Putin's Post EAEU Summit Presser

President Putin held a thirty-minute press conference at the Summit’s conclusion where curiosity focused on the closed session and geopolitical issues:

Question: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, please summarize the results of today's meeting. What happened behind closed doors, especially during the private meeting with your EAEU colleagues? What bilateral meetings did you have, perhaps ones that we don't know about yet? The word "sanctions" was mentioned multiple times during the speeches. How do sanctions affect the activities of the Eurasian Economic Union? Thank you.

V. Putin: As for bilateral meetings, the meeting with the President of Uzbekistan [Shavkat Mirziyoyev] has just ended. We discussed our current affairs, the prospects for the near future, and synchronised our plans for possible major joint investment projects. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Shavkat Mirziyoyev, these are all feasible projects. We are talking about energy, including, perhaps, the nuclear energy sector, infrastructure projects, and the metallurgical industry. In general, there are serious issues that have been discussed by our governments for some time, and we are gradually moving towards their implementation.

The second meeting was with the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, and we also discussed our current bilateral relations. We are expecting the President of the United Arab Emirates to visit Russia.

Naturally, we discussed both the situation in Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East.

As for the results of our today's meeting, the Eurasian summit, we are satisfied with the results and have drawn certain conclusions.

The President of Belarus has already said that our development strategy, which was designed to last until this year, is coming to an end. We are thinking about how to continue our joint work. However, overall, the results of our work are satisfactory. They satisfy everyone. Why? Because the main indicator of economic efficiency is the rate of economic growth.

In Eurasia, it is higher than the global average. The global growth rate is 3.3 percent, as you know. Eurasia is higher than 4 percent, much higher. In some countries, it is significantly higher. In some countries, it is closer to 5 percent or even 6 percent. This is partly the result of our joint efforts, as the goal is to remove trade and other economic barriers to cooperation. This, without exaggeration, multiplies the potential for economic growth.

And the social indicator of economic development is, of course, the unemployment rate, and the growth rate of real wages, and it's about the same in other countries. I'll tell you about Russia, where we have a 2.3% unemployment rate. This is one of the key indicators of what's happening in the economy, and it's about the same in our other countries.

And the second very important indicator is the level of investment, which is increasing. And in Russia, despite all our well-known difficulties, this process is still ongoing.

And of course, we can't be dissatisfied with this work, but there are always issues that require additional attention. We have discussed issues related to removing barriers in the service sector in a private meeting. Well, there are issues that require additional research.

There are things related to electronic signatures, which is a very important area. This is not a formal thing, but if it is introduced at the international level, it will also create good conditions for expanding cooperation. There are also issues that we have discussed in general today, such as ensuring that the information is reliable, how we will regulate sanctions in case of violations, and so on, so that participants in economic activities do not move from one jurisdiction to another but operate within a single economic space.

There is nothing here that would pose any political difficulties. We all believe that this is the right path to take. It is primarily a legal and technical issue. It is necessary to regulate and finalize these matters at the government level. We have agreed to do so in the coming months.

And the next meeting is informal, as a rule, but it is still related to the business part. So, the next meeting will traditionally take place on the eve of the New Year in St. Petersburg.

And the sanctions? Yes. To be honest, we've already mentioned this formally, but no one has delved into it seriously.

Question: Hello, RIA Novosti. If I may, I have a question on a different topic, but it is also very important. You have already mentioned that the Ukrainian issue was discussed during the recent bilateral contacts.

Tell me, how is the process of the Ukrainian settlement going now? In particular, when will the third round of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine take place? Two rounds have already been held in Istanbul. It is also known that the parties have exchanged their draft memoranda on the settlement. How do you rate the Ukrainian side's project, the project of Kiev? How do you assess it? And has there been any reaction from Kiev to the Russian draft memorandum?

V. Putin: As for the memoranda, as expected, nothing unexpected happened. I won't tell you anything unexpected. These are two completely opposite memoranda, but negotiations are organized and held in order to find ways to come closer together. I don't think there's anything surprising about the fact that they were completely opposite. I don't want to go into details, as I believe it's inappropriate and even harmful to preempt the negotiations themselves.

As for what was done as a result of the negotiations. I think you can see for yourself. Today, in my opinion, another exchange took place, yesterday or today, in my opinion, yes? Still, it's important. This humanitarian component is important, because it creates conditions, as diplomats say, for a substantive discussion of the essence of the problem. We agreed that we would continue further contacts after the exchanges were completed and after the humanitarian action that we proposed, namely, the transfer of the bodies of dead servicemen. We have already handed over over 6,000 bodies, and we are ready to hand over almost 3,000 more, but it is up to the Ukrainian side to accept the bodies of their fallen soldiers.

We agreed that after this stage is completed, we will hold a third round of negotiations. In general, we are ready for this. We need to agree on a location and time. I hope that President Erdogan of the Republic of Turkey will continue to support this process. We are very grateful to him for this. We are ready to hold this meeting in Istanbul. And when exactly, it is the heads of the negotiating groups on both sides–-and they, by the way, are in constant contact, in operational [contact] with each other, constantly on the phone, and, in my opinion, this is already not bad—are now negotiating the time of the next meeting. And what will be the subject? The subject, in my opinion, should be the discussion of the memoranda from both sides.

You are welcome.

Question: Good afternoon! Pavel Zarubin, Russia TV channel.

You and your colleagues have just completed the summit of the Eurasian Union. And the former partners have recently completed the NATO summit, and there has been a decision to increase defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. In general, there is a flurry of voices from Europe calling for militarization, and Europe's aggressive stance is something new in modern history. How do you assess what is happening?

V.Putin: First of all, the so-called Western community, the collective West, if it can be called a collective at all today, but nevertheless, is turning everything upside down. Why? Because both the increase in military spending and the militaristic frenzy that you mentioned are based on the same thesis: Russia's aggressiveness. However, the situation is exactly the opposite.

After all, the cutoff point for all these discussions is 2022, the beginning of the special military operation. And no one is talking about how we came to this special military operation. And what did it all start with? It all started with us being deceived, being crudely lied to, as we say in our country, being "scammed" about NATO's non-expansion to the east. After all, everyone knows that Russia was promised that NATO would not move an inch to the East. And then one wave of expansion after another.

After all, what have we been talking about all this time? That the security of one country or a group of countries cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of another, and this is stated in international documents that have been agreed upon by all. What has happened in practice? One expansion after another. And we have been told: "You should not be afraid of this, it does not threaten you."

And when we said that we thought it was a threat, what did they say? Nothing at all. They just told us to go away with our opinion, and no one wanted to listen to it.

But we know better what is a threat and what is not. It is our right to determine the degree of our security and the level of threats that may approach us from one side or the other. But no one listened to us, and everyone was moving in this direction.

Isn't this aggressive behavior? This is the aggressive behavior that the West doesn't want to acknowledge.

It was the same in our country, when the collective West supported both separatism in our country and such a tool for fighting Russia as terrorism, no one wanted to pay attention to some kind of ISIS if it was functioning in Russia, or the bombings in Moscow, or anything else that has been happening recently. And no one wants to pay attention to it. It's all fine as long as it's against Russia. Well, haven't we seen it?

And they all see and understand this perfectly well, but they're talking about something else; they're talking about our aggressiveness. Look at yourselves. We have a good saying: they notice a speck in someone else's eye, but they don't want to see a log in their own. And what happens? Against the backdrop of this rhetoric about Russia's alleged aggressiveness, they start talking about the need to arm themselves. Let them arm themselves.

Let's take a look at the structure of these expenditures and the structure of these weapons. As I said in the first part, we consider the reference to Russia's aggressiveness to be completely unfounded. It is not us who are aggressive, but rather this so-called collective West.

By the way, the same thing happened in Ukraine. And what about it? What can we call the result of the coup d'état supported by the collective West?

First, they came, signed guarantees between the President, the presidential government, and the opposition, then a few days later, they staged a coup d'état, supported it, paid for it, and publicly admitted to it. And then they started talking about Russia's aggressive behavior. What is this? Are they idiots, or do they think we're fools?

Then, we all know what happened in Donbas for eight years. Eight years of a bloody war against the civilian population. And we spent eight years trying to negotiate a peaceful solution to this issue.

We were deceived, and they publicly admitted it again. Both the former German Chancellor and the former French President publicly stated that they had no intention of fulfilling the Minsk agreements, and they had only signed them in order to provide weapons to the Ukrainian regime. They had been waging an undeclared war for eight years. In order to end this war, we were forced to use our armed forces and recognize the independence of both republics in strict accordance with the UN Charter. However, no one is paying attention to this. It's all about this moment: why, what happened, how it happened, what's their fault? It's like they're babies who just came into the world yesterday. This isn't going to work.

This one-sided game is over. If they want to increase their military spending, let them. But this also shows their aggressiveness. Let me explain why.

Yes, we have quite a lot of expenses today. It's 6.3 percent of GDP. Is that a lot or a little? I think it's a lot. This is certainly one of the problems, including for the budget, that we need to address, and we are addressing it in a decent way.

By the way, I don't want to make political analogies right now, because the causes of the conflict are completely different. However, from a financial and economic perspective, during the Korean War, which the United States fought, they spent 14% of their budget on it. During the Vietnam War, they spent 10%. However, they solved these problems primarily by increasing taxes on high-income individuals. In the first case, they did not pay attention to macroeconomics, but in the second case, they approached it more responsibly. But we are fighting for a healthy macroeconomy.

Now, let's talk about the spending itself. Is 6.3 percent a lot or a little? 6.3 percent of Russia's GDP for defense purposes is equivalent to 13.5 trillion rubles. Our entire GDP is 223 trillion rubles. Is 13.5 of 223 a lot or a little? It's not a small amount. We paid for it with inflation. However, we are currently combating this inflation. Yes, we are purposefully working towards a "soft landing" for the economy. However, we are still taking a very sensible approach to this.

By the way, I have already mentioned this, but the level of wages is increasing in all the EAEU countries and in Russia. Last year, it increased by 9.7 percent, and in the first four or five months of this year, it increased by 4 percent in real terms. This is a satisfactory indicator, at least.

What's going on in the Western countries? They're burying us all the time. They're going to die there soon. And they're burying us constantly, without stopping.

Last year, our economy grew by 4.3 percent, and the year before that, it grew by 4.1 percent. This year, the growth will be much more modest in order to combat inflation. However, we are doing this on purpose. In the Eurozone, the growth rate is 0.9 percent. In the leading economies and industrial centers of development in Europe, such as Germany and France, everyone is on the verge of recession.

As for the Armed Forces, they keep saying that we have problems and that Russia will soon suffer a strategic defeat. This rhetoric continues to this day. At the same time, they are saying that we are going to attack NATO countries. Where is the logic? If we are in disarray, why would we attack NATO? They're talking nonsense, and they don't really believe it themselves, but they're trying to convince their own population in order to extract more money from them and make them agree to bear the heavy burden of social spending.

By the way, we spend a lot of these trillions on what? On maintaining our military-industrial complex, on ourselves, on our loved ones and relatives. And what will they spend their 5 percent on? On purchasing from the United States and on supporting their military-industrial complex. This is not our issue, it is theirs. If they want to do it, let them.

But now the most important thing. We are planning to reduce our defense spending, both next year and in the next three years. While there is no final agreement between the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Economic Development, everyone is thinking in this direction. Meanwhile, Europe is considering how to increase its defense spending. So, who is preparing for aggressive actions, us or them?

Yes, of course, we want to complete the special military operation with the result we need. This is what we are counting on, not aggressive plans against Europe and NATO countries. We plan to reduce our expenses, while they plan to increase them. So who is being aggressive? This is the basis of our defense and security policy.

Therefore, all their arguments about what they are going to raise–-let them raise it. But this will not improve the security situation for them, and it will consistently worsen the economic and social situation.

Question: Interfax Agency, Ksenia Chernyaeva.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, just recently, the President of France announced the need to introduce another package of sanctions against Russia, and according to statements by European officials, this package of sanctions may include measures such as reducing the price cap on Russian oil to as low as $45 and imposing secondary sanctions on its buyers.

How do you feel about such measures and the French President's rhetoric, and what are the potential consequences of such decisions?

V. Putin: I have already partially answered this question. The more sanctions there are, the worse it is for those who impose them. This applies to France, and it applies to the European economy as a whole. If you look at the statistics, the volume of gas purchased has increased due to LNG: Europe has started buying more.

Today, what's the price, more than 400 euros per thousand cubic meters? The price of oil has dropped slightly, but not just a little, from 75 to 65 or 66, and it's fluctuating all the time.

And if something else happens in the same Middle East, what will happen? And our oil will be "covered," at least in some way. Although they won't be able to do this, it's simply not possible at the moment.

The volume of oil and petroleum products consumed in the world is growing due to the growth of the economy itself, and there is no way around it. The volume is growing, but production is only increasing to the extent that we have agreed upon as part of OPEC Plus, and it is designed to meet the increasing demand, especially during the summer. You see, I don't see anything here that would benefit the European economy.

Will there be any harm to us? We will look at it based on the realities that will develop. But I don't think it will have a significant impact on us, given that hundreds, thousands of sanctions have already been imposed, and we are where we are, as I said. Our economy grew by 4.3 percent last year, while the Euro area grew by 0.9–0.8 [percent].

Please, Andrey.

Question: Good afternoon!

Andrey Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, do you feel that it's time for you to meet Donald Trump in person? It seems that you are distancing yourself from each other. A phone is a phone, but face-to-face is face-to-face. What do you think?

V.Putin: I have great respect for the current President of the United States. He has gone through a very difficult, complicated and unsafe way of returning to power and to the White House, we all know this well, up to the point that he survived an assassination attempt, and not one attempt on his life. He is a courageous man, this is clear.

What he is doing at home, what he is doing in the Middle East, and his efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, we certainly appreciate all of this. I have already mentioned this, and I want to say it publicly now: I believe that President Trump is genuinely committed to resolving the issue on the Ukrainian track.

Recently, I think he said that it was more complicated than it seemed from the outside. And it is. And there is nothing special about it. It is one thing when you look from the outside, and another thing is to get involved in the problem. It is the same, as I think, in the Middle East. Although he may have had more experience there, was more involved in the events in the Middle East, but it is complicated there too. Real life is always more complicated than the idea of it.

I am always open to contacts and meetings. I know that Mr. Trump has also spoken about the possibility of a meeting. I believe, as he does, that such meetings should be prepared, and we should be able to reach new levels of cooperation as a result. Overall, thanks to President Trump, relations between Russia and the United States are beginning to improve. While there are still unresolved issues in diplomatic relations, the first steps have been taken, and we are moving forward.

We have established working contacts between the main agencies and between the State Department, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the special services, which is also very important. This is because, for example, the fight against terrorism is important to us in any situation, as well as through some other services.

We have very good prospects for economic cooperation. And we know that American businesses are willing and eager to return to our market. We will welcome this. However, it needs to be properly prepared. Overall, this meeting is possible, and we are looking forward to preparing it.

Thank you very much. Good luck. [My Emphasis]

A few more economic stats were provided real wage growth being the most important. Putin’s understanding of how the Outlaw US Empire’s two Cold War wars of choice affected its finances is curious. IMO, few are aware that Korea cost as much as it did, but the relative GDP sizes are where the difference lies. As I noted in my comments to the plenary session, the need to attain a single economic space is a key policy direction for Putin and Russia, which is how I see a new soviet-type space that’s economic in its essence. Further expansion of the Union State IMO will eventually follow in some cases, although that will take decades.

Ukraine and the situation with Europe will be married until the European peoples divorce those having power over them. Putin essentially says Let them screw themselves with their nonsensical unreality, their lives within the BigLie they concocted. Forcing critical social support onto people who’ve never had to perform such duties while curtailing other benefits that are seen as foundational to the social contract will cause social revolt. Russia had collected 10,000 Ukrainian dead, likely just 1% of the total number. How well that reality’s understood by those residing within Zelenskystan is unknown, but more protests are being generated by what’s already transpired. Ukraine’s negotiating position will only change once the Nazis are removed from power.

Putin’s remarks about Trump remain curious when you put them all together. Putin seems to be saying to Trump: Reality’s a Bitch and can only be properly dealt with by those who comprehend its accurately. I think it’s important to note that both Xi and Putin will attend the BRICS Rio Summit on 6-7 July via video with Lavrov being Russia’s #1 representative and presumably Wang Yi being China’s. IMO, there’s foreshadowing in Putin’s remarks about greater sharing of the new financial architecture between Global South nations that will be announced at Rio. Trump is now saying his 9 July tariff deadline will likely be extended but is vague on further info. IMO, there’s far more political solidarity within EAEU than within the Outlaw US Empire and EU, and the difference is based on who their economies are aimed at benefiting.

*
*
*
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!