Putin's Presser Prior to Leaving China

At the end of his visit to Harbin, President Putin made some remarks and took questions from the Russian press pool. Given the pace of events and his travel, Putin does look a tad fatigued in this photo:

Question: Your visit here was followed by the whole world without exaggeration. A flurry of reports, a flurry of publications. But, apparently, everyone understands that the future of the rapidly changing world largely depends on the positions of Russia and China. Following your talks here in China, I would like to know: do Moscow and Beijing have a common understanding of what the future system of international security and international politics should look like?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to thank Chinese President Xi Jinping and the entire Chinese leadership for the invitation and for creating a very favorable and warm atmosphere for joint work.

In general, the negotiations were very informative, very intense.

The status of the visit is official, state, but this is a purely working trip, without any doubt. From morning to night, we spent almost the whole day together with the Chairman and his colleagues. A lot of topics were raised for discussion.

And the fact that the future depends on Russia and China is partly, only partly true. Because the future of humanity depends on all of humanity. But, of course, both China and Russia are important components of modern civilization. And we have our own opinion about how we should develop. And this development of ours will certainly affect the development of all partners on the planet.

Development, we believe, should be constructive, peaceful, without any doubt. It should take into account not only our interests, but also the interests of all participants in international communication.

And of course, we need to strengthen the emerging multipolar world. There is no doubt that it is developing before our very eyes, and the world is becoming multipolar. I think that everyone understands this very well and is aware of it. And it is important that those who are trying to maintain their monopoly on decision-making in the world on all issues, understanding this-and I think they understand this very well, but I don't think so, I know, they understand this very well – that they understand this and do everything that is required of them In this case, it depends that this process is natural, I repeat once again, peaceful, conflict-free, and that the opinions of all participants in the international process are fully taken into account, so that we all look for compromises in rather complex decisions that we all face.

We are determined to do this, and we are determined to do this kind of work. I have repeatedly said this, and the President of the People's Republic of China has emphasized it: our cooperation, our cooperation, our strategic partnership with China, Russia and China, is not directed against anyone. It is aimed at one thing – creating better conditions for the development of our countries and improving the well-being of the peoples of China and the Russian Federation.

Question: How was your informal meeting with Xi Jinping, which, according to your aide, was held in a very narrow format, but was attended, in particular, by Defense Minister Andrei Belousov and Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu? Have you touched upon the topic of Ukraine? What would be convincing evidence of Ukraine's readiness for negotiations for you personally? Earlier, both you and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have repeatedly said that Western partners can no longer be trusted.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, such a meeting took place, it was in a narrow format. We really discussed a lot of issues that are important for bilateral relations.

The topic of resolving the Ukrainian crisis was touched upon. The President of the People's Republic of China outlined to me the main theses of what was discussed during his recent trip to Europe and outlined his position on Chinese peace initiatives. We have repeatedly said that we believe that China sincerely strives to resolve this problem, offers various options, behaves very flexibly and, in my opinion, sincerely strives to solve this problem. We discussed this in some detail.

As for our counter-partners, so to speak, in this case it concerns the Ukrainian leadership and its overseas owners, first of all, European ones-well, what is it? We've talked about this many times.

When our troops were stationed near Kiev, we were told something by our Western partners: you can't sign documents if a gun is held to your head from the opposite side. "What should I do?" – from our side, we asked. "We need to withdraw our troops from Kiev." We did it. The next day, they threw all our agreements in the trash and said: well, now we will fight to the end. And their Western curators took a position that is now known to the whole world: to defeat Russia on the battlefield, to inflict a strategic defeat on it.

It wasn't us who behaved like this, it was our partners who behaved like this. This was also said by officials, including the head of the Ukrainian delegation during the talks first in Minsk and then in Istanbul. The then Prime Minister [of Great Britain], Mr. Johnson, came and recommended that Ukraine continue fighting. Otherwise, Mr. Arakhamia said, namely, he was at the head of the delegation – today he heads the ruling party's faction in the Ukrainian parliament-otherwise, he said, all military operations would have been stopped a year and a half ago. After all, he said this publicly, in my opinion, at a meeting with journalists. No one really doubts it.

In other words, let's draw a line under this part of the answer to your question: we were once again deceived. Now we need to understand who and how we should deal with, can deal with, who and to what extent we can trust.

Of course, we are now analyzing everything that is happening in this regard in this area, and we are certainly looking at what is happening around the meeting announced by everyone in Switzerland, in Geneva – in my opinion, they are going to meet there. Of course, we are not going to discuss any formulas that we don't know about.

But we have never refused to negotiate, unlike the Ukrainian side. It is they who have withdrawn from the negotiation process; they have declared that they are going to inflict a strategic defeat on us. And they said that "we will fight to the end", in fact, not to the end, but to the last Ukrainian. They did it all with their own hands.

We have the basis for the negotiation process, what we agreed on in Istanbul, and what was actually signed by the head of the Ukrainian delegation, under an excerpt from this voluminous document. He initialed it. We have the document lying there, its signature is worth it. What other additional conditions are there that we have never heard of or know anything about?

What is the point of this event [Switzerland] is clear: to gather as many countries as possible, then declare what has been agreed with everyone, and then present it to Russia as an already resolved issue, as an ultimatum. There will be no such development.

Question: In continuation of the topic of Ukraine: yesterday Zelensky visited Kharkiv, held a meeting of the stavka there. And at the same time, we are actively fighting near Kharkiv, and our servicemen seem to be achieving success.

Vladimir Putin: They don't seem to be doing it, but they are trying to do it. Every day they move strictly according to plan.

Q: So what's the plan? Our goal is to capture Kharkiv? Or is it the creation of the "sanitary zone" that you mentioned earlier?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I do not know what the head of the Ukrainian state said. All I know is that in the end, it's their fault for what's going on. All the current authorities in Kiev have a coup d'etat as their source of origin. This is the source of today's power in Ukraine-the first.

Secondly, by allowing a coup d'etat, and Western sponsors, by facilitating it, organizing it, created conditions for the transition of a smoldering conflict into an armed conflict. It's their fault. They are trying to shift the blame from a sore head to a healthy one and put the blame on Russia for today's tragic events. But this is the result of their policies.

As for what is happening in the Kharkiv direction, this is also their fault, because they have shelled and continue, unfortunately, to shell residential areas of the border territories, including Belgorod. Civilians are dying there, obviously. They shoot directly at the city center, at residential areas. I have said publicly that if this continues, we will have to create a security zone, a "sanitary zone". That's what we're doing.

As for Kharkiv, there are currently no such plans.

Question: Recently, there have been reports that Chinese banks are no longer accepting payments from Russian banks. Please tell me, have you discussed this issue with the Chinese leader? If so, is there any result? And was it possible to agree on a possible settlement scheme that would not be affected by Western sanctions?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Tertiary sanctions, or sanctions against third countries that participate in economic activities, are of course doubly or trebly illegitimate, because if they are adopted without a decision of the UN Security Council, they are generally illegitimate. And with regard to third countries, this is completely beyond the scope of common sense.

By the way, such sanctions are applied by the same Americans or Europeans and even against their allies mutually. The Europeans do not apply such sanctions to the Americans, but the Americans accept such sanctions against European economic operators and often bring them to their logical conclusion. Not only in relation to Russia, but also in relation to other situations and other countries. This is a practice, and the Europeans swallow it all, once again confirming their vassalage on the sovereign overseas. God bless them!

And the fact that such decisions are made, of course, they cause direct damage to the world economy, not only to the countries in respect of which such decisions are made, and to the economic operators of these countries, but also to the world economy as a whole: both energy and other areas of economic activity. First of all, issues related to calculations are discussed at the level of participants in economic activity. Solutions are possible, they exist. Of course, they should be supported at the state level in one way or another, and I hope they will be.

One can understand the motives behind the behavior of large financial institutions: no one wants to incur any losses due to even illegal actions of the US authorities. But I must say, I have already said this, and I want to repeat it: this is a great stupidity and a huge mistake on the part of the American political elites, because they are causing great damage to themselves, undermining confidence in the dollar. And they are gradually curtailing the status of the dollar as the world's settlement and reserve currency, although they have a huge gain from this position of the dollar. First, the Bretton Woods system. Then they abandoned the gold support of the dollar and switched to the Jamaican system. And what is it based on? Only on the printing press or, let's say nobly, "on the power and quality of the American economy." Yes, this is true in fact.

All countries of the world trust the American economy, its strength and stability and take these pieces of paper. But this gives a huge, at first glance inexplicable advantage to the American economy and financial system. They can also be evaluated directly, in certain numbers. According to our experts, this is over $ 10 trillion, just unearned money that fell from the sky due to the use of the dollar as a reserve world currency. And in general, the obligations of the US monetary system to the rest of the world are approximately 53.4 trillion dollars.

But as the United States government undermines confidence in the dollar for political reasons, it weakens its main, main, and most important instrument of power – the dollar itself. They cause irreparable damage to themselves. That is, to put it trivially with our well-known proverbs, they simply saw the branch on which they themselves sit. This is terrible stupidity. But they can't stop.

There are disadvantages for us in that we are forced to look for other opportunities. But there are also advantages, because a situation in which one side dictates its will to the rest of the world, including in the political sphere, using financial and economic instruments, is unacceptable. And all the countries of the world, I assure you, need only look at the volume of reserves, how they are decreasing in dollars. The whole world is reacting to this. I think this process is inevitable.

Of course, we are moving on, and this is the right process. It is associated with certain costs and difficulties, but it is generally correct when we say that we are switching to national currencies in settlements or creating some other settlement instruments with other countries. This process is underway, it has started, and there is no stopping it.

Question: Mr President, let me return to the topic of Ukraine and some Western initiatives.

You have already mentioned that you discussed this issue with Xi Jinping for a long time yesterday. Tell me, please, whether the topic of Macron's initiative to declare an "Olympic truce" was raised? In your opinion, is such an "Olympic truce" possible now? Or is this another attempt by the West to lure Russia into a trap, especially against the backdrop of military successes?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, President Xi Jinping told me about this, and we discussed it with him, as if we simply touched on it.

What do I think about this? First of all, these principles of Olympism, including the Olympic Truce, are very correct. It is no coincidence that they have been developed by the world community for centuries. True, few people have ever adhered to this principle, with the exception of Ancient Greece, but in general, the idea itself is very correct and constructive. The question is different – the question is that today's international sports officials themselves violate the principles of the Olympic Charter. They politicize sports, which is absolutely unacceptable, bearing in mind the purpose of sports as a platform for people to communicate and to find compromises in the course of this communication and on other issues, including political ones.

They themselves are violating, including in this case with regard to Russia, not allowing our athletes to compete at the Olympic Games with their own banner, with their own flag and with their own national music, with the national anthem, they are violating us, and they want us to follow the rules that they dictate to us.. That's what no one thinks of? Does this correspond to some elementary standards of justice? There is no such thing. They violate it themselves, but they demand execution from us. Dear friends, we won't get very far this way, and no one has ever agreed on any issues. In order to demand or expect something from others, you need to follow these rules yourself.

But in general, the sport is certainly developing and will continue to develop. I don't know how the Olympic movement will feel today under the leadership of such officials. If they put money at the forefront and make the main principle of their activities, as in any commercial enterprise, the main goal of which is to make a profit, if this is put at the forefront, then nothing good is expected in the future of the Olympic movement.

You see, it's already become just a commercial corporation. Everything is built on what? On receiving money from sponsors, from large information companies for broadcasting. In general, this is a whole enterprise for making a profit from sports competitions. Still, the principle of Olympism is different – in humanitarian principles.

Question: This week, the United States imposed duties on a number of Chinese goods: chips, semiconductors, metal, solar panels, and most importantly, it raised the duty on Chinese electric vehicles, in my opinion, four times, to 100 percent. Can this be considered sanctions against China? Does cooperation between Russia and China help to resist such attacks?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, it looks like sanctions on the surface, but to a certain extent these are elements of an economic war. This is not the first time they have been used. By the way, politics, the nature of relations between Russia and China, the situation in Ukraine, I assure you, have nothing to do with this. These are just elements of unfair competition.

We made the MC-21 aircraft. In certain components that we agreed on, which have nothing to do with military production – there were certain components to be inserted into the wings - they simply refused us, and everything was included in the sanctions list. And in one that is related to military production. But nothing to do with military production there was and is not. Yes, we lost time, and this production has shifted by about six months. But we made these components ourselves, harnesses for the wings. They did it well, and even better than American production, in terms of quality and durability of their use. The same result will be found here.

I just spoke at a meeting with students about why such restrictions were imposed on the Chinese automobile industry and electric cars. Yes, because they have become better and cheaper than European and American ones, that's all. They simply kill competitors, in this case a Chinese competitor, and do not allow them to enter their market. This is a prohibitive duty. And in Europe, of course, the same thing is happening.

As soon as a certain country, as we often say, the center of world development, any center, rises, becomes more competitive, it is immediately cheeky! - and they lower it, try to do it.

Can Russian-Chinese cooperation somehow counteract this? Maybe. But in order to prevent this from happening, they interfere with the financial transaction. Because we could buy more. And since they create problems in money transfers, we are limited in purchasing these products.

Can something be done about it? And this is possible, and we will develop joint production facilities. This takes time, just as we have made components for aircraft, we have moved everything to the right for six months, and we will do the same here, we will do joint production.

This is the most erroneous and stupid way to build an international economic system. The most correct one is what they have been telling us all the time for decades, if I may say so, sorry for the bad language, that the market decides everything. But the market will still push them back-you know what the problem is? This is a problem that they create for themselves.

After all, what will it lead to? They have imposed sanctions on such goods, such goods, such goods. What will it lead to? Inflation in the US-that's what it will lead to. Because they will try to produce it themselves, on their own sites, for their own wages to their employees, for their already expensive metal, on the basis of their expensive energy. Here is the result: the German economy in Europe is already in the red, and the French is teetering on the verge of recession. And if the German economy still sneezes, it will feel like it doesn't matter, and the entire European economy will not feel very healthy behind it, mildly speaking. This is what decisions of this kind lead to. These are non-market, absolutely stupid, and unpromising solutions.

Question: Tell me, please, under what conditions would you be able to take part in the peace conference on Ukraine in Switzerland, if, of course, you suddenly received such an offer?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Well, politics does not tolerate the subjunctive mood: "if only." We will not continue further. You know what would have happened there in other cases. But this "if" does not exist. They don't invite us. Moreover, it is said that they don't see us there. Well, what are we going to talk about then? "But if you do this..." – we seem to be asking for it. But if you do this, and if so, then we would make such decisions." Well, if they don't see it, don't. First.

The second thing that is very important is that we are not going to discuss from the center of the field what we don't know. As I said, we had painstaking negotiations for a long time, almost a month and a half, first in Minsk and then in Istanbul, and we reached certain compromises. The Ukrainian side signed an extract from these documents. He himself is so fat, healthy, and squeeze-the fundamental issues outlined were initialed by the Ukrainian side. But we worked on it. Now some formulas based on what? On the "wishlist", and not on the real situation. Well, this is impossible to discuss.

But we are ready to discuss it. We never refused. I just told you, it's not a joke, I didn't come up with anything. As soon as the troops were withdrawn, the Westerners immediately told Ukraine: do not sign, fight. Those took under the visor, perform. And we were immediately told: now we will fight to the last. That's what we're told. There will be no more negotiations.

Now they can see what's not working. Until the last one, maybe it will work out. But it is not possible to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, and this is seen. Now they beeped: "Let's have an urgent conference." "Please." – "Will Russia participate?" – We are ready to participate in peace talks. "But we don't invite you." Here's a movie for you, hello, we've arrived. And Russia is accused of not wanting to take part. So we are not invited!

And you ask: on what terms? What am I going to do now to put forward conditions and ask to go there, if they don't see us there? What do they want to do? Gather as many countries as possible, convince everyone that the best offer is some conditions proposed by the Ukrainian side, and then present it to us as an ultimatum, say: you see, the whole world thinks so, agree. Is this a way of conducting substantive, serious negotiations? No, of course not. This is an attempt to impose.

There was an attempt to inflict a strategic defeat – but it didn't work out. And an attempt to impose will end in the same way.

Replica: But still, as I understand it, your condition is that the agreements reached must remain in force?

Vladimir Putin: Well of course. This is the base. They initialed it, but the document itself is not signed until the end. There are very serious issues, there are issues related to ensuring the security of Ukraine. They are so spelled out that they should also think about it. But in general, this is a base. They are registered by the Ukrainian side. And I think that not least, probably, if not under dictation, then with the consent of their Western sponsors. But there everything is strictly spelled out from the point of view of their [Western] interests.

There is also something that is taken into account, taking into account the interests of Russia from the point of view of ensuring our security. There are a lot of questions there, I don't even want to go into. I remember all of them, well, not all of them, but all the main points. We are ready to discuss this.

Then they threw it out, they wanted to gain an advantage on the battlefield, to achieve a strategic position – it didn't work out, "here are our conditions for you now." Did they fall from an oak tree or something? Why should I?

Of course, we will proceed from the realities that are developing on earth. This goes without saying.

Question: I'm talking about China and the supply of hydrocarbons from us here.

Has an agreement in principle been reached on the Power of Siberia-2 project? When will construction start: this year or next? And in general, did you talk about the possibility of increasing supplies?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. I'm not ready to say anything about the technical details right now, but both sides have confirmed their interest in implementing these projects. Because the Chinese economy is growing, it requires, accordingly, an increase in energy resources, which are necessary to maintain this growth. There is nothing more reliable – I think this is an obvious thing – than supplies from Russia.

We have a huge common border, and no one can interfere here: neither sanctions against the tanker fleet, nor sanctions against even financial institutions. We will buy and sell everything in national currencies. Therefore, the interest on both sides has been confirmed. On the one hand, there is an interest in obtaining additional volumes, and on the other hand, there is an interest in selling them on the Chinese market. This is always a complex process, the question is in prices, the question is who will earn how much. But strategically, we are absolutely interested – both countries – in implementing these projects, and we will continue to do so.

And Gazprom and our oil companies will certainly agree. Different routes also exist. One of them is through Mongolia, and in one corridor it is possible to lay both a gas pipe and an oil one. Experts must decide what is best to do. You can follow the Northern Sea Route. To bribe the tanker fleet and set up the Northern Sea Route, in fact, almost like a pipe. All options are possible. They are all acceptable and economically feasible. You need to choose the best ones. I am sure that this work will also be completed.

Question: I also have a question on the Ukrainian topic, if possible.

The term of office of Volodymyr Zelensky is coming to an end soon, it expires on May 20. After this date, will Russia no longer consider him a legitimate President? And it will mean something to you, will you be ready to talk to him after that?

Vladimir Putin: We used to communicate with him, we were in constant contact before the conflict entered the acute phase of armed struggle.

About legitimacy. This question must first be answered by the political and legal systems of Ukraine itself. There are all sorts of options in the Constitution. This is a matter of evaluation. This assessment, of course, should first be given by the Constitutional Court and, in general, even the political system of Ukraine itself. But of course, this is important for us, because if it comes to signing any documents, of course, we must sign documents in such a crucial area with the legitimate authorities, this is an obvious fact. But, I repeat once again, the political and legal systems of Ukraine itself must answer this question.

Thank you very much.

Question: Did you discuss with Xi Jinping that China is invited to this international conference?

Vladimir Putin: We discussed this issue in a comprehensive manner.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Question: Mr Putin, about the French army in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: I'm not the French president. What are you asking me? I don't make the decision.

Question: Mr Macron has repeatedly stated that he is ready to send troops there. If regular French troops enter Ukraine, will this mean a direct conflict, a war with the French?

Vladimir Putin: You will first get an answer to your question: will there be troops there or not? And then we will consider the possible consequences of this step.

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, and the figure of [Defense Minister Andrey] Belousov? If I may ask, please excuse the last question. Why was Belousov chosen as the Minister of Defense? Now it is still a very important moment of the special military operation.

Vladimir Putin: Well, I told you, I already told you. Dmitry Sergeyevich talked about it. He spoke because I asked him to. I want to repeat it again.

The level of defense spending on the Ministry of Defense alone is 6.7 percent of GDP this year. If we take the entire power component of the state, then the cost of the entire power component will come out somewhere over eight percent. And in this system of spending, the Ministry of Defense plays a key role. That is, the costs of other law enforcement agencies also depend on the Defense Ministry's expenses. Because the Ministry of Defense primarily makes some purchases, and other law enforcement agencies buy for them, depending on what choice the Ministry of Defense makes. In addition, the Ministry of Defense is building the entire defense system of the country with the involvement of other law enforcement agencies. And their expenses also depend on this.

If the Ministry of Defense has 6.7 [percent] for all this, and a little over eight percent for all defense security, then this is not critical yet. Because in the Soviet Union in 1985-1986, defense spending was 13 percent. For us, today, taking into account the state of the economy, macroeconomic indicators, and budget revenue forecasts, spending on defense and security together is just over eight percent – not critical, absolutely normal. Moreover, experts believe that it would be possible to add even more to it. According to these experts, the budget's capabilities make it possible. But they are what they are.

Andrei Ramovich, as you know, was the Minister of Economy. He is generally considered a good economist, one of the best in the country. He was my economics assistant. He was the First Deputy Prime Minister. And in this sense, of course, he is able to coordinate the activities of the Ministry of Defense with all ministries and departments of the country. And with regions. This is also important. And I mean not only the border regions, but also others. Because they are also, to a certain extent, participants in economic activity. First.

The second thing he will have to do is to open up the Ministry of Defense for constructive work with research centers, with participants in economic activity in the broadest sense of the word, with manufacturers of those military-technical products and those components that are needed for the production of military equipment. It should open up the Department of Defense to innovation.

Yes, and Sergei Kuzhugetovich [Shoigu] has already taken certain steps in this direction, the first steps were taken. But I believe that it is simply easier for a former Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, even taking into account his official duties in the recent past. These were the reasons for his appointment to this position.

Sergey Kuzhugetovich, as you have seen, has been in public, has often visited enterprises, watched them, knows and understands what is happening, knows the needs of the Armed Forces, and in the medium and short term, and understands the capabilities of industry. To a certain extent, he was engaged in our contacts with foreign partners in the field of military-technical cooperation, because the Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation was under the Ministry of Defense, and he actually led it.

Therefore, he will have a huge amount of work to do. It's all combined. If you have noticed, I supported the idea of making Denis Valentinovich Manturov First Deputy in the Government precisely because we want to focus administrative resources on achieving the main task that the country faces today – achieving the results we need in the framework of a special military operation.

Thank you very much. [My Emphasis]

I really want a better translation of the 6th paragraph where it appears Putin jumbles his words. He dodged the question on Chinese banks acceptance of payments, so it’s not clear what that status is. IMO, Putin got annoyed at the volume of questions about the SMO/Ukraine instead of about what just transpired in China. That annoyance prompted the further detail in response to the final question that confirms what I’ve been saying for over a year—it’s a Team effort. Same with what’s happening relative to the multipolar world’s formation—it will take the effort of all players—especially those of the Western Bloc—to make the transition peacefully. As Putin noted, there’s great danger form the Outlaw US Empire’s self-inflicted damage causing more than illegal sanctions to be laid that actually worsen the situation for itself. Putin noted those in charge of the Empire are addicted to levying sanctions and have never actually thought them through, thus the blowback. And then there’s what’s happening in Europe and how the latest illegal sanctions will harm those nations where trading with China at the present acts like an economic life ring.

One of the major points of discussion was related to the need for more ports of entry between Russia and China along with the need to vastly expand those already in place. There were no questions about that, nor were there any about the emphasis placed on increasing cultural and people-to-people contacts, which was another major point of Putin’s visit. As I noted above, IMO Putin has reason to be disappointed in the caliber of questions asked by the Russian press corp—there were no Chinese there as far as I’m aware. I also believe Putin was tempted to say something about what’s being planned on the anti-sanctions front but refrained as the West doesn’t need any hints as to what’s to come. I expected more announcements related to commercial deals, and there were more agreements signed that I’ve yet to see. AhHa! I just looked to see if the link to the Documents signed page was reincluded and it’s now there, in Russian of course. Aside from the link to the Joint Declaration, there are ten documents that will serve as a foundation for those that follow. They may seem like small potatoes at first glance, but they aren’t.

Putin was back at work today dealing with the natural disasters caused by the floods and Siberian fires. There was also good news about the advancement of relations with North Korea. Putin also engaged in a phone chat with Kazakhstan President Tokayev. There will be little rest for Team Putin for the rest of the year.

*
*
*
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!