements were signed in Minsk, which, by the way, were constituted by a decision of the United Nations Security Council. This is a document that should be executed. No, they decided to close this problem by armed means. The use of artillery, tanks, and aircraft against civilians in the south-east of Ukraine has begun. For some reason, neither in Germany, nor in other European countries, nor in the United States – no one, I repeat, no one wants to remember this. Okay.

We helped sign the Minsk agreements, but as it turned out, no one was going to implement them. Both the former German Chancellor and the former French president have publicly stated this.

Dear Mr. Romanchik, what is this supposed to mean? They also said publicly that they were not going to implement the Minsk agreements, but only signed them in order to arm Ukraine and create conditions for the continuation of hostilities. We were just being led by the nose. Isn't that right? How else can you explain what happened?

For eight years, we have been trying to find a peaceful solution to this problem. Eight years!

The former Chancellor once told me: "You know, in Kosovo, yes, we acted then, NATO acted without a decision of the Security Council. But blood was shed there for eight years, in Kosovo." And here, when the blood of Russian people was spilled in the Donbass, is it not blood, but water, or something? No one wanted to think about it, or notice it.

In the end, what were we forced to do when the then authorities in Ukraine declared that they did not like a single point of the Minsk agreements, and the Foreign Minister said that we would not implement them?

Do you understand that both economic and social degradation has begun in these territories? Eight years old. I'm not even talking about the murders, the constant killing of people: women, children, and so on.

What did we have to do? We had to recognize their independence. We did not recognize their independence for almost eight years. Everyone was waiting for us to reach a peaceful agreement and resolve this issue. Eight years! When they announced that no one would implement any peace agreements, what did we have to do? We were forced to make an attempt to force them to do this by armed means.

Well, we didn't start this war. The war began in 2014 after the coup d'etat and attempts to crush those who do not agree with the coup d'etat with the help of cannons.

And now for people who follow international events and international law. What happened next, what did we do? We didn't recognize it for eight years. When we realized that the Minsk peace agreements were not meant to be implemented, what did we do? I ask for everyone's attention, please: we have recognized the independence of these self-proclaimed republics. Could we have done it or not from the point of view of international law? As Article one of the UN Charter says, they could. This is the right of nations to self-determination. And the International Court of Justice of the United Nations has decided (it is also set out on paper) that when deciding on the issue of independence and independence, if a territory of a country makes such a decision, it is not obliged to apply to the higher authorities of this state. All this was done in connection with Kosovo. But there is a decision of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, and it says so: if a territory has decided on independence, it is not obliged to apply to the capital for permission to exercise this right. But if this is so, and it is written in the UN court's decision, then these unrecognized republics – Donetsk and Luhansk-had the right to do so. They did it, and then we had the right to recognize these republics? Of course they did. Well, what about it? We recognized them. Then we signed a contract with them. Could we have made a contract with them or not? Yes, of course. The treaty provided for the provision of assistance to these States in the event of aggression. But Kiev waged war against these states, which we recognized eight years later. Eight years old.

Could we recognize them? They could. And then, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, we provided them with assistance. You know, no matter what anyone says here, I also told Mr. Guterres the same thing, directly this logic-step by step. Where is the error here? Where are the violations of international law? There are no such violations, if we speak from the point of view of international law.

Yes, we then hear the answer: well, you attacked anyway. We didn't attack, we defended ourselves to make it clear to everyone. And the first step towards war was taken by those who encouraged a bloody unconstitutional coup.

Now about the supply of weapons. Supplying weapons to a conflict zone is always a bad thing. All the more so if this is due to the fact that those who supply not only supply weapons, but also manage these weapons, and this is a very serious and very dangerous step. You and I know, and the Federal Republic does not deny it (I do not know how it got into the press), when a general of the Bundeswehr discusses where and how they should strike: at the Crimean Bridge or at some other objects on the territory of Russia, including in the territory in which it is located. No one doubts that it belongs to Russia.

When the first German tanks of German production appeared on Ukrainian soil, it already caused a moral and ethical shock in Russia, because the attitude towards the Federal Republic in Russian society has always been very good. Very good. Now, when they say that now there will still be some missiles that will strike targets on the territory of Russia, this, of course, completely destroys Russian-German relations. But we understand that, as one of the famous German politicians said, after the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Germany was never in the full sense of the word a sovereign state. We have been in contact with Mr. Scholz, we have met with him several times, and I don't want to give an assessment of the quality of the federal government's work right now, but these assessments are given by the German people, the German electorate. The European Parliament elections are coming up soon, and we'll see what happens there. As far as I know – of course, I care about Germany, I have a lot of friends there, whom I try not to touch, so as not to expose them to some kind of obstruction inside the country, I try not to maintain relations with them-but I just know these people for many years, I know that They are reliable friends, and I have many of them in Germany. So, I also know the balance of power in the political arena, as far as I understand, if I'm not mistaken, the CDU/CSU is now somewhere under 30 percent, somewhere 16 percent for the Social Democrats, 15 percent for Alternative for Germany, and all the others are already falling lower. This is the voter's response. This is the mood of the Germans, the mood of the German people.

I understand the Federal Republic's dependence on defense and security in general. I understand the dependence in the field of politics, information policy, because wherever you poke, in some major publication (I don't know where you work), but the ultimate beneficiary overseas is some American foundation. Thank God, I applaud those American foundations and those who pursue this policy-well done that they are so firmly holding the information clearing of Europe in terms of their interests. Moreover, they try not to show their ears.

All this is clear. But the impact is enormous, and it is very difficult to resist it. It's clear. But some elementary things-about these elementary things. It is even strange that no one in the current German leadership defends German interests. It is clear that Germany does not have full sovereignty, but the Germans are there. You need to think about their interests at least a little.

Look: the unfortunate pipelines along the bottom of the Baltic Sea were blown up. No one is even outraged – as if this is the right thing to do. We supply, but still continue to supply gas to Europe through the territory of Ukraine. We supply it. There were two pipeline systems, one of them was closed by the Ukrainian side, the valve was screwed on, just closed, and that's all, although there are no grounds for this. I left only one pipeline system – okay. But gas goes through it to Europe, and European consumers get this gas. Turkish Stream passes through Turkey, and our gas also goes to Europe via Turkish Stream, and European consumers receive it.

Well, one Nord Stream pipe was blown up, but one Nord Stream pipe is still alive, thank God. Why does Germany not want to receive our gas through this pipeline? Can anyone explain what the logic is? Through the territory of Ukraine you can receive, through Turkey you can receive, and through the Baltic Sea you can not receive. What kind of nonsense is this? There's no formal logic to this, I don't even understand it.

They would say that Europe should not receive gas at all. Okay, well, we'll get over it, Gazprom will get over it. But you don't need it, you need to buy three times the price of liquefied natural gas, which is transported across the ocean. Don't your "environmentalists" know how to get liquefied natural gas? Using hydraulic fracturing. Ask those residents in the United States where this gas is produced, where sometimes the water flows out of the taps instead of water. Do your "environmentalists" who are in power in the government not know this? They probably do.

Poland took over and closed its Yamal – Europe branch. Gas was delivered to Germany via Poland. We didn't close it, it was the Poles who closed it. You know better than I do the effect of the termination of our energy ties on the German economy. This is a sad result. Many large-scale industrial enterprises are looking for a place to land, not just on German territory. Both the United States and Asia are opening up, but the economic conditions are such that they become uncompetitive. And this, by the way, can have serious consequences for the European economy as a whole, because the German economy (everyone knows this well, no offense to any other Europeans) is the locomotive of the European economy. She will sneeze and cough – everyone else will immediately get the flu. The French economy is also teetering on the brink of recession, as everyone knows. And if the German one goes lower, the whole of Europe will shake.

You know, I'm not calling for breaking any Euro-Atlantic ties, I don't want to, otherwise they will start (you or not you), someone will hear what I'm saying, and they will say: here he is calling for a split in Euro-Atlantic solidarity. No, look, you have what I believe is a flawed policy, just a blunder at every turn. I think that for the United States itself, what is happening now is a big, major mistake. Because of the desire to maintain leadership, and by such means as they do, they cause damage to themselves. But this is even worse for Europe. Yes, you could say :" We support you here, here and here, but this is ours. Look, if we undermine our economy, it will be bad for everyone. In no case should this be done, we are against it, it is taboo, do not attempt it."

But today's federal government doesn't do that either. To be honest, I even sometimes get lost, where is the logic of this behavior? Well, they were going to undermine the Russian economy and expected it to happen within three, four, or six months. But they still see that this is not happening. Last year, our economy grew by 3.4 percent, and this year, in the first quarter of this year, the Russian economy grew by 5.4 percent. Moreover, the World Bank recalculated (we set a goal), according to international financial and economic structures, we were in the fifth place in terms of purchasing power parity in the world and set a goal to reach the fourth place. I think that you are following the opinion of colleagues of international financial institutions. The World Bank recently, quite recently, last week, in my opinion, calculated our GDP and came to the conclusion that we are overtaking Japan. According to the World Bank, Russia is now the fourth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity. In other words, this goal has been achieved.

This is not important, of course, it is not an end in itself. It is important to keep up the pace and move forward, and we are still managing to do this, because in the first quarter, as I said, growth was 5.4 percent of GDP. But what am I saying? Not to show off, but so that those who are trying to hinder us, harm us, and slow down our development should understand that what they are doing is more harmful to themselves than to us. Having understood this, we must draw some conclusions and somehow correct our behavior. For yourself, your loved ones. No, this is not happening.

I don't want to offend anyone, but in my opinion, the level of professional training of those people who make decisions, including in the Federal Republic, leaves much to be desired.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Romanchik.

It seems to me that it would be logical not to stray too far from the European theme now and give the floor to France – France, where it is quite officially allowed to send European military personnel to the territory of Ukraine.

Our guest is Karim Talbi, Editor-in-Chief of the European information agency France-Press. Mr. Talbi, by the way, speaks excellent Russian, because, like Martin Romanchik, he worked as a correspondent in Moscow for a long time.

Please, Mr Talby, your question.

Kirill Talby: Mr President, my question also concerns Ukraine.

Why still can't you tell us the number of losses of Russian soldiers in Ukraine during the fighting?

Vladimir Putin: If that's all you're interested in, I can tell you that, as a rule, no one ever talks about it at all. And if they do, they usually distort the real numbers.

I can tell you quite confidently that our losses, especially if it concerns, unfortunately, irreplaceable losses, they are, of course, many times less than on the Ukrainian side.

I can accurately name the numbers of people who are being held by both sides, in short, are in captivity. There are 1,348 of our soldiers and officers on the Ukrainian side. I know these numbers because we work with them every day. And just recently, you know, there was an exchange: 75 people were exchanged for 75 people. We have 6465 Ukrainian soldiers.

Approximately, if we talk about irretrievable losses, namely irretrievable, then the ratio is the same: one to about five. This is what we will proceed from. This, by the way, is what the attempt to conduct a total mobilization in Ukraine is connected with, because there are very large losses on the battlefield.

You know, it looks something like this: according to our calculations, the Ukrainian army loses 50 thousand people a month – these are sanitary and irrevocable losses, both of which, although their irrevocable and sanitary losses are approximately 50-50. And the fact that total mobilization is being carried out now does not solve the problems. Because, according to our data (we receive from various sources), they recruit about 30 thousand [people] a month, mobilize them-by force, not by force, mostly now, of course, they are forcibly grabbed on the streets. There are not many people who want to fight there.

Last month, the month before last, they scored about 50-55 thousand, according to our data. But that doesn't solve the problem. Do you know why? Because all this mobilization only covers losses, it is all used to make up for losses. And this is such a cardinal problem that leads to a decrease in the age of mobilization: now they have gone from 27 [years] to 25.

We just know from the Ukrainian side (there it is a secret of Polichinel, there are no secrets at all): the US administration insists on gradually lowering the threshold from 25 to 23, then to 20 years, and then to 18, or immediately to 18. Because now they already require registration of 17-year-olds. We know this for sure: this is a demand from the US administration to the Ukrainian leadership, which can be considered leadership after the elections were canceled.

In any case, – I said this publicly recently, in my opinion, when I met with the press, leaving Uzbekistan after the visit – - I think that the US administration will force the current leadership of Ukraine to make these decisions-to lower the mobilization age to 18 years,and then they will simply get rid of Zelensky. But first, all this must be done, because this is not an easy story: the law must be adopted, certain steps must be taken.

Now we have June 2024. I think it takes a year to do all this. Until the beginning of next year, at least it will be tolerated, and when it does everything, they will say "goodbye" and change it. There are several candidates, as far as I understand.

But this is associated with heavy losses. I said 50 thousand, but this is the most conservative estimate. 50 thousand is what we see on the battlefield. If we keep in mind that there are still losses, which we know that they exist, but we cannot calculate, they are somewhere in the depths, in the rear, then in fact more. If about losses.

K. Talby: Let me ask you an additional question about our loss, AFP.

Vladimir Putin: About what?

K. Talby: We had a journalist Armand Solden, who died in Ukraine on May 9, 2023. He died, most likely, according to our estimates, after being hit by drones. The Ministry in France is investigating. Due to the fact that it was in the area of Chasova Yar in Ukraine, it is assumed that the drone came from Russia. That's not even the question.

The French Ministry wants to conduct an investigation. Is Russia ready to cooperate with France in this investigation so that we can know what really happened?

It was a great tragedy for us, for AFP, of course, for his family, he was 32 years old. Therefore, we really want to see some real and serious work in the investigation to know what happened, if Russia was involved in this, of course.

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have never given up any investigations. Do you know how many journalists were killed in the war zone? (To Dmitry Peskov.) How much, Dim, do you remember?

Dmitry Peskov: 30 people.

Vladimir Putin: At least 30 of our journalists were killed, and no one gives us the opportunity to investigate what happened to them. This is the first one.

Second. If we talk about what is happening in Ukraine, an American journalist was tortured there in prison, in the dungeons of the Kiev regime. Unlike you, the United States is not even asking for an investigation into what happened to him. American citizen, journalist. He was captured at the border, dragged to prison, and he died there, he was tortured simply in the literal sense of the word. No one bothered to ask what really happened to him.

So, yes, despite this, we are ready to organize this work. I don't know how this can be done in practice if a person died in a war zone. But please, we will do our best.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr. Talby.

And now I invite you to join our colleague from Iran, the Director General of the IRNA news Agency, Mr. Ali Naderi. We really appreciate that you, Mr. Naderi, despite the recent tragedy of the plane crash and the death of President Raisi and the ongoing election campaign in your country, still found the time to fly to St. Petersburg. Once again, I would like to express my deepest condolences to you, our Iranian colleagues and the entire Iranian people.

Your question, Mr. Naderi, please.

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

Indeed, we are now mourning the loss of our President, our Foreign Minister, and a number of administration officials. You mentioned in your letter that relations really developed under Mr. Raisi. This is one of the achievements of our President. You pointed out the role that Mr. Raisi played in expanding bilateral relations, as well as regional relations. The question I would like to ask you is: what program does your government and administration plan to continue expanding relations with Iran, and what is it? Perhaps there were some agreements reached with Mr. Raisi? Also, what are the prospects for Iran and Russia in the future? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We have good relations between Russia and Iran, and in many areas. We-both Russia and Iran-are under different sanctions, under different sanctions regimes.

When we recently got acquainted with the level of development of some industries in Iran, I was surprised how our Iranian friends managed to maintain such a high level of production in some areas under these conditions of long-term sanctions. Of course, not all of them, but some of them are just amazing. But the fact remains.

We have a whole plan for working together. We are developing trade and economic ties. Of course, I would very much like us to make additional efforts in the direction of development in the field of high technologies. Given these limitations, this is not so easy to do, but it is possible. And, of course, we will do it.

As for President Raisi who passed away as a result of this tragedy, I would like to say that we had very reliable, good and business relations. He was a very interesting person, he was a serious politician, a reliable partner. In relation to everyday life, a little ironic, with a developed sense of humor. It was interesting to maintain relations with him, interesting and useful. I repeat once again, if we agreed on something with him, we could be sure that the topic we are talking about will not be forgotten. This does not mean that everything is 100% resolved, because it is not only up to the top officials to decide this or that issue, but this topic will not be forgotten, and we have worked together on both sides to improve our relations.

It was under President Raisi that Iran became both a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and a member of BRICS. This still shows that we have moved together in a clear direction, primarily in terms of creating a multipolar world. Iran has played and continues to play a very important role in this, of course.

The only thing I would like to say in concluding my answer to your question is that we very much hope that everything that was laid down by President Raisi in Russian-Iranian relations will continue. I have no big doubts about this, because everything we do is in our mutual interests. We know about the stability of the Iranian statehood, how the supreme power is formed in Iran, we know that not only the president and not only the people around him think about the development of Iranian-Russian relations, but also the supreme leader, the spiritual leader of Iran, does a lot for this.

We are waiting for the Iranian presidential election to take place. I hope to meet the new President of Iran at international events – both the SCO and BRICS. I am sure that we will find a common language and will work on the implementation of all the plans that were outlined by the deceased President of Raisi.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Naderi.

The next participant in our dialogue is a good friend of the TASS news agency, editor – in-chief of the Chinese news agency Xinhua, Lu Yansong. Mr. Lu speaks excellent Russian, and we know very well that he also likes to sing Russian songs and is very fond of Soviet cinema.

Mr. Lu, you have the floor.

(as translated) Lu Yansong: Mr. President, you recently made a state visit to China.

You have quite close relations with China, which is a model of relations between major powers with each other. How do you assess your cooperation with China? How do you assess the impact that this cooperation has on the regions? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for bilateral relations, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that they are not situational in nature, they are based on deep mutual interests. After all, China has been our main trade and economic partner for 15 years. In other words, we began to develop our relations and brought them to the current level not in connection with any conjunctural political events of the current day, but long before that, based on mutual interests. We acted very carefully, calmly, and in stages. I must say that almost everything works out for us.

Now the volume of trade turnover exceeds our expectations. According to Chinese statistics, this is 240 billion dollars, according to our statistics, a little less, about 230 approximately.

But it's not even about the volume of trade turnover. The fact is that we are diversifying it, and quite successfully. This applies not only to hydrocarbons, but also to energy. We supply oil, gas, coal, and electricity to China. We are building nuclear power plants in the People's Republic of China, and all this is happening quite successfully.

We also have good prospects in the field of high technologies, I mean the aircraft industry, I mean artificial intelligence. You know, we are very happy for China, for the success that the People's Republic of China is showing in so many areas, including, say, in space.

These are simply unique achievements, and the Chinese Communist Party is the leading political force in China. Of course, everything that is being done is under the leadership of the Communist Party of the People's Republic of China.

Do you know what I would like to draw your attention to? I don't remember, I've already mentioned it somewhere, I don't know if it will be interesting in such a company or not, but some of our experts and good economists are quite young people, but they are quite experienced. What do they say? They say that an analysis of what is happening in, say, the Chinese economy, and an analysis of what is happening in the economies of other countries around the world, including the leading economies, including the United States, shows that the Chinese have managed to create such a very peculiar, but very effective model of economic development, which is more efficient than the rest of the world. More efficient than in the same States. And judging by the results of the Chinese economy, it seems that this is the case. Yes, you can swear a lot, argue with the Chinese leadership, which is what some of our Western colleagues are doing, say that they have something not marketable, say that they set the yuan exchange rate by decisions of the Politburo, and so on, you can say anything, but the result is known to everyone.

And the result is such that it indicates that such a model is more efficient. Well, who can blame China for this? Market, not market... one and a half billion people. The Chinese leadership must think of everyone. Not all of these one and a half billion people live like the average European or average American. Therefore, the Chinese leadership has the right to apply such methods of economic management in order to meet the urgent needs of its people, its citizens, which the Chinese leadership, led by the leader, the President of the People's Republic of China and my good friend, as we say all the time on both sides, is doing, and is doing, by the way, very regularly and very reliably. Well, you can only be happy.

We know everything that is happening in the economies of the world's leading countries, including China. But in general, it is very reliable and is becoming more and more high-tech. It seems to me that this is a big mistake on the part of the United States or some European countries that want or are trying to somehow slow down the Chinese economy, because, in my opinion, in order to be successful themselves, it would be necessary to integrate into these processes, and not try to prevent them.

The Chinese have an overproduction of cars, including an overproduction of electric cars. Who says that? Is this being said by people who consider themselves marketers? Don't they understand, don't they know who determines whether there is overproduction or not? This determines the market. If China produces a certain number of cars, and the market absorbs all this, takes it away, what kind of overproduction are we talking about? It's just nonsense, isn't it?

How can you call it overproduction? No, this is called something else, it is called an attempt to limit growth by non-market means. And this is harmful, including in this case, for the American economy. Why? Because they won't take goods from China. What will it lead to? They will do something themselves or buy something somewhere else, which is more expensive, which means that inflation will grow in the same States, and inflation will negatively affect the entire economy of the country that does this. And this is harmful, in this case for the American economy itself. This is a mistake, another mistake of the current administration.

As far as China is concerned, it is developing at the pace that China needs under the able and very professional leadership of President Xi Jinping.

As for other sectors and areas, I have been talking about this all the time, and here I can only repeat that our cooperation in the international arena is a deterrent and an element of stability.

But you know, in addition to the economy and issues of ensuring mutual security – and we, as you know, are conducting exercises and will continue to do so in the future, including military exercises - we are working in the field of military-technical cooperation, here we have something to offer our Chinese friends, and our Chinese colleagues are interested We have friends to work together in this area.

But our cooperation is not limited to this – neither to the economy, nor to military-technical cooperation, nor to cooperation in the international arena. This year we have announced mutual years of culture. And I think that what our host said here, that you also know Russian songs and speak Russian, is, in my opinion, at least as important as everything else I said. Because it creates the basis of relations between peoples, creates a favorable environment for the development of relations in all other areas. This is what we will stick to on both sides. And I hope that in the near future we will also be able to meet and discuss all these issues with the President of the People's Republic of China at the platforms I have already mentioned – both the SCO and BRICS.

(speaks Russian) Lu Yansong: Mr President, you know that I have interviewed you three times. Of course, it was a long time ago, the first time was in 2002. Those interviews are [one] in Moscow and two in Beijing. Once, the fourth interview, in your hometown. I'm very happy about it.

Thank you. I wish you all the best.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Lu.

And we give the floor to Spain. Spanish news agency EFE. Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote. He is the Director of International Relations for his agency. In addition to being an experienced journalist, he is also an excellent specialist in the field of history and philosophy, as well as an expert in the field of European integration issues.

Please, Mr. Sans Mingote, your question.

: (as translated)H.Sans Mingote Thank you very much, Mr. President, for the opportunity to meet you.

I don't speak Russian, but I've read Russian authors. I know the huge contribution that Russia makes to culture, science, and art. I think, from a personal point of view, it is such a pity that we are living in such a difficult international situation.

My question will be delicate. You know that from tomorrow until Sunday, 25 European countries are holding elections. And you know that analysts, experts, as well as high representatives and senior officials of European states say that Russia is to blame for spreading disinformation in order to destabilize the electoral process in Europe.

How can you comment on this? Do you think the Russian government is behind this disinformation campaign? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Listen, we have just spoken with your colleague from Germany about the situation in the European economy as a whole.

A derivative of the state of the economy is the situation in the field of social policy, in the field of income of citizens, in the field of preserving and creating new jobs, in the field of their consumption. European countries are generally well-off countries. The main thing that concerns citizens is their material well-being. But as a result of the policies of the vast majority of Western countries, including European countries, this well – being, to which people have been accustomed for decades, is, if not disappearing, then at risk. People understand this and feel it. In my opinion, this is the main reason why traditional political parties, as well as the entire parliamentary democracy, are going through difficult times. And if someone, including, first of all, in Europe, not wanting to analyze the mistakes that they make in the course of their work, tries to blame it on external conditions, then this is another mistake that will not allow them to draw correct conclusions about what is happening in reality. This is the first part.

And the second one is that our mass media in terms of volume, in terms of the possibility of influencing a particular audience, are in no way comparable to the capabilities of Western mass media, both electronic and printed – whatever.

And if you ask your colleague (I am now simply afraid to give inaccurate figures), then everywhere our journalists try to work, they are hindered everywhere, well, just everywhere. They intimidate their employees, close their bank accounts, take away their transport – whatever they do. Is this freedom of speech? Of course not. The only thing that our mass media representatives and your Russian colleagues do is to share the Russian point of view on certain processes that are taking place in the world, in our country and in Europe. We have different points of view, but is the point of the media's work only to serve governments? Even if this is the point of view of the Russian Government, can we not convey this point of view to listeners, viewers and Internet users in other countries? Isn't this the free dissemination of information, whether you like it or not?

What should I do if I don't like the information or someone considers it biased? It is necessary to present a different point of view and make it more convincing than the one that someone does not like, and not to close down the media, in this case Russian, which are constantly being harassed in Europe, and in the United States it is almost the same. Yes, there are only one or two of them, and they are constantly choking and crushing. And at the same time, they also refer to the fact that someone says that we have some influence on public opinion in Western countries. If you look simply at the volume of what we are able to deliver to the information market of European countries,it seems ridiculous.

The question is not that someone is leading some kind of malicious policy towards the European Union in this case. The question is what state the ruling circles of the leading European countries have brought their economy and social sphere to, and how they conduct their policies in the international arena, whether people like it or not. I will repeat what I started with: you don't need to look for those responsible on the side, you need to understand your own actions. Only this will allow you to conduct a correct analysis, draw conclusions and correct something. If, of course, someone thinks that something needs to be corrected.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Sans Mingote. Thank you for your question.

And we have Kazakhstan. General Director of the Kazinform News Agency Askar Dzhaldinov.

Askar Muratovich, please ask your question.

A. Dzhaldinov: Mr President, please tell us what is the future of relations between Kazakhstan and Russia as neighboring states?

Vladimir Putin: I think it's very good, there's no other way to say it. We have not just very close, but allied, strategic relations. As for Russia and Kazakhstan, we can speak in the full sense of the word.

This also applies to trade and economic ties, which are growing steadily every year. The growing level of trade shows this.

We have a lot of areas of our cooperation. I won't even list everything right now: this includes energy, industrial cooperation, space, and a lot of other things.

We have a huge joint border. People communicate with each other, 76 subjects of the Russian Federation have direct relations with the corresponding territories in Kazakhstan, direct connections. By the way, they are probably more effective and work best because people communicate directly with each other, know each other, trust each other, and so on.

Kassym-Jomart Kemelevich, President Tokayev, and I are in constant contact. We have developed a very kind, trusting and friendly relationship with him.

Now, if we talk about energy, we will not only supply gas to Uzbekistan, we will also do the same with regard to Kazakhstan-northern Kazakhstan needs our energy carriers. Yes, Kazakhstan itself produces gas, but nevertheless there are entire large regions of Kazakhstan that need gas supply. And it's easier to get money from us and cheaper than building new routes there that will cost billions of dollars.

To be honest, I don't see a single issue that would be controversial and that would somehow complicate our relations. We talked about cooperation with China. We have 90 percent of our trade turnover in national currencies with the People's Republic of China. The same thing is happening in our relations with Kazakhstan. There are probably almost 100 percent of them, almost all in national currencies.

By the way, as for the United States – I have already mentioned this – the day after tomorrow at the economic forum there will certainly be similar questions, so we will talk. One of the colossal mistakes of the US Administration is that they prohibit the use of the dollar in international settlements and make it an instrument of some kind of struggle. Complete nonsense-they undermine confidence in the dollar. Ridiculously simple. Ridiculous. Here, with clenched teeth, anything, but you need to protect the dollar, protect it, do not touch it, raise its value, raise its authority. They just kill him with their own hands.

This encourages us to switch to, say, national currencies in our calculations. But as it turned out, this does not prevent us from developing relations, on the contrary, it even helps and strengthens our national currencies. Both in the humanitarian field and in the field of education, that is, we are working very actively together in almost all areas, including thanks to President Tokayev, as he supports our cooperation in all these areas.

We are going to Astana soon, the SCO will be there, and then there will be all sorts of other events, I have an invitation, and I will certainly use it.

Alexey Kondrashov: We will move on to the next participant – this is Stefano Polli, Deputy Editor-in-chief of the Italian news agency ANSA. Mr. Polly, by the way, as well as Samia Nakhul from Reuters, has a very rich experience in working in hot spots. In general, the Italian agency ANSA did not miss any such meeting with you, this is our regular guest.

Please have the floor, Mr. Polly.

:(as translated)S. Polly Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. President!

Thank you for organizing this meeting. I would like to ask a question about the latest developments in Ukraine. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg suggested that Ukraine should be given the opportunity to hit targets in Russia with weapons that are supplied from Europe. European countries agreed with this idea and the United States. Not all of them, but the United States is included. At the same time, there is a discussion in some countries about sending military advisers and trainers.

I would like to ask you to comment on these two decisions and how Russia will react to them. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: From the point of view of the availability of advisers and instructors, there is no novelty here. They are present on the territory of Ukraine. Unfortunately for them, they suffer losses. I know this for sure, it's not done on purpose, but in the course of combat operations, losses occur. However, in European countries and States they prefer to keep silent about this. This is the first one.

Second, as for long-range precision weapons. Here you need to divide this topic into two parts.

First. This is a conventional weapon, a multiple launch rocket system, a long-range 70 kilometers and something similar. It has been used for a long time. Indeed, Ukrainian military personnel can do this on their own. And as for modern high-tech weapons of destruction, high-precision and long-range, such as the British Storm Shadow or the American ATACMS, or French missiles, what can we say here? By the way, I already mentioned this when I left Uzbekistan.

ATACMS – 300 kilometers. How are they used and transmitted? So they handed over the missile system (the Pentagon handed it over, the Americans handed it over). But how is it used? Ukrainian military personnel cannot do everything on their own and launch strikes with this missile. They are simply technologically unable to do this. To do this, you need to have satellite intelligence, then, based on this satellite intelligence (and this is American satellite intelligence), form a flight task, and then enter it into the rocket system. And the soldier who is next to her, he does it just automatically-presses the buttons. He may not even know what will happen next.

What Ukrainian servicemen can take part in-not those who sit and press buttons, but at a higher level-in choosing a target. They can tell you which goal is a priority and necessary for them. But they do not decide whether to strike this target or not, because, I repeat, a flight task is being formed and it is only introduced by those who supply these weapons. If it's ATACMS, then the Pentagon is doing it. If Storm Shadow, then the British are doing it. And in the case of Storm Shadow, it's even easier. Simplicity lies in the fact that the flight task is entered automatically, without the participation of military personnel on the ground, automatically. The British do it, so that's it.

And when the Bundeswehr soldiers thought about whether to strike at the Crimean Bridge, or at other objects to strike, they thought for themselves. No one thought for them, right? That's what they were going to do. The same applies to French specialists. This is done by Western experts.

So here we have no illusions about this. What should we do in response?

First. Of course, we will improve our air defense systems. We will destroy them.

Second. We think that if someone thinks it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike at our territory and create problems for us, then why don't we have the right to supply our weapons of the same class to those regions of the world where sensitive objects of those countries that are being attacked will be attacked? they do this in relation to Russia. In other words, the answer may be symmetric. We'll think about it.

The third. Of course, such actions will be final, and even now they have reached the highest degree of degradation, but they will completely destroy international relations and undermine international security. Ultimately, if we see these countries being drawn into a war against us, and this is their direct participation in the war against the Russian Federation, then we reserve the right to act in the same way. But, in general, this is the way to very serious problems. Perhaps that's all. If you have any leading questions, please. But I don't think I can add much.

Alexander Kondrashov: Mr. Polly, will you ask any more questions? Or did you hear everything you wanted to hear?

S. Polly: I have another question, but I don't know if this is the right time to ask it.

Vladimir Putin: There won't be another moment, we'll go our separate ways now and that's it. So this one is suitable.

S. Polly: I wanted to ask a question about Italy, if possible.

Italy supports Ukraine politically and militarily, but also says that Italy is not at war with Russia. I would like you to comment on the position of the Italian leadership.

Vladimir Putin: We see that the position of the Italian government is more restrained than the policy of many other European countries, and we pay attention to this and assess it accordingly. We see that there is no cave-in Russophobia in Italy, and we also seem to have this in mind. We very much hope that we will eventually be able to restore relations with Italy, perhaps even faster than with any other European country, after the situation is somehow corrected in the Ukrainian direction.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Polly.

And our next step is Korea, Vice President of Digital Development at the Yonhap news agency, Mr. Park Sang-hyun. Please ask your question.

:(as translated)Park Sang-hyun Russia cooperates with Korea in the development of the Far East.

When you attended the presentation of your credentials by the South Korean Ambassador in Moscow, you said that Russia is ready to build relations with South Korea. What are your plans in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: You know, just as with regard to Italy, I can say that we see that there is no Russophobic attitude in the work of the leadership of the Republic of Korea. There are no direct deliveries of any weapons to the conflict zone, and we highly appreciate this. But we also see that there are all sorts of approaches, the acquisition of weapons by American companies for subsequent deployment to the combat zone in Ukraine. We are also watching this closely. But we very much hope that Russian-Korean relations will not deteriorate, bearing in mind our interest in developing bilateral relations on the Korean Peninsula as a whole.

Unfortunately, everything that happens has negative consequences for trade and economic relations. We very much hope that the level of our relations reached in previous decades will still be preserved, at least in part, in order to be able to restore them in the future.

Today, unfortunately, Korea has created certain problems in many areas of our cooperation – which is a pity. We work with other countries, although we would continue to work with Korea, but this is not our choice, it is the choice of the Korean leadership. On our part, the channels are open and we are ready.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr. Park, for your question.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, let me ask you a question from the TASS news agency.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

Alexander Kondrashov: I want us to return to the Russian economy. This is from the category, as from an anecdote – "so I would listen". You have already told us about the current state of the economy.

Remember, there were such wonderful people who said that the Russian economy was already torn to shreds, then, and now, we were imposed thousands of sanctions, and we have a special military operation going on for the third year. And the future prospects of the economy are as good as its current state? What do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Some of our detractors believe that these numerous sanctions, which there are 16-17 thousand of them, and there is no other country in the world against which such a large number of sanctions would be imposed, of course, interfere, this is absolutely true. And these detractors believed that in the medium term, this will somehow negatively affect us, and this has a certain basis. Those who think so have a right to think so. This is especially true for high technologies, some other modern areas of activity, artificial intelligence, microelectronics, and so on. In fact, everyone knows everything, problematic things.

But there are two buts here. First of all, the" Kokomov " lists regarding Russia have not been canceled even in the very first years of our relations with the so-called collective West. Here's what's interesting. That is, there were restrictions anyway. And I have every reason to believe that we would not have been able to count on any close cooperation in the most sensitive high-tech areas anyway. I couldn't count on that. But problems, of course, are created. We can see them. But strange as it may seem, and perhaps even for us, we overcome them.

What we used to buy in large quantities, when we were faced with the fact that we can not buy, we have to turn on our brains, we have to turn to our not only manufacturers, but also to our developers who make it. They do not just take the places of Western manufacturers who are leaving or have left our market, they pick them up and quickly develop them. I think that not only did our detractors not expect such an effect, but we ourselves partly did not expect it.

The most primitive example, I now will not say from what area. We bought, by the way, a tank of some kind in France, just quite primitive, but nevertheless there are complex metals, and so on. They stopped delivering it. I say: "And what did you do?" You placed an order, I think, in Nizhny Novgorod. I ask: "Did you do it?" They did it, no worse, even better in quality, and three times cheaper. Do you understand what's going on? This is the simplest example, believe me, from life.

And so on in so many areas of activity. Hence this growth. I think that this is the reason for such growth – 3.4 percent of GDP. But this growth will still have certain limitations. The niches occupied by our manufacturers and the next steps to develop these niches, from which the Western manufacturer has left, and growth on this basis still has some limitations. We understand that.

Therefore, one of the main goals for our development, the strategic guidelines that we set for ourselves, is technological independence. We intend, we are already doing this, and we intend to invest some considerable resources in the future in order to catch up with what we still need to catch up with. Or, perhaps, to make some kind of forward movement so as to skip some redevelopments. We understand this and are aware of it.

Whether we will succeed or not, I can't say in advance, but we are still optimistic that we will succeed, especially if we are forced to do so. If all of a sudden everything changes and we are given cheap high-tech goods... it's not about the government, it's about the participants in economic activity. Participants in economic activity can jump, you know, jump to a Western manufacturer that provides goods of sufficiently good quality and at reasonable prices. But if this does not happen, we will have to do it ourselves. Yes, we may have to shift some of the goals to the right, as they say in the governments, that is, to shift the deadlines, but we will do it, we will mostly do it.

I keep giving this example: we are making a MC-21 aircraft, and there is a wing, and this is a modern aircraft made of modern materials, harnesses made of modern materials are inserted into the wing. The US administration took and put them under sanctions, meaning that they are allegedly dual-use. It's a complete mess, there's nothing dual-use there. In connection with what? Due to the fact that this is a competitor to the Boeing 737, in my opinion, I do not remember, the same medium-haul aircraft. Well, yes, and our production seems to have stopped a little. We had to work on it, but we did it: we went right on schedule for two years, though. Everything, now done, the plane is flying.

I have no doubt that we will do everything. The only question is timing. Of course, deadlines are also important, because while we are doing something, someone is already moving ahead. We also understand this and will try to work ahead of schedule. That is, thank God, we don't have anything critical about what is happening to overcome these sanctions. And I hope it doesn't arise.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you very much, Mr President.

It is very logical now to approach the country that leads in the number of sanctions against Russia – this is the United States of America. 3,500 people were sanctioned against us.

James Jordan, Editor-in-Chief of the European and African news service of the American news agency Associated Press, is at the table with us today. Please, Mr. Jordan, your question to President Putin.

:(as translated)D. Jordan Thank you very much! Thank you, President Putin, for the opportunity to address you directly.

More than two years ago, you sent Russian troops to Ukraine, as you say, in order to protect Russian citizens and also Russian-speaking citizens in the Donbas and to ensure the security of Russia's eastern border. Since then, thousands of people have died on both sides. Hostile actions have even spread to some Russian regions.

In the last few hours, Western officials have confirmed to our agency that Ukraine has used Western weapons on Russian territory in the past few days. Do you think this is an additional provocation (as a follow-up to my colleague's question)? What do you think Moscow has achieved over the past two years? And how can we put an end to the fighting?

Vladimir Putin: The first thing we did was to fulfill our duty to the people who suffered from the coup d'etat and the subsequent fighting in the south – east of Ukraine. We have recognized the rights of these people who live in these territories to protect their interests, their lives and the lives of their children. And this, in my opinion, is the main thing.

We have also shown ourselves and the world that we are not only talking about protecting our interests, but we are doing it and will continue to do it, without any doubt. And everyone will have to reckon with this.

As for the second part of your question – what needs to be done to stop the fighting in Ukraine-as a representative of the United States, I can tell you what I once said to Mr. Biden. He once sent me a letter, and I replied in writing: if you want to stop fighting in Ukraine, stop supplying weapons, and these actions will stop within two, maximum three months. That's all. This is the first one.

Second. We call on no one to interfere with the possible peace process.

Dear Mr. Jordan, I must now recall what happened at the end of 2022. After all, we agreed with Ukraine that we are ready to sign an agreement with them that answered several key questions.

The first issue for Ukraine is the system of ensuring its security. And Ukraine in the draft of this agreement spelled it out in such a way that it is not a member of NATO, it adheres to neutrality, but security is spelled out in such a way that it is very close to the NATO Charter, Articles 4 and 5 of the NATO Charter. Probably, there is no need to go into details, but this meant that all the signatories would have to provide military assistance to Ukraine if necessary, and so on, and so on. This is a difficult issue for us, and I said that we need to think about it, but it is possible to discuss it.

The same applied to Russia's interests. This, I repeat once again, is the neutral status of Ukraine, its non-entry into any blocs. This is a limitation of armaments to a certain extent, and so on, and this is certainly something that the Russian Federation is interested in.

In addition, as you may remember, we talked about the denazification of Ukraine. And I was very surprised when people started asking me: "What is denazification?" This is a ban on the legislative level of propaganda of Nazism. Strange as it may seem, we also have a common platform here, as well as on other key issues necessary to resolve this crisis situation in a peaceful way. And if the head of the negotiating group on the part of Ukraine signed an excerpt from this big agreement, initialed this document, I think this indicates that this suited the Ukrainian side as a whole. And if we accepted it, it means that it generally suited Russia as well.

I don't want to put you in any difficult position, but nevertheless I will ask a rhetorical question: why did Mr. Johnson come to Kiev and recommend throwing this agreement in the trash? Why did he set a goal for his Ukrainian colleagues to achieve victory on the battlefield, to achieve a strategic defeat of Russia?

The Ukrainian side and its officials have publicly stated that if they had signed this agreement definitively, the war would have ended at the end of 2022. This is not what we said, it was said publicly by Ukrainian officials in Kiev.

I have a rhetorical question: why was it necessary to prevent us from signing this agreement with Ukraine? I can only assume that someone wanted to achieve the goals that they set for themselves in the Russian direction of their foreign policy, namely, to bring things to the destruction of Russia, to achieve its strategic defeat at any cost, and so on, and so on.

You asked me what to do. I hope that I gave a fairly complete answer. When you have the opportunity to talk to the leadership of your country, please ask them: why did you prevent the conclusion of a peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine?

What I've told you is just my guess as to why they did it. But maybe there is some other, more complete and official answer. But I can't fully answer for my colleagues from the United States and Great Britain, of course.

And I have no doubt that Mr. Johnson came and did this not only on his own initiative, but also, I am sure, with the support of the US Administration.

David Jordan: Thank you, Mr. President.

With your permission, let me ask you one more brief question that is not related to Ukraine? This concerns journalist Evan Hershkovich, who has been imprisoned for more than a year. So far, no evidence has been released regarding the crimes committed by him. Can you tell us about the negotiations that may be currently underway with the United States regarding his release? When can we see it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you believe that he is innocent of anything, and the Russian law enforcement agencies and special services believe that he committed illegal actions, which are called espionage. I won't go into any more details and details right now. I know that the United States Administration is indeed taking vigorous steps to secure his release, and that is true. But such issues are not resolved through the mass media, they like such a quiet, calm professional approach and dialogue between the special services. And of course, they should be resolved only on the basis of reciprocity. The relevant services of the United States and Russia are in contact with each other on this issue.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

And we have Turkey. Deputy Director General, Editor-in-Chief of the Turkish news agency Anadolu Yusuf Ozhan.

Please, Mr. Ozhan, your question.

:(as translated)Yu. Ozhan Thank you very much, Mr. President, for inviting us today.

I want to ask a question that builds on a question I asked three years ago. It was on Zoom, the issue concerns Gaza, the war in the Gaza Strip. Millions of people around the world are protesting against the attacks on the people of Gaza, which is reaching the level of genocide at the moment. How and does Russia want to play a role in finding a solution to what is currently happening in Gaza? Do you want to use the mechanisms of the Security Council? Because not only the people of Gaza, but also the people of Palestine in general, as well as people of different backgrounds, religions, ethnicities, people who have nothing to do with Palestine at all, in principle, people all over the world, world powers are calling for an end to what is happening now in the Gaza Strip.

Vladimir Putin: The first thing I want to say is that, of course, we are against terrorism in all its manifestations, against attacks against civilians, in any place and in any country.

But what is happening now in Gaza in response to the well-known terrorist attack in Israel is still not very similar to a war. This is some kind of total destruction of the civilian population.

I can only repeat Russia's official position on this issue. We believe that this is the result of the policy of the United States, which monopolized the Israeli-Palestinian settlement and pushed aside all the previously created tools for collective attempts to resolve this very difficult issue.

Maybe someone in the administration thought that the fewer opinions, the faster it is possible to reach some kind of agreement, but practice has shown that this is not the case. First.

Second. To solve the problem with the help of some material handouts is also unpromising. We talked about it. It was said that it is unlikely to be possible to substitute the solution of political issues related to the fate of the Palestinian people for the historical perspective by distributing some economic gingerbread. Yes, this is necessary to create an atmosphere for solving certain problems, but it still needs to be solved in essence.

We need to resolve political issues. And what is the main one? This is the creation of two states, as was originally envisaged in the UN decision: to create two states on this territory-a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. Therefore, without addressing the key issues, I think it is hardly possible to resolve the issue on its merits.

I must say that in this sense, the Russian position is principled, it is not subject to any current conjuncture. We have long recognized the Palestinian State as such since Soviet times. But this is pointless, our opposition has not changed. We know that President Erdogan is making vigorous efforts to solve this very acute and long-standing problem. And given the authority of President Erdogan in the region, in the world, and in the Islamic world, we very much hope that his contribution will be noticeable. For our part, we are ready to do everything that depends on Russia to resolve the situation, including taking into account our relations that have developed with the State of Israel over the past decades.

Alexander Kondrashov: Mr. Ozhan, do you have a second question while you still have the opportunity?

Yu.Ozhan: Yes, I have another question, it is related to the relations between Turkey and Russia. You have been negotiating for the last ten years, and one of the megaprojects that Turkey and Russia have built together is the Akkuyu nuclear power plant. So now, looking ahead, are there any changes on the Russian side, any progress in the construction of the gas hub-center, which has been discussed in recent years? Is there any news from the Russian side about this project, or are there any other future projects that are being discussed between the two countries? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for Akkuyu ,everything is going according to plan, everything is on schedule, everything is absolutely on schedule, there are no delays, a large number of people are working, mainly construction workers. Builders from Turkey are involved in carrying out a large volume of construction work. Our specialists work in Turkey, and we are grateful to the Turkish leadership for the conditions that were created for this work. The first block ends, and all blocks are running absolutely normally.

As for hydrocarbons. By the way, I have already mentioned this, and I can repeat it. We are not just building the station, we are also training personnel. We are ready to collect spent fuel and so on. We are creating an industry. This is not just a station, it is a new branch of the Turkish economy and energy. President Erdogan made such a strategic choice, which, in my opinion, is very correct. In particular, it allows you to get rid of dependence on hydrocarbons. What can I say here? We have a very reliable partnership.

As for the gas hub, we are thinking about it. Gazprom is in contact with BOTAS and other partners. Just to make it clear, I always try to explain it: this is not just a gas storage facility, it is an electronic platform at the first stage for gas trade, primarily to Europe.

I would like to draw your attention to this. We also protect the Blue Stream, which is laid along the bottom of the Black Sea to Turkey, and gas flows to supply Turkey itself, and the Turkish Stream ,from which gas goes, among other things, to Europe. We have to guard both of these gas routes along the bottom of the Black Sea, because the Ukrainian armed forces are trying to strike at them and destroy them. In any case, the ships that guard them are constantly under attack.

Just recently, I don't know, probably seven or ten days ago, Ukrainian drones attempted to attack a gas pumping station located on the Black Sea coast and from which gas is supplied to Turkey.

By the way, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that Turkey is cooperating with Ukraine in some areas, while at the same time Ukraine is trying to strike at the gas pipelines that carry gas to Turkey. This is not a joke, this is not an exaggeration at all. Just two drones were suppressed by the electronic warfare systems of the Russian army and fell near this gas pumping station on the Black Sea coast. I'm not making up anything here, I'm not making up anything, that's the way it is. Just please inform our friend President Erdogan about what is happening in reality. And the ships that guard this gas transmission system laid along the bottom of the Black Sea are constantly being attacked by these unmanned boats (UAVs), which, by the way, are supplied by European countries to Ukraine. Here they are launching attacks on our ships in the Black Sea, guarding these two pipeline systems.

We should probably talk about this more often and explain it more clearly, but somehow, from the point of view of propaganda, which our Spanish colleague complained about so much, we are not always doing well. But this happens all the time in reality. But bilateral relations are developing quite successfully, and the trade turnover is growing.

However, this is how I look at what is happening from the outside. It seems to me that the economic block of the Government in Turkey has recently focused on obtaining loans, investments, and grants from Western financial institutions. That's probably not a bad thing. But if this is due to restrictions on trade and economic ties with Russia, then the losses for the Turkish economy will be greater than the gains. In my opinion, such a threat exists. This is a matter for special consideration. We look at the numbers simply. Meanwhile, macroeconomic indicators require special attention from the Turkish Government. I don't want to go into the details, although they are well known to me, I am immersed in the material. I understand what's going on there.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Ozhan.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, you recently paid a three-day state visit to Uzbekistan and assessed it as very fruitful and successful. And now a guest from Tashkent has arrived in St. Petersburg. This is Abdusaid Kuchimov, Director General of the National News agency of Uzbekistan.

Abdusaid Kuchimovich, you have the floor.

Alexey Kuchimov: Thank you.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, during your recent talks in Tashkent, you and President Shavkat Mirziyoyev exchanged views on topical international issues.

Peace and stability in neighboring Afghanistan is extremely important for our Uzbekistan. Unfortunately, we observe that the events in Ukraine have completely displaced the Afghan issue, which is no less acute in our opinion, from the global agenda. Although there is an objective need to build cooperation with the new authorities of Afghanistan, to help solve the socio-economic problems of the long-suffering Afghan people. Moreover, we can see the firm desire of the new Government of Afghanistan, that is, the Taliban, to establish peace in the country and to cooperate constructively with all States.

In this regard, my question. How important is it for the Russian Federation to maintain a dialogue with Afghanistan? Does the Afghan direction now occupy an important place in Russian politics? And what is your attitude to the processes around this country? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to confirm that my visit to Uzbekistan was very thorough, fruitful and productive. This format, perhaps, has never worked out with anyone before, namely, at the initiative of President Mirziyoyev, we not only came to Uzbekistan at the invitation of the President with a large government delegation, but also held a meeting of regional leaders. And it turned out that half of the Russian Government came to Tashkent and a huge number of regional leaders of the Russian Federation. Some heads of Russian regions were happy to communicate even with the leadership of the renewed Government of the Russian Federation in Tashkent, which was interesting, but they also actively interacted with each other. This turned out to be very useful, even unexpected for me. This is the first one.

Second. We also discussed the problem of Ukraine, and President Mirziyoyev, of course, actively supports a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis, and has repeatedly spoken about Uzbekistan's concerns about what is happening in Ukraine. But we are grateful to the president for the fact that Uzbekistan's policy here is clearly so neutral and very balanced.

As for Afghanistan, we have talked a lot about it. The problem that Uzbekistan is facing is the problem of access to the world's oceans, to the seas. There are various options here, including the development of logistics through the territory of Afghanistan, all sorts of different logistics: pipeline transport, rail transport, automobile transport, the supply of energy carriers, electricity, and so on.

And of course, in this regard, stability in Afghanistan is very important for both Uzbekistan and us. And we have always assumed that we must take into account the realities: the Taliban control power in Afghanistan, and, of course, we must ensure that all agreements at the level of the United Nations are implemented, including that the government is inclusive with the participation of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan. This is a delicate and very important question. But we need to build relations with the Taliban government.

In general, we have contacts. I know that Afghanistan is also developing this. We will move on, we need to somehow establish relations with the neighboring country, especially since Uzbekistan has a large length of borders, and we need to ensure security and, I repeat, develop logistics.

We agreed that we will definitely work together on this and explore these opportunities.

Thank you very much.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Abdusaid Kuchimovich.

And finally, our Far Eastern neighbor, Toshimitsu Sawai, Executive Director of the Japanese news agency Kyodo News. Mr. Sawai is actually a very experienced international journalist. Throughout his career, he has worked as a correspondent in various parts of the world, for example, in Kenya, Thailand, Pakistan, and the United States.

Mr. Sawai, please ask your question.

:(as translated)Toshimitsu Sawai Thank you very much, Mr President, for giving me such a valuable opportunity to ask you a question today.

Now in the Far Eastern region of the world there are a lot of things that are of some concern to Japan. First, there are territorial problems with Russia. In addition, this is Russia's military cooperation with North Korea, which is now deepening. These are the two problems we are currently facing in Japan.

As for territorial issues and the territorial problem, this is the question. You said in Khabarovsk this year that you will definitely go to these four disputed Kuril Islands. Do you already have specific plans and schedules? Do you think that we are currently in a situation where negotiations are suspended, and if you visit these territories, our bilateral relations will suffer an even greater blow? Please tell us, how do you plan?

As for the Japanese-Russian negotiations and their resumption. These negotiations were suspended during the period of the CDF in Ukraine. Can the descendants of the former inhabitants of the island be allowed to resume their visits to visit the graves of their ancestors on the islands?

Vladimir Putin: Our relations with Japan have been developing quite confidently and steadily. There were a lot of questions, especially those related to the main, key moment in our relations, this is the peace treaty. The peace treaty, of course, was difficult to resolve without defining issues related to the Kuril Islands. We were aware of this.

Back in the 1950s, as you and I know very well, the Soviet government made a decision, in my opinion, in 1956, and signed a declaration that the Soviet Union was ready to transfer two of these islands to Japan. However, it was not said on what grounds, it was not said under whose sovereignty the islands will be, it was not said about other conditions, perhaps material, or some other. But the idea of the transfer itself was expressed in this declaration. Moreover, it was even ratified by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Then, for some reason, the Japanese side refused to fulfill these agreements. Accordingly, the Soviet Union also announced that it was withdrawing this ratification.

At the request of the Japanese side, we returned to the consideration of these issues. The dialogue was not easy, but it did take place.

You just mentioned a few problems. Visit to the islands. The Russian Federation assumes that it is part of the sovereign territory of Russia, so I don't understand why I should hesitate to visit one of the territories of the Russian Federation. That's the first thing.

Why do we think so? Because the relevant documents were signed, including in the United States, by delegations from both sides, and this is one of the results of the Second World War. And we do not review the results of the Second World War.

This does not mean that it was not possible to negotiate somehow, this is a delicate issue, but it does not lie in the "black and white" plane, everything is much more complicated there. But nothing, we were not afraid to conduct a dialogue in this direction.

So the first thing I want to say is that I see no reason not to visit these islands. However, to be honest, I didn't plan to do it yet because I was just busy with other questions.

But you have just said that my visit will lead to problems in resolving issues related to the preparation of a peace treaty. Dear colleague, do you think that Japan's announcement that it is joining the efforts to achieve a strategic defeat for Russia is not an obstacle to continuing the dialogue on the peace treaty? Japan has joined the calls to achieve a strategic defeat for Russia, and do you think that this is a good condition for negotiating a peace treaty? Do you think that my hypothetical desire to visit the islands is more serious than the Japanese Government's statement that it is necessary to achieve a strategic defeat of the Russian Federation? I understand that this is not your personal question, it is a question that is dictated by the editorial board and so on. But you should ask this question to your supervisors. This is the first one.

Second. We see Japan's commitment today in this Ukrainian crisis. Currently, there are no conditions for continuing the dialogue between Russia and Japan on a peace treaty. We do not refuse to resume it, but only if the necessary conditions are created, and first of all, from the Japanese side. We have done nothing in our bilateral relations that would complicate the Russian-Japanese dialogue. Nothing. Everything that was done was done by Japan.

Now about the relations between Russia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. You can have any attitude to what was, to what is. First, in my opinion, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to negotiate, including with the United States. I think that this willingness to negotiate was the reason for the meeting of former US President Mr. Trump with Kim Jong-un. And the American side saw the readiness. Moreover, after all, the North Koreans agreed with the Americans that they would not conduct tests, they would eliminate some kind of testing ground there. Not only did we agree in response to the relevant steps taken by the United States, including in the banking sector, but we also did so. They did it. What did you get in response? The United States unilaterally violated these agreements, and directly, without any hesitation. Naturally, the Koreans withdrew from these agreements. So what? And what prevents us from developing relations with a country with which we share a common border?

There are some things that, you know, even I have questions. Yes, we once supported some steps in relation to North Korea, for example, in the field of labor migration. I honestly tell all of you, you still work in the field of information, you are all people involved in these processes, in the material. Well, why did we do this, to be honest? Well, what's the big deal? Labor migrants. What threat do they pose and for whom? It's kind of weird. We care about the environment, we care about some birds, some marine animals, this and that. And the fact that people will starve to death not because they are some kind of militant is too painful, they are personally, citizens, individuals, just citizens of the country, and they are forbidden to work somewhere, restrict the ability to earn money so that they can feed their families. It's kind of weird. Strange.

You know, even now I speak abstractly from all the problems that arise. You know, it will always be the same in the world if someone is threatened. When they are threatened – they respond. If there were no threat, I think that the nuclear issue would be gradually resolved. But they are constantly threatened, and what should they do in response?

As for our relations with North Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, these are our neighbors. We will develop our relationship, whether someone likes it or not.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you very much for your question.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, Samia Nakhul of Reuters asks for the floor, we can't refuse, right? Please ask your question.

:(as translated)Nakhul Yes, you know, I have two questions.

First, in the development of what is happening in Gaza. The war continues for eight months. Prime Minister of [Israel] Netanyahu has said that he will not stop until Hamas is defeated, which has not yet happened. What scenarios do you see for how this crisis will unfold next?

Further. Given your diplomatic relations with the Palestinian authorities, with Hamas, and your influence even with the Gulf States, do you think you can play a leading role in mediating a two-State solution to this conflict, as envisaged by the Madrid Conference? Is there any hope for a Palestinian State? This is my first question.

Vladimir Putin: I think there is hope. There is hope, among other things, because both in the United States and in Israel itself there are people who advocate the creation of two states and believe that it is on this path – on the path of creating two sovereign states – that the path to peace can be found, the formula for peace can be found.

Is it important for Russia to play a leading role? I don't think so. There are many players who are involved in this conflict and have a huge impact on the events that take place. But we can certainly contribute to the settlement attempt. Taking into account our relations that have developed over the past decades with Israel, and taking into account our traditional relations, which are very trusting, with the Islamic and Arab world.

I think that a decisive contribution should still be made by the countries of the region and organizations: the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the League of Arab States; these are neighboring states-Egypt, of course, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Turkey as one of the leading players in the Islamic world, of course, the United States. We absolutely do not adhere to any extremist position that the United States should be excluded-why, God forbid, this is impossible. And Israel, of course.

But we need to find a middle ground. I repeat once again, I think that this can be done taking into account the mood in American and Israeli society, respectively, and especially taking into account the mood in the Islamic and Arab world.

We are trying to influence the current events as much as we can, including taking into account the humanitarian aspect. As you know, we played a role in the release of several hostages with Russian roots. We continue this work with our partners, with whom, as you are right, we have a stable, trusting relationship that has developed over decades.

But we need to work together. There is no need to monopolize this work. This is harmful, because monopolization might be good if the person who monopolizes would maintain a neutral position. But the monopolist does not manage to maintain a neutral position, he inevitably takes the position of one of the parties, and everything falls apart, and leads to such tragedies that we are currently experiencing.

So in general.

You are welcome.

:(as translated)Nakhul And regarding scenarios. How do you see the scenario of the conflict in Gaza?

And one last question after that.

Vladimir Putin: We have made several cease-fire initiatives in the UN Security Council, but the United States blocks and vetoes them. If we worked together and agreed, this would be the correct scenario. But it's not working yet.

We are directly in favor of a cease – fire-a veto, and another initiative – a veto. If we did not engage in mutual vetoing, but tried to negotiate on the basis of interest in solving the problem, this would probably be the way to solve the problem.

Is there another question you wanted to ask? You are welcome.

:(as translated)Nakhul Yes. Returning to Ukraine: what would trigger a nuclear war? And how close are we to this risk?

Vladimir Putin: You know, they always try to accuse us of waving some kind of "nuclear baton". But did I just raise the question of the possibility of using nuclear weapons? That's what you did. You take me out on this topic, and then say that I waved a "nuclear baton".

You know, this is such a very tough topic. Americans, the United States is the only country that used nuclear weapons in World War II: Hiroshima, Nagasaki – 20 kilotons. Our tactical nuclear weapons are 70-75 kilotons, such a tactical nuclear weapon. Let's not bring it not only to use, but even to the threat of use.

For some reason, the West believes that Russia never uses it. We have a nuclear doctrine-look at what it says. If someone's actions threaten our sovereignty and territorial integrity, we consider it possible to use all the means at our disposal.

You can not treat this lightly, superficially, but you need to treat it professionally. I hope that everyone in the world will feel the same way about resolving issues of this kind.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Samia Nakhul.

Iran's IRNA news agency, Ali Naderi asks for one more question.

Please, Mr. Naderi.

:(as translated)But God help me! We've been talking for three hours now. In your speeches, you talked about sanctions, and also talked about Iran's joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as the BRICS organization and cooperation within these organizations to create a multipolar world.

My question is: how do you see the world order in the future, taking into account the will of various independent countries? In your opinion, will monopolism and the unipolar world continue?

Vladimir Putin: You know what happened, don't you? We've talked about this many times, and no one knows it better than you. The Soviet Union collapsed: it collapsed or it was destroyed-it does not matter, it is important that it ceased to exist. And there was only one superpower left, which considered that everything, God fell asleep on its shoulder and now it is possible to command everyone. But the world is complex and diverse, it is developing rapidly, and new centers of power are emerging.

One of the Western – European-politicians said (I didn't say it, I want everyone to understand it) that all European states are small states, but not everyone has understood it yet.

See how Asia is developing. The People's Republic of China – 1.5 billion people, in India already more, probably. Other Asian countries – South Asia, Southeast Asia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia-are developing rapidly. And the pace of development is great, and the population is growing. And apparently, the trends are such that development is slowly pumping there.

Several processes are taking place in this region of the world that are catching up not only with the growth rate, but also with the standard of living. All this will inevitably lead to a change in configuration in the world. Even today, we can't talk about some kind of monopoly, it no longer exists. The world, of course, can exist only when it is diverse, in its diversity. If there is a complete monopoly, it will be terrible. Just like in nature and politics, the world is always diverse.

I do not know if it is good for the United States itself that such a monopoly was created after the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, this required some additional efforts from the United States itself.

Look, the United States spends more on defense spending than any other country combined. If you combine the spending of all the countries of the world, add it up, the United States still spends more on defense than all the countries combined. And why? Huge amounts of money are spent on maintaining bases abroad.

I am often asked: how do you manage to have such modern weapons as, say, planning blocks "Avangard", conditionally, or some other. Because we focus our efforts, finances, and administrative resources on solving our main tasks. And the States are forced to spend money on maintaining the armed forces, because if [there are] extensive bases around the world, [then] the costs are huge, the theft is unlimited. I'm not accusing anyone of anything right now, and we have a lot of theft and cheating-everywhere, and in your countries everywhere, but in the States more in the army. Why? Because there's always more stealing on the payroll, it's just unavoidable.

Huge resources are spent on maintaining its status as an empire. Does this benefit the citizens of the United States or not? I think not. This is exactly what contributes to the fact that the United States is slowly moving out of orbit, and researchers in the United States know about it, talk about it directly and write about it directly. I read them. The question is how it is, at what speed the "descent from orbit" will be.

If there were smart people, they would read what their researchers write, and they would adapt to it and stay on Olympus longer. But the current leadership wants to maintain this imperial position at all costs and only harms itself. But changes are still happening, they are inevitable, they are already underway, there is no unipolar world anymore.

It seems to me that the task for all of us is to ensure that we in the United States, Europe, Russia, and Asia understand this and do not go to the extreme that our British colleague mentioned. And so that we, realizing this, restrain our ambitions and know how to negotiate, and not dissuade from agreements. And then, it means that the world will change, but without those cataclysms that frighten everyone so much.

:(as translated)But. Just one more question. Today, the international nuclear agency IAEA issued a document against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given the fact that America withdrew from the nuclear agreement and did not participate in it, this agreement was accepted.

I think we need some kind of agency, some kind of body that would be more professional, more competent – so that, perhaps, it could be used as a weapon.

What do you think is the reason for this situation?

Vladimir Putin:I'm not sure I understand your question. But Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the well-known agreement that you just mentioned, everything. No claims can be made against Iran.

Then the United States unilaterally decided to withdraw from the agreement, and the Europeans continued to demand that Iran fulfill its obligations. If you'll excuse me, this is all nonsense. Iran did not withdraw from this agreement. The US withdrew, and former President Trump took the decision to withdraw from the agreement. And the Europeans say: yes, it's not very good that the Americans came out, but you, Iranians, observe everything. What the fuck are the Iranians doing? Sorry, it sounds a little rough in Russian. But if a key player has withdrawn from the agreement, why should Iran have such a compliance burden?

Nevertheless, you know, even we tried to persuade Iran not to take any drastic steps, not to withdraw from this agreement, so as not to aggravate relations with Europe. Here I will tell you such a secret. Although this is the secret of Polichinelle, as we say. We also tried to persuade the Iranian leadership: calm down, it will only get worse for you, better comply with this agreement. But I kept thinking to myself: why do Iranians have to abide by it when others are coming out? Unclear.

But in general, of course, we need to look for some mechanisms that would be stable. This is clear to everyone. Today we signed an agreement, and tomorrow we left it – how do we work? We are always told that trust is very important here. But where is this trust-where does it come from? The Administration changed: one left, the other came, and immediately all the previously assumed obligations were thrown into the trash.

It's just like everyone thinks about their own things today, and I think about mine. A colleague from the United States asked about possible agreements with Ukraine. Yes, we are almost ready to sign an agreement with Ukraine. However, at the instigation of the United States, Great Britain-all this was thrown into the trash. And today, how to negotiate?

The current leadership of Ukraine decided not to go to the polls. This is the same question. There is Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which stipulates that the President is elected only for five years. There is Article 83 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which says that under martial law, the term of office of the Parliament is prolonged. But nothing is said about the possibility of extending the term of office of the president.

There is a law that explains the status of martial law. It says that the powers are transferred to the Parliament and that presidential elections are not held under martial law. But it also doesn't say that they are rolled over. Do you understand? It's not written there. It says that presidential elections are not being held. But where does it say that they are rolled over? There is no such thing there. And if it's not written, then it's not.

On the contrary, there is article 109 of the Criminal Code, in my opinion, of Ukraine, which says that this is called a seizure of power. Who should I sign the contract with? However, everything can be resolved, everything can be negotiated. If the full power passes to the Speaker of the parliament... there would be a desire to sign a contract with someone, that's another question.

As for Iran, yes, I agree with you. Some kind of instrument is needed, and it probably needs to be developed anew, which would be both legitimate and reliable, so that all participants in this process do not feel in danger that tomorrow all the prerequisites will be eliminated, and one of the contracting parties will be given full responsibility for non-compliance with what they are doing; in fact, they didn't violate it.

:(as translated)Naderi Regarding today's actions of the IAEA regarding the publication of the resolution on the Islamic Republic of Iran, I would like to hear your opinion. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I haven't seen it yet. I have to look at the text, I'm not familiar with it, we've been talking here for half a day. You show me, then I'll try to formulate my opinion. I can't yet, because I haven't seen this resolution.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you, Mr. Naderi.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we've been talking for almost three hours. We'll wrap it up, right?

Vladimir Putin: Please, if there is something that you think is important and that we have not yet mentioned, then please.

A. Kondrashov: DPA Agency, Germany.

:(as translated)M.Romanchik Mr. President, in recent hours we have discussed the problems, discussed what, in your opinion, needs to be done to solve these problems. We have spoken with Minister Lavrov on the last two occasions – including during the G20 meeting. Brazil took the lead this year.

Have you decided that you will come to participate in the G20 ?

Vladimir Putin: I don't know yet, but I don't rule it out. First of all, of course, I must be guided by the requirements of today. As you can understand, we have a lot of questions in our country, but I don't rule out: maybe I will come, and maybe I won't. You know, we understand what kind of world we live in. I'll tell you straight out what a fool you are: it will depend on the situation in the country, on the situation in the Ukrainian direction, and it will depend in general on the situation in the world. To come there to listen to some dirt on Russia from those partners who consider us aggressors, although they themselves, in my opinion, are not very good, and create some problems for our friends. We work in the G20 and will continue to do so. I don't know yet if I need to show up there myself. We'll see. Let's wait and see, as they say in Russia.

A. Kondrashov: Karim Talbi, France-Presse.

K. Talby: I have two short questions. The first question that the American people are interested in is: will Tucker Carlson be your moderator on Friday at the [SPIEF] plenary session here in St. Petersburg?

Vladimir Putin: Carlson? L: I don't know who will be the moderator, I have no idea. Mr. Peskov has not yet reported this to me.

(To Dmitry Peskov.) Who will be the moderator there?

Dmitry Peskov: I will report separately.

Vladimir Putin: He will report to me separately. I don't know – Mr. Carlson and I didn't agree on this.

K. Talby: And I have a second question. It's already dark, but there are three flags behind you: the flag of Russia, the flag of the Russian Empire, and the flag of the Soviet Union. The flag of the Russian Empire is the highest, let's just say.

Vladimir Putin: No, no – they are all equal.

K. Talby: Which one is closest to your heart?

Vladimir Putin: The official flag of the Russian Federation, the tricolor, is the official flag of Russia. This is the first one.

Second. I can tell you that this was not a political decision by either the Government or the Presidential Administration. This is Gazprom's decision, strange as it may seem. Of course, Mr. Miller told me that he was going to do this. I can open this discussion to you, there is nothing secret here. I say ," Why? We have a national flag." He says, " It's all part of our history." In my opinion, [Alexander II] established the flag of the Empire. He believed that there should be both black and yellow [colors]. Why? Because these are the colors of the Russian coat of arms. This is how it was served then, in the 19th century. Peter I established the state flag, the tricolor. The flag of the Soviet Union, especially since it is associated with the victory over Nazism, also has the right to exist in our history and in our public consciousness. I did not interfere, I said: "Okay, if you want, do it. Please."

Everything has a reason, that's all. There is no need to look for what is not there, no need to look for any subtext, no need to look for any of our imperial ambitions – they are not there. They don't exist, because the world is changing fast. Here, Uzbekistan. Do you know how much population there is? You don't know. What time is it in France now?

K. Talby: A lot.

Vladimir Putin: Well, a lot. 60 million, right? 65. In Uzbekistan – already 37. Attention now "on the screen": plus a million every year. One million – population growth in Uzbekistan. At this rate, they will soon overtake France. If you also subtract migrants, you will soon have the same number in France as in Uzbekistan.

Let me explain why. If anyone suspects us of any imperial ambitions, just think about it: we will restore the Soviet Union and we will have a predominantly Islamic population. Has that ever occurred to you?

You don't have to invent anything out of the blue that doesn't exist. We are not against the growth of the Islamic population – on the contrary, we are happy with what is happening in the Russian Federation today. We are very happy to see a very good birth rate in some republics with predominantly Islamic populations. But that was all, it's already over, the page is turned. We look to the future based on the realities of today. The flags you see are part of our history. You don't need to invent anything and use these ideas to form an opinion about Russia, you don't need to form an image of the enemy from Russia – you only harm yourself with this, you understand?

They thought that Russia wanted to attack NATO. Are you completely out of your mind? Stupid at all, like this table? Who came up with this idea? This is bullshit, bullshit! But that would be nonsense if it wasn't designed to fool its own population into saying, "Watch out! Soon Russia will attack us! And we must urgently arm ourselves, urgently send weapons to Ukraine!" But in fact, what is it done for? To maintain their own imperial position and greatness-that's what it's all about, that's what these threats and scares are for the burghers in Germany, in France and in other parts of Europe, that's what. Such a threat does not exist and cannot exist. We defend ourselves in Ukraine.

Where the United States is-across the ocean-and where we are. Just imagine: we would now be in Canada doing what the United States is doing on our doorstep, here in Ukraine, or in Mexico. Or we would now say that the United States had taken away some of Mexico's territories at one time and would encourage Mexico to fight for the return of its territories. In principle, this is about the same thing that Western countries are doing with regard to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Isn't that something you've always wanted to think about?

You don't need to look at these flags – you need to look at the essence of what is happening. We have no imperial ambitions, believe me, this is all nonsense – just like the threat from Russia against NATO countries and Europe. You what? Look at the potential of NATO and look at the potential of Russia. You think we're crazy, don't you?

K. Talby: In France, there is no flag of the last king of France, the flag of Napoleon and the flag of the Republic near the palace at the same time. And these flags – I'm sorry, when I came here, I wasn't the only one who saw them right away. They are very visible.

Vladimir Putin: So they are nowhere to be found.

Mr. Miller, this is his private initiative, companies, he is interested in Russian history, Russian history. I'll tell you again: this has nothing to do with anything but history and a tribute to those generations who lived with these banners and flags and achieved significant success in the development of our state.

Alexander Kondrashov: Thank you.

We still have a short question from the Spanish agency EFE.

Vladimir Putin: We'll just sit here until morning.

Maybe we can reschedule it for tomorrow. We still have to go to Pushkin, to Tsarskoe Selo.

A. Kondrashov Then let me ask you a final question.

Vladimir Putin: Never mind.

:(as translated)H.Sans Mingote is very brief. Tomorrow we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings, the landings of American and French soldiers. They fought alongside Russian soldiers. Do you rule out that the Russians, the French, and the Americans can now act together and be partners?

Vladimir Putin: We don't rule it out – it's the Americans and Europeans who rule it out. We're in favor of-we didn't impose any sanctions on Europe, we didn't shut down energy sources for Germany and for other countries. They are imposing sanctions on us.

You just said that tomorrow we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landings and the opening of the second front. We have always had great respect for our allies – great respect for the Americans, the British, the British, and the French.

By the way, do they know in France that it was Stalin who insisted that France be present, and not only present, but a signatory to the Treaty of Capitulation, the Act of Surrender of Germany? Both the United States and Great Britain objected. Stalin insisted that France be present as the victor at the signing of the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany. The French do not remember this: either they do not want to, or they simply do not attach any importance to it. But this is still a historical fact, and we have it all in our archives.

We have always respected the struggling, belligerent France. Despite the fact that Hitler's troops were marching through Paris, we supported the Maquis and those who fought with us, including the pilots of the Normandy-Niemen squadron. We always remember this and don't forget it. Our door is always open for negotiations, meetings and discussions.

You just said that there will be a holiday, but it turns out that we are strangers on this holiday of life. How many American soldiers died during the war with Nazism? 500 thousand, 600? About 500 thousand. There are even fewer Englishmen, and many times fewer Englishmen died than in the First World War. As you know, the main sacrifices on the altar of common victory were made by the Soviet Union. According to the latest data, there are about 27 million people, of which 70 percent are from the RSFSR, that is, this is Russia. Yes, 70 percent is accounted for in the Russian Federation – this is official data. You ask me: are we ready or not ready? But we are not invited to this event.

The main contribution to the defeat of Nazism-of course, this is an obvious thing, you just need to read what Churchill or Roosevelt said at the time about the contribution of the Soviet Union, consider Russia, to the overall victory over Nazism. This is obvious, everyone knows. Only unscrupulous people can completely distort these facts. God be with him, even if they are there without us, we will not lose money. But this answers your question: who wants this dialogue and who doesn't.

I think that the current leadership of Ukraine will be present there. Listen to me: how can we celebrate such a serious date in the fight against Nazism with those who put neo-Nazis on a podium and make them national heroes? Today's symbol of Ukrainian statehood is Bandera. He was one of the main associates of Hitler in Eastern Europe. It was the hands of Bandera who shot thousands not only of Russians and Poles, but also of Jews. This is Hitler's closest associate. Yes, then, at the end of the war, he began to sniff out and understand that victory was slipping away from Hitler, he began to look for allies in the western direction, and the Germans noticed this. But this is the main collaborator. I walked around with my hands up and greeted them – not only did they greet me, but I also worked directly with the Nazis.

Acting at that time, still legitimate, the head of the Ukrainian state in Canada, as you know very well, gave the former SS soldier a standing ovation. What, you don't know about it? Everyone knows. Only the mass media of Europe, the United States, and Canada are silent about this fact, as if it didn't happen, but it did. He was told: "Here is a man who fought against the Russians during World War II." Everyone stood up, including the President of Ukraine, and started applauding him. Who fought against the Russians during World War II? Hitler and those who collaborated with him. The one they applauded was a former SS Galicia soldier, and everyone applauded him.

And tomorrow, these people will be celebrating the Allied landings in Normandy. How's that? And they somehow hesitate to invite Russia, which is the legal successor of the Soviet Union and which has suffered such huge losses. It won't hurt us, but it's just an answer to your question: who is interested in normal relations and their restoration, and who is not so interested. We are in favor.

So what? Will we finish it?

Alexander Kondrashov: May I ask you a final question, Mr President?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, come on.

Alexander Kondrashov: It's very short.

(Turning to M. Romanchik.) Vladimir Putin: Is there anything else you want to say?"

Alexey Kondrashov: You can ask me then, and I'll ask you the final question later.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

:(as translated)M.Romanchik You were talking about Nazism. You know that in Germany there is a party that causes some concern among the public, among other parties, which is not critical of this episode, this period in our history, which you mentioned - "Alternative for Germany". Many are under the supervision of constitutional oversight because of their statements and actions. Mr. Abdallah, the co-chairman of this party, was, if I remember correctly, in Moscow in 2020. He was invited to the Russian Embassy in Berlin, as far as I know.

How do you see the "Alternative for Germany"? How do you see building relations between this party and Russia and Russia to this party?

Vladimir Putin: You know, despite the fact that the gentleman you mentioned was in Moscow – I think I even met with some of the leaders, I don't even remember who – we don't have systematic relations with representatives of this party.

But what is there in our understanding of what is happening in the Federal Republic: there, any alternative point of view is perceived as anti-state and for some reason everyone is immediately declared agents of the Kremlin. But, as you know, if a political force criticizes the current government, then in a democracy, there is probably no reason to immediately declare the work of this political force anti-state and lead to its closure. Hitler was once jailed after a failed putsch in Bavaria, as far as I remember – his rating immediately rose and he had wings on his back. Before that, he was not considered a national politician, but after his arrest, he became one.

But we don't see any signs of neo-Nazism in the activities of Alternative for Germany. If someone speaks out for normal relations with our country, with Russia, we only support it. But we do not decide whether this political force operates within the framework of the Constitution or not. I repeat once again: we do not see anything that would cause us any concern, we do not see it. If the current government sees a threat to itself in the position of "Alternative for Germany", as they say, this is not our beer – these are questions of the development of the political situation in the Federal Republic itself.

You know, I want to go back to what I just said. "Alternative for Germany" is suspected of some neo-Nazi positions, but for some reason people who collaborated with the Nazi regime in the same Ukraine are not seen. This is what we call double standards in both domestic and foreign policy. We will cooperate with everyone who wants to work with Russia. But we do not give political assessments inside Germany – this is a matter for the political authorities themselves, the constitutional court, and so on.

But I have already said that I gave the example of Hitler. Those who use some non-political means in the political struggle do not achieve the result they seek.

Alexander Kondrashov: Mr President, you probably know, but what if you don't, that the Western press is very much interested in you personally and very often paints you as a villain or a monster…

Vladimir Putin: So it is, they draw correctly-let them be afraid, that's right.

Alexey Kondrashov: Does Dmitry Sergeyevich Peskov show you these pictures or not? And how do you feel about this in general – is it important?

Vladimir Putin: No, it doesn't. Apparently, it saves my mood.

I know that from time to time, when relations between countries, between states, are strained, they try to intimidate the average person. There is no novelty here. To be honest, I don't have time to engage in this propaganda, viewing these propaganda materials. I still prefer to focus on the substance of our relations with our current partners, with possible partners, with former partners, in order to build normal relations that would help us achieve our national development goals. That's all.

Alexander Kondrashov: Mr President, thank you very much for this frank conversation, both on behalf of TASS and on behalf of our colleagues. I wish you patience, health and God's help in your affairs.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

I also want to thank you all for being here, for coming – either on assignment or just without an assignment-but not being afraid to come. In any case, thank you for your interest in what is happening in Russia and what is happening in our relations with other countries in what is, of course, a very difficult situation. We won't talk about it now, we won't go back on what's going on-we all understand what I'm talking about.

But I want to express my gratitude to you for being here and showing such interest, and I hope that you will present everything very objectively and, of course, while fulfilling your mission and tasks, you will still try to do it as correctly as possible.

I hope that our meeting today and your work in the future will be aimed at ensuring that the situation between our countries on a bilateral basis and the situation in the world as a whole still stabilizes and goes in the direction of resolving crises, and not endless escalation and aggravation.

Thank you very much. [My Emphasis]

Over three hours of Q&A! IMO, it’s not surprising that Putin lost his temperament a tad at the end. A very unique gathering of media. The most important part now is getting the information contained in this long transcript to the peoples of the West for no news agency—not even TASS—will publish it en toto. IMO, the most important information provided was the chronology related to the start of the conflict in Ukraine, which was presented yet again. The second most important was the many references of causational guilt for the overall global crisis to the Outlaw US Empire. And there will be more to come as Putin will speak at the SPIEF’s plenary session.

A reward for those who made it this far is to view the 12 photos of Putin’s tour of Lakhta Center with Alexie Miller at this link.

*
*
*
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!