Putin's Post-SCO Summit Presser

Putin faced the Russian media corp at the close of the SCO Summit’s proceedings for about a half-hour.

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. Please, please.

Alexander Vernitsky: Mr Putin, Anton Vernitsky, Channel One. Are you satisfied with the effectiveness of the SCO in such a turbulent environment in the world, and in general, does the organization keep up with all the challenges? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The SCO is a useful organization. Let me remind you that it was created for the final settlement of all issues after the collapse of the Soviet Union, border issues with the People's Republic of China, which remained unresolved in Soviet times between the new sovereign states and China. And gradually this organization began to gain momentum, and in the modern world, of course, it has become very popular, because it is obviously one of the independent centers of the new multipolar world. And this is what has become attractive for the organization's participants and for those who would like to maintain constant contacts with this organization at various levels – both as guests and observers. As you can see, the desire to join the organization is growing. It has become really powerful, in fact, of a global nature – almost half of the world's population is represented by countries that are members of this organization. First.

Second. After all, this is a platform for coordinating positions between the participating countries: the People's Republic of China, Russia, India, and Pakistan. You understand that there are no unnecessary contacts. And then, among other things, if it has become so powerful and big, then the principles that it declares also matter when they are distributed around the world. For example, we agreed in the declaration and in other documents that all the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization oppose the deployment of any weapons in outer space. This is a signal to the rest of the world about how we feel about the militarization of outer space.

There are other things that are certainly serious and important, as I have already said. First, the trillions of turnover of joint trade-this matters. When discussing issues related to economic cooperation, of course, this is very important-both bilaterally and multilaterally. I have already mentioned, in my opinion, 5.4 or 5.3 percent GDP growth, 4.5 percent industrial production growth with low inflation of 2.4 percent. This is a good growth rate of the economy and its good quality, I mean a low level of inflation.

Finally, the coordination of humanitarian issues, cooperation in various areas, including youth cooperation, in the field of culture, education, and sports – all this is very important and has good prospects.

A. Gamov: "Komsomolskaya Pravda", Alexander Gamov.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, we are already making such statements that we consider the Verkhovna Rada to be the only legitimate authority in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: This is not our opinion, the Constitution of Ukraine says so.

A. Gamov: Yes, according to the Constitution. Perhaps Russia could address the Verkhovna Rada directly? So that, perhaps, both the people of Ukraine and the West can hear our direct appeal.

And in connection with the Ukrainian theme – this has been discussed a lot today, normally - this question arises. Back in December 1999, it was decided to create a Union State of Russia and Belarus, then we dreamed that there would be a single constitution, a single currency, and so on. Now the integration processes have reached an unprecedented level, even taking into account our defense ties. Isn't it time to return to creating exactly the kind of union we dreamed of in 1999? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, as far as Ukraine is concerned. Of course, it is possible to appeal to the Rada, but in the conditions of usurpation of power by the ruling elite in Ukraine, this is meaningless. Because the majority of the Rada is subordinate to this so-called ruling elite, which I mentioned. After all, she is illegally in power and does not even apply to the constitutional court for confirmation of her powers. Because, as I have already said, in 2015 the Supreme Court of Ukraine decided that the term of the presidency in Ukraine is limited to five years, and there are no reasons for extending the presidential powers in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine. All powers should pass to the Rada, but it does not assume these powers. Therefore, of course, you can apply, but based on the practical situation, from what is happening in real life, it is more or less meaningless.

As for the Union State: it is developing, and we keep in mind all the goals and objectives set out in the original documents. As a matter of fact, we are following this path.

We just decided, and the President of Belarus believes, and I support him, that at the first stage we need to solve first of all issues of an economic rather than political nature. We need to create a basis for further rapprochement on the political track. Although, thank God, everything is in order in the political sphere: we have both inter-parliamentary and intergovernmental structures working here. It is only a matter of time before we need to move on to creating a single parliament, as was originally announced. I agree with Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko], we need to properly strengthen our relations in the economic sphere.

The same applies to finance and the single currency. In general, no one says that this is impossible, or impossible, or should not be done. We need to be economically mature for this. Because in the European Union, as you know, when creating a single currency, many countries with weak economies still suffered, because nothing can be regulated by inflation, since everything is tied to the euro. There is no drachma, for example, and Greece could not regulate its internal economic processes with the help of the national currency. Therefore, the level of economic cooperation should also be appropriate.

And we have taken very serious steps in this direction, very serious ones. This applies to tax regulation and customs regulation. You know, if they are not revolutionary things, then they are very serious. We are moving forward with international experience in mind. And I think we're doing the right thing.

D. Korter: Donald Korter, Russia Today.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, terrorist organizations in Afghanistan pose a serious threat to the security of the SCO space, including the countries of Central Asia and Russia. The most dangerous of these, of course, is the Islamic State, which Russia has already encountered this year.

The question is: do we need to involve the Taliban in a dialogue on terrorist threats? Do you think they are our allies or enemies in this?

Vladimir Putin: The Taliban and the Taliban movement have made certain commitments, and in general, there are issues that require constant attention both within the country and in the international community. But in general, we must assume that the Taliban controls power in the country. In this sense, the Taliban are certainly our allies in the fight against terrorism, because any current government is interested in the stability of its government and in the stability of the state that it heads and that it, this government, leads.

I am sure that the Taliban is also interested in ensuring that everything in Afghanistan is stable, calm and subject to certain rules. We have repeatedly received such signals from the Taliban that they are ready to work with us on the anti-terrorist track.

Dmitry Larue: Dmitry Larue, Izvestia newspaper.

Afghanistan remains an observer at the SCO. At the same time, the authorities in Kabul have repeatedly said that they are interested in becoming a full-fledged member of this organization. Is this topic being discussed within the SCO, given the resumption of the work of the Contact Group ["SCO-Afghanistan"]?

Does Russia plan to remove the Taliban from the list of banned organizations? If so, when can this happen?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I have already said that we are in contact with the Taliban. We have repeatedly received signals that the Taliban movement is ready to cooperate with Russia in various areas, including on the anti-terrorist track, and we welcome this.

But as for full membership in the SCO, Russia does not decide this alone, it is always decided on the basis of consensus. There are issues with various member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This concerns the inclusiveness of power in Afghanistan.

I think these are all solvable issues. And we must maintain relations with Afghanistan, with the real political structures that control this power in the country. We will do it. I don't see why we should turn our backs on it now.

And what will happen and in what time frame will depend on how the situation develops.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening! Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV channel.

A few months ago, I managed to ask you a question: who is better for us – Biden or Trump? And you said then that Biden. But now it turns out that this "bet" has been called into question, because after the recent debates in the United States, everyone is simply terrified of Biden, and in general, his participation in the election race is in question.

You may have seen some fragments of this debate. What are your impressions? And, let's just say, have your political preferences changed?

Vladimir Putin: You said: "This' bid ' was called into question." Nothing was called into question. I said then… What has changed? Nothing has changed. What, we didn't know what was going on? Is known. In this sense, nothing has changed.

And as for watching, don't watch – I've seen some fragments. I have enough things to do, so I don't really follow what's going on there, especially in the comments of the media. They always have certain preferences: someone is for, someone is against. In general, of course, I saw that it is impossible to turn away from this, especially since the United States remains a great power with well-known capabilities in the economic, security, and military spheres, and the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, of course, has such influence on the situation in Ukraine. Of course, it doesn't matter what happens there. But this is, in fact, their internal business.

Please, please.

A. Gereikhanova: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Aysel Gereikhanova.

Still, as for the debate and specifically the statements of Donald Trump. He has repeatedly said during debates that he is ready to end the conflict in Ukraine in just one day. There are also reports that Trump may stop the expansion of NATO to the east. How seriously do you take such promises?

Vladimir Putin: You know, the fact that Mr. Trump, as a presidential candidate, declares that he is ready and wants to stop the war in Ukraine, we take this quite seriously. I am not familiar, of course, with his possible suggestions on how he is going to do this – and this, of course, is the key question. But I have no doubt that he says this sincerely, and we support it.

A. Kolesnikov: Andrey Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, tell me, do you think that a ceasefire along the line of military contact with Ukraine is possible before the start of peace talks without preconditions, at least in order to increase the chance of success? Or is this also a subject of negotiation?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I'll remind you of some things. When our troops were stationed near Kiev, we received a proposal and even a persistent request from our Western partners to cease fire, to stop fighting in order for certain things to be done on the Ukrainian side. And we did it. There was such an episode, we did it. The Ukrainian side has not stopped fighting. And then we were told that the Ukrainian official authorities cannot control all their armed formations, because there are supposedly those who do not obey the central authorities. That's what we were told, but I didn't add or subtract anything here. This is the first one.

Second. We were asked to withdraw our troops from Kiev in order to create conditions for the final conclusion of a peace agreement. We did this and again faced deception: all the agreements reached in Istanbul were thrown into the trash. And so it was repeatedly.

Therefore, we simply cannot just declare a cease-fire right now in the hope that the other side will take some positive steps. This is the first one.

Second. We must not allow the enemy to take advantage of this ceasefire to improve their situation, to rearm themselves, to equip their army by forcibly mobilising them, and to be prepared for the continuation of the armed conflict. We need to get the other side to agree to take steps that are irreversible and acceptable to the Russian Federation.

Therefore, a cease-fire without reaching this agreement is impossible.

E. Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.

Recently, Vladimir Zelensky said that he considers it possible to negotiate with Russia through intermediaries, as was the case with the grain deal. How do you assess this idea, and who could become an intermediary in this case?

Vladimir Putin: We have always supported negotiations, as you know very well, and we have never given up on them. The only question is that I think it is unlikely that the conflict will be finally resolved with the help of intermediaries and only through them. First of all, because it is unlikely that the intermediary will have the authority to sign the final documents. And what's more, not even to sign the final documents, but to bring even the final documents to signing. Here, the fundamental issue is not only the competence of these intermediaries, but also their powers. Who can give the mediator the authority to put a final point and put an end to this confrontation? I think this is unlikely.

But mediation, as, for example, Mr. Erdogan did during our negotiation process in Istanbul, we welcome mediation in itself.

R. Bodrova: Rossina Bodrova, Zvezda TV channel.

What do we know about Washington's plans to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, what kind of territories they can be, and how they will threaten our security?

Recently, you spoke about the need to start production of INF strike systems. Are we talking about some new weapons? Only production or placement including?

Vladimir Putin: If you remember, I said that with the United States withdrawing from this treaty and announcing that it is starting production, we also consider ourselves entitled to start OKR, development, and in the future production. We conduct these OKRAS, developments. We are ready to start production. In principle, we have already given the relevant instructions to the industry.

As for deployment, if you remember, if not, I will remind you that I said that we are declaring a moratorium on the possible future deployment of our respective systems until these missile systems appear in some region of the world. If American-made intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles appear somewhere, then we reserve the right to act in a mirror manner. Everything remains as we said.

A. Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, yesterday you had a series of bilateral meetings, and special attention was focused on your talks with Erdogan, whom you have not personally met for a long time, although the trade turnover between our countries is falling.

Vladimir Putin: It's already growing.

Alexander Yunashev: But still not at the pace we would like.

If it's not a secret, what were you talking about when the press left? And what is the most important problem of relations between Russia and Turkey, what hinders us, maybe who?

Vladimir Putin: It is well known who hinders us. What helps us is the political will of President Erdogan. And in technical terms, these are calculations, as everyone knows very well. Although the Turkish partners said yesterday that, yes, in terms of value, our trade volumes have decreased from $ 63 billion to $ 55 billion. This needs to be checked, of course. In their opinion, this is primarily due to cost characteristics, because they purchased our energy carriers at higher prices, and in recent months prices have decreased, at least compared to 2022. Therefore, there is also a decrease in value.

But, in their opinion, in absolute terms, in volumes, everything is about the same as it was. I'll check it out. But the point is not even to check, but to intensify our work. In general, there is interest on both sides in this issue.

There are also things of an objective nature that are connected not with the fact that someone interferes with us, but with the real development of events. For example, a good harvest in Turkey: their storage facilities are full of grain, they began to buy less grain. Or, for example, their tax restrictions related to our steel industry. This has nothing to do with any restrictions from the outside. It's just the dynamics of domestic production and our bilateral relations. All issues are solved.

I ask you to.

Alexey Derkach: Hello, Mr Putin. Anna Derkach, "THE WORLD".

Belarus is now officially a member of the SCO. What prospects does this provide for the organization, and what opportunities do they offer for cooperation between the SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: In terms of its size, territory, economy and population, Belarus is not comparable to the People's Republic of China or India, where there are 1.5 billion people, probably more. But still, this is an important element of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, because Belarus is already Eastern Europe, and this is the official entrance of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, in the full sense of the word, to the European continent. And for Belarus itself, this is also, I think, a big plus, because after all, it has access to the Caspian Sea through Russia, and then through, say, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and then to Iran. This is important for Belarus, as it still remains a major exporter of mineral fertilizers. And it is important for it what routes it supplies its goods, it is important what routes and to which countries it can supply its agricultural machinery, it is important what routes and what it can receive from the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Therefore, I think this is a mutually beneficial decision, and to a certain extent it is the success of Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko and his Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

K. Chernyaeva: Interfax News Agency, Ksenia Chernyaeva.

At the moment, in fact, the entire previous system of strategic stability has been canceled: START-3, the INF Treaty and the CTBT do not work. Is it possible to renew these agreements in the future, or will they never be relevant again? Or should we come up with something new, such as a single concept, convention, or some other framework document? With whom and on what platform should we discuss this topic and record such agreements?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The first thing I would like to point out is that the United States has indeed destroyed the fundamental documents that were the foundation of international stability and security. We did not withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, but it was one of the cornerstones of either the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty or the CTBT.

Many elements that were the foundation of international stability have been destroyed in recent years. And we didn't do it all. This is all done by the United States. What else could we do? Only take note of and respond to these actions. So we reacted. In the military sphere, for example, to overcome the missile defense system being created by the United States, what did we do? We invented – and not without success-systems for overcoming missile defense. These are, for example, "Vanguards" of intercontinental range, planning blocks with hypersonic speed. These are systems for overcoming missile defense with intercontinental-range ballistic missile technology and some other things. We had to do it.

But all the same, the question of creating a legal framework for international security and strategic stability, of course, is worth it. Should these be new agreements or a return to the old ones? This is what experts should say. You know, even when I was studying at the university, I did not study public international law, I studied private international law and wrote relevant theses on this subject. Then I worked in economics.

But the point is not even in this, not in the formal side, not in the legal side of the case, but in the essence of the issues that we must solve together.

We have formulated our proposals. I mentioned this during my speech at the Foreign Ministry, before the leadership of the Foreign Ministry. In principle, this is put on paper. But there must be good will on the part of those who are interested in it. We sometimes hear from the United States that they want to resume conversations on this topic. But it's not clear: first they want it, then they don't want it anymore. In the last period of the Obama administration, we were given a signal that they wanted to. Then suddenly they didn't want to.

Now, in the course of the election campaign, and this is a very acute domestic political one, to talk about what we can now establish with the United States, and first of all we need to talk with them on this issue, some kind of constructive dialogue-it seems to me that all those present here, and people in general, are trying to find a way to those who follow the current events at least a little bit, understand that this is impossible today. We need to wait for the US elections and understand the mood and preferences of the future administration. We are ready for this.

Yu.Bubnova: At your speech at the Foreign Ministry, you voiced your vision of the future security system, and now you mentioned that these ideas will be put on paper. What will it be, if not a secret? Are these any new agreements, will they be our written proposals to the West or something else? And in general, are there any contacts on your proposals on Ukraine, on the global security system in general, or are they still unanswered by the West?

Vladimir Putin: As for global security, I just said. We need to wait until the new administration [of the United States] appears, understand what their preferences, views, plans are, and whether they have a desire to talk about this. I repeat once again: this signal is sent to us from time to time, that they want to resume this dialogue with us. And then they suddenly disappear somewhere, start talking about some abstract topics that are not directly related to issues of strategic stability. I repeat once again, let's wait until the new administration is formed and understand what its plans and preferences are. I want to repeat once again that we are ready for this.

Thank you very much. Good luck.

A very narrow range of questions that’s somewhat disappointing. IMO, the press corp understands the private sideline conversations remain private, so they ask no questions, although the meeting with Erdogan was queried. But what about the Summit’s outcomes? In glancing over the SCO Joint Statement, I already see a few points that need questioning. For example, this paragraph’s main point:

The Member States consider it necessary to enhance the role of the SCO in creating conditions for strengthening global peace, security and stability, as well as building a new democratic, just, political and economic international order. To this end, they accept the SCO Initiative "On World Unity for Just Peace, Harmony and Development" and invite the world community to join it.

That’s based on this document:

Solution of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation on the approval of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation's “Global Initiative unity for a just peace, harmony and development.”

But a link to that specific document isn’t provided, so how can the press know its contents? Putin was asked about bilateral negotiations between Russia and the Outlaw US Empire, not the SCO’s Initiative or how it complements or contradicts China’s Global Security Initiative.

The Joint Declaration holds some key points that merit discussion, so after we look at the main Summit meetings, we’ll turn to those.

*
*
*
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!