Putin's Valdai Club Appearance--Finale

Attentive, concentrating, taking notes, and serious, the Russian President.

Gym stalwarts have reached the last part of Putin’s Valdai Club appearance as the Q&A session continues. As usual, all emphasis is mine:

F. Lukyanov: Alexander Rakovic, Serbia.

:(as translated)Mr. Rakovich Dear Mr. President,

My name is Alexander Rakovic, I am a historian from Serbia. It's an honor to see you, to listen to you, to talk to you again.

My question for you today is as follows. In your opinion, what is the state and individual mechanisms that Russians, Serbs and other peoples around the world should use to protect our traditional values and protect ourselves, our identity, from the pervasive, imposed influence of Western ideology that we saw this year at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: As for what we saw at the opening, to be honest, I didn't even look at it at first, but then I was told that something was happening there, so I looked at it. I do not know what they expected, why the organizers did it, why the IOC missed it. This, of course, was offensive to millions of Christian believers. Why is it necessary to offend anyone, to offend their religious feelings? Those who did this will say that they did not intend to offend and do not see anything offensive here.

But the same thing happens with representatives of Islam, when they burn the Koran or any other illustrations, comics with the Prophet are published under the auspices of freedom of speech. I will now repeat what I have repeatedly said: the freedom of one person or society ends where the freedom of another begins. Because if you can insult someone, their religious feelings, and say "this is my freedom, I do what I want", then you can go to the point of murder: "I want to kill"," I want to kill", "I killed," this is an expression of my freedom". So, what is it? Nonsense, of course.

People don't feel any borders, they don't see the edges, as our people sometimes say. If you have a vision of something, that's all right, and be consistent with your vision of it. But if you know it might offend the other person, refrain from doing it, that's all-the rule is simple.

They consider it possible to act in this way. This, by the way, as well as the opportunity for men to compete in women's sports, simply kills women's sports. If, I'm sorry, I brought up this topic, in my opinion, some sports are not women's. I apologize to the women, they will say that I am wrong. Well, that's another topic.

But if women participate in these sports: barbell, boxing, I do not know, wrestling-well, let the women compete with each other. It's simple-a man, because he declared himself a woman, went to win everyone, broke the nose of a woman there-it just kills women's sport. It will be impossible for women to perform anywhere soon. Well, some nonsense.

Let these people fight among themselves. Declared himself a woman--these are the ones who declared, let them perform and fight among themselves at the Olympic Games. Or also those who take certificates that they have been ill with something since childhood and use some drugs that give clear advantages during the competitive process—let's arrange competitions between them. Well, it's so natural, simple, in my opinion. What's so-and-so here? It doesn't offend anyone, by the way.

And how to protect your values? By all means available to us.

: (as translated)Wang Wen My name is Wang Wen and I represent China.

I am very pleased to see you again, Mr. President. My question is about Russian-Chinese relations over the next four years. I would also like to ask about changes in the future international system.

We know that Trump is back. If President Trump calls you one day and says, for example, "Let's join forces to defeat China," what would be your answer to such a question? Will you accept President Trump's offer? For example, the unification of Russia and the United States to confront China? This is the first question.

The second question focuses on the future of international relations. You have repeatedly said that the international system is undergoing profound changes. From your point of view, what will the future of international relations look like? What will this system be like? From your point of view, what is the role of Russia, China, and the United States? What should the role of these countries look like in the future system? And how do you plan to coordinate relations in this triangle: Russia-China – the United States?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will try to answer as briefly as possible. First. We cooperate with China and are not friends against anyone. Our relations with China are not directed against third countries, including the United States. Our relations with China are aimed at creating conditions for the development of our states and creating the necessary conditions for the security of our peoples.

The same applies to our relations with the United States. I can hardly imagine such a question on the part of Mr. President-elect, I think that he understands that this issue is very far from the realities in which we live. Russia does not unite with anyone against anyone. Moreover, it looks absolutely unrealistic in relation to China, with which, as I have already said, we have achieved an unprecedented level of mutual trust, cooperation and friendship.

I believe that states such as China and Russia, which have hundreds or thousands of kilometers of common borders, a common history of co-existence in almost the same space, despite the difference in cultures that share common values, this in itself is a huge achievement that we should use today and leave these achievements, strengthen them for future generations.

As for the possibility of restoring relations with the United States, we are open to this, but to a large extent the ball is on the side of the United States, because we have not damaged relations with them, we have not imposed any restrictions or sanctions against them. We do not promote any kind of armed conflict in the territories close to them. We have never tried to do this, and I would like to emphasize that we have never allowed ourselves to do this in practice.

It is not clear why the United States allows itself to do this. I hope that they will eventually realize that it is better not to do this if we do not want any global conflicts.

The President-elect of the United States, Mr. Trump, spoke in much the same vein. Let's see how this will actually work, bearing in mind that the institution of the president in the United States is somehow bound by certain obligations. He is somehow connected with those people who contributed to his coming to power.

Jacques Chirac once told me: "What kind of democracy are we talking about in the United States, what kind of democracy? Without a billion dollars, if you don't have a billion dollars in your pocket, you don't even need to think about possible participation in the elections, let alone participate, you can't think about it." So it is. But those who give these billions, they also participate at the same time in the formation of the future team. And if they delegate someone, they have the ability to influence the people they delegated to that team.

And here it is very important how much the elected leader manages to establish contact not only with these groups of influence, with the so-called shadow, deep state, but also with the population, with the people, with the voters. If he fulfills his promises to the voters, his authority grows, and he, relying on this authority, becomes an independent political figure, including in relations with the groups of influence that helped him come to power. This is a very complex process.

What will happen in the United States, we do not know, and I do not know. But I very much hope that our relations with the United States will eventually be restored. We are open to this. You are welcome.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

You mentioned Japan. Mr. Abiru.

T. Abiru: Thank you.

Taisuke Abiru, Sasakawa Peace Foundation.

Let me ask you the same question, but also related to Japan. The strategic situation in East Asia is becoming increasingly tense. At the heart of this is the strategic rivalry between the US and China. Russia is clearly on the side of China in this rivalry. The frequency of joint military exercises between Russia and China has increased markedly in this region.

On the other hand, Asia is a region with many values, and Russia's strategic interests in this region should not be limited to relations with China. How does Russia try to combine the two challenges: on the one hand, Russia's position in the US-China standoff in East Asia and preserving space for Russia's strategic multilateral interests in this region?

And more: How would you assess the future of Russian-Japanese relations in this strategic context, say, five years from now?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the situation in East Asia is not getting calmer, it is not getting more stable, but China has nothing to do with it. Of course, China is our closest partner and friend, but I will try to think objectively.

Does China create any blocs? I don't want to be a lawyer for China. I just understand: there are many internal problems, but there are always problems between neighbors. We know–-and I won't tell you a secret here–-that there are certain difficulties on the border between India and China, but experienced, competent people who think about the future of their peoples are looking for compromises and finding them, just as the Prime Minister of India and the President of the People's Republic of China are doing now. They are engaged in a dialogue, including at the BRICS summit in Kazan, and I hope this will have a positive impact on the future development of Sino-Indian relations.

As for the situation in East Asia as a whole: is China creating blocs there? It is the United States that creates a bloc–-one bloc, the second, and the third. Now NATO is formally already getting in there. Nothing good happens when closed military-political blocs are created under the explicit leadership of one major country. All other countries, as a rule, work in the mode of interests of this state, which creates these blocs. And let those who agree with everything so easily think about it.

If any issues arise-–they always arise between neighbors, always--we still need to strive to ensure that at the regional level, without interference from external forces, the leaders of these countries find the strength, courage, patience, and willingness to seek a compromise. If this attitude continues to gain momentum, these compromises can always be found, they will be found.

Therefore, to accuse China of any aggressive intentions, when it is not it that creates aggressive blocs, but the United States, I think, is completely incorrect.

Now, as for the fact that Russia is on the side of China, and not on the side of those who create these blocs. But what about it? Of course, we are on the side of China. First, because of what I said above: we do not believe that China is pursuing an aggressive policy in the region.

A lot of things revolve around Taiwan. Everyone formally recognizes: yes, Taiwan is part of China. But in practice? But in fact, they act in a completely different direction, provoking the situation to the side of aggravation. What for? And not for the same reason that they provoked the Ukrainian crisis? To create a crisis in Asia, and then say to everyone else: guys, let's get closer to me, because without me you cannot cope. Maybe this logic also works in Asia?

That's why we really support China. And because we believe that he pursues an absolutely balanced policy, and also because he is our ally. We have a very large trade turnover, we cooperate in the field of security.

You said we were conducting exercises. Well yeah Isn't the United States conducting exercises with the same Japan? On an ongoing basis. They also conduct exercises with other countries on an ongoing basis.

I once said that we have stopped using our strategic aviation since the end of the 90s. It did not make long-range flights in the neutral zone, and the United States continued to do so. We watched-watched, watched and finally resumed the flights of our strategic aircraft.

It's the same in this case: The United States conducted-conducted endless exercises there – in the end, China and us also began to conduct exercises. But after all, the exercises do not threaten anyone – they are aimed at ensuring our security. And we believe that this is the right tool to stabilize the situation not only in Asia, but also around the world.

And the countries of the region have nothing to fear here. I would like to emphasize once again that our cooperation with China in general and in the military, military-technical field [in particular] is aimed at strengthening our security and is not directed against third countries.

As for Japan, our bilateral relations with Japan, I can also repeat what I said to your colleagues. We did not worsen relations with Japan. Why haven't we done something bad lately? We were negotiating and trying to find an answer to a very difficult question on the peace treaty.

By the way, there were questions about possible compromises based on the 1956 declaration. We even ratified it in the Soviet Union. The Japanese side later refused to do so. Nevertheless, at the request of the Japanese side, we returned to this declaration and resumed the dialogue. Yes, it's not easy, but in general, we heard our partners and thought about how and what to build on the basis of this 1956 declaration.

Then suddenly Japan imposed sanctions on us and added them to the list of threats – putting Russia in third or fourth place. What's the threat? How do we threaten Japan? Moreover, sanctions were imposed. What have we done wrong to you? Why did you do this? Because you got a team from Washington? Well, you would somehow say to them "hello, guys, well, we'll think about it", without offending your partner, ally. Was it necessary to follow the order without question? Why did you do this? I don't understand.

Thank God, there are still smart people in Japan: they continue to cooperate, especially in the energy sector, do not leave our companies and see that everything is reliable. Despite the fact that Japan has imposed some sanctions, we are not doing anything in response. As Japanese companies have worked for us, so they work–-they want to work; let them continue.

We can now see that some signals even come from American companies that they want to return to our market. Let them return, but, of course, in new conditions, with losses, of course. But it's not our fault.

We are ready to build relations with Japan both for the next five years and for the next 50. Japan is our natural partner, because it is a neighbor. There were different periods in the history of our relations, there were also tragic pages, there were also some that we can be proud of.

We love Japan, and Japanese culture is loved, Japanese cuisine is loved. We didn't destroy anything. Draw conclusions for yourself, and we will not fool around here, fool around, push off, put something to blame for you. We're ready, please just come back and that's it.

That's all, perhaps, there is nothing to add.

F. Lukyanov: Mr. President, is our strategic cooperation with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea also aimed at strengthening our security, as it is with China?

Vladimir Putin: The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has a treaty that we signed with other countries and [which] was with the Soviet Union--but then naturally ceased to exist. We're basically back at it, that's all. There is no novelty there, no matter what anyone says.

Everything, practically everything that was spelled out in the treaty between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Soviet Union, just with some new nuances, is reproduced in the new treaty.

Yes, of course, this is aimed at ensuring security in the region and our mutual security.

F. Lukyanov: Will we conduct exercises with them?

Vladimir Putin: Let's see, we can also conduct exercises. Why not? And there is also a fourth article, which speaks of mutual assistance in the event of aggression from another state. Everything is there. And I repeat once again: there is practically no novelty in comparison with the treaty, which simply expired from the time of the Soviet Union.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

: (as translated)Question Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your speech and thank you for your interaction.

My question is about relations between Russia and India. Did you meet with the Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi several times in the last few months. Prime Minister Modi mentioned to you at some point in time that this should not be an era of horror. What would you say about this statement?

If you could also tell us about the concept of Eurasian security: what role do you foresee for India?

Third question. In the changed geopolitical circumstances, you also mentioned the importance of civilizations, the values of civilizations, that Russia is a state of civilizations, and India is the same. What new areas could India and Russia work together in?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: India has been our natural partner and ally for decades.

I think everyone is well aware of the role that the Soviet Union and Russia played in India's independence, and how we have supported the Indian people for decades. During this time, we have developed relations with the Indian people that are unique in their quality and level of trust. As far as we understand, as far as we feel, and on the part of our Indian friends, there is such a national consensus on the development of relations with Russia, with our country.

On this basis, on this basis, we are developing relations with India in all areas: This also applies to the economy, which is developing at a good pace, and also in various areas: energy. By the way, we are ready: in addition to oil supplies, supplies to the Indian market have increased many times, this concerns the possibility of supplying LNG–-liquefied natural gas. We are actively working in the field of nuclear energy and are building nuclear power plants in India. We have great respect for Prime Minister Modi's "Do It in India" message, and we are ready to invest.

In the same field of energy, one of the largest foreign investments-–$ 20 billion–-is a Russian investment. And we are ready to further develop this in the same way.

Now, of course, we have to think about new technologies. We are thinking about this and will move forward in this regard. At the last meeting, Mr. Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that Indian agricultural producers have an urgent need to increase the quantity and volume of fertilizer supplies. We have done this and are ready to increase it, taking into account the needs of Indian agriculture. There are other areas, many of them.

India is a great country, the largest now in terms of population – one and a half billion people, plus 10 million annually. It is developing rapidly. It is the leader in terms of economic growth among major economies. How much is there? In my opinion, 7.4 percent of GDP growth per year.

And India is one of those countries whose development rates will be faster than even the well-developed economies of today. Therefore, our vision of what, how and where, in what areas and at what pace our relations should develop is based on the realities of today. And the reality is that the volume of our cooperation is increasing many times over.

The trade turnover is not yet as large as with China, but still almost $ 60 billion is 58-something, and it increases annually. This year, for the first nine months of this year, this trend has continued.

As for the resolution of acute crises, we have great respect and gratitude for the ideas of the Indian leadership, and first of all the Prime Minister, who expresses his concerns about, say, the conflict, including in the Ukrainian direction, and offers his ideas for a settlement. Of course, this is in our field of vision, and we are, without any doubt, not only grateful to the Prime Minister for his attention to these issues, but also for his suggestions, and for what and how he does in this regard.

In general, I think that relations with India have been developing at a high pace, and we have every reason to believe that based on what has been achieved so far, we will move even faster than today. But, by the way, this is traditionally well known to everyone, and relations are also developing in the security and military-technical spheres. Look at how much Russian equipment is in service with the Indian army. We are developing here really with a known level, a high level of trust together.

We do not just sell our weapons to India, but also develop them together. The BrahMos system is well known. We made it practically used in three areas: in the air, "omoryachili" and on land. And these developments in the interests of ensuring India's security continue. This is well known to everyone, and it does not cause any questions or annoyance to anyone, but it shows a high level of our trust and cooperation. This is what we will do in the near-term historical perspective, and hopefully in the future as well.

Can I just [choose my questions] a little bit, because we're already slowly running out of time.

F. Lukyanov: Midnight is approaching.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but Herman is still missing.

: (as translated)D. Konstantakopoulos I represent Greece.

There are different ways to remain a friend and brother of Russia. There are reasons that we cannot avoid, they are part of our deep cultural identity.

I want to ask you a question. 40 years ago, there was capitalism in Europe. The Soviet system collapsed. Since then, we have seen an increase in economic crises, wars, environmental problems and many other problems. Isn't it time for us to focus on a planned economy at the national, regional and international level?

I don't mean the mistakes of the past, a kind of military socialism, I mean a system like the one you described, a combination of market and planned economy, like the one you tried to apply in your country during the NEP, after the revolution. It may be necessary to introduce some elements of socialism, as you have already said – you spoke about the revolution at the beginning of your speech.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The more acute the crisis, the greater the plan, because the more state intervention is required to resolve emerging problems. But the more wealth and accumulated resources become available, the louder are the proposals to move to an exclusively market-based settlement. Liberals and democrats come, conditionally, and start spending everything that was accumulated by conservatives. Then some time passes, overproduction crises arise again—conditionally, or crises related to this, and everything repeats itself an infinite number of times, everything returns to normal.

This is the sovereign choice of each state—how to build its own economic policy. China has found these opportunities. Do you know why it did? Not least because China is a sovereign state.

And many of today's economies, for a variety of reasons, because of their obligations within the framework of economic unions, military and political unions, have voluntarily renounced part of their sovereignty and are not able to make decisions either in the field of economy or in the field of ensuring their security. I'm not calling anyone for anything right now, I'm just answering your question.

Probably, at some point, the existence of the drachma, the existence of a national currency, would be appropriate, because it is possible, at least with the help of inflation, but somehow regulate social processes and get rid of social tension, not to shift all the difficulties associated with the development of the economy to the shoulders of the population.

But Greece has made other decisions in its time, resubmitting itself to regulation through the single currency and economic decisions in Brussels. This is not our business, this is the sovereign choice of the Greek state. It is difficult for me to say what to do now in these conditions. But as some of my friends and colleagues from the European Union have told me–-there are still some of them–-Brussels makes more decisions that are binding on EU member states than the Supreme Soviet of the USSR did when the Soviet Union was still in existence.

There are pros and cons, but it's not our business anymore. I tried to answer your question, I don't know if this is enough. That's what I think about it.

Yes, please, please.

Irina Abramova: Thank you very much, Mr President, especially since I am still the first woman to participate in today's discussion.

I want to say that quite recently, starting from 2023, the African agenda has become the Valdai agenda. This is very important, because what is discussed at Valdai is important not only for intellectuals and experts, but for our entire country.

It is very symbolic that the first Russia–Africa ministerial conference, also in Sochi, will begin one day after the completion of our work.

You said at the BRICS press conference that Africa, together with Southeast Asia, is a new center of global growth. Today you repeated this idea.

It is clear that there is a lot of competition for the sympathies of the African population today. The attitude towards Russia is excellent, despite the fact that in the 90s, it is believed that Russia left Africa. When you cross the border, they ask you: where are you from? You say: I'm from Russia. They say: oh, Russia, Putin. This is true in almost all of Africa.

This is due, in my opinion, to the fact that Russia–-unlike the West, which plundered peoples for its own well–being--provided Africans not only with political, but also economic sovereignty, stood at the foundation of creating the economy of African countries, developing the humanitarian space, and so on.

But in the face of fierce competition–-China, India, the old players, even Turkey, the Gulf states, Iran—Russia needs to find its niche, where it will be the best for Africans.

We, as experts, also put forward our own proposals, which you need to pay attention to. But you have held dozens of talks with African leaders, some of them more than once. Was there one promising area in these negotiations that all African leaders would talk about?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, after all, the African continent is huge, and the level of economic development and the level of security is very different.

I will agree with you that we have practically no contradictions with any African country, and the level of trust and mutual sympathy is very high. First of all, because there was no shadow in the history of our relations with the African continent–-we have never, ever engaged in the exploitation of African peoples, never engaged in anything inhumane on the African continent. On the contrary, we have always supported Africa, the Africans in their struggle for their independence, for sovereignty, for creating some basic conditions for economic development.

Now, of course, in modern conditions, we need to work in a new way. For almost everyone, it is very important if there is something in common with creating favorable conditions for development in the field of security. Because these neocolonial tools have been preserved in the economy by Western countries, but also in the security sphere. All this combined to provide certain advantages and opportunities for using these neocolonial tools. But people are already tired of this, especially since they don't see much return from it.

I have already said, and I can only repeat: at our meetings, summits and bilateral meetings, the Africans never ask or beg for anything, they do not stand with their hands outstretched. First, they are developing rapidly, second, they feel that they have resources and opportunities, and third, they ask only for one thing: to establish a natural, mutually beneficial cooperation. And we also strive for this.

But, of course, we cannot do this at the state level as it was done in the Soviet Union. We do and try to create conditions for the work of our leading companies. Moreover, the investment potential of our companies is very high, it is really very high. We are talking about the possibility of investing hundreds of millions of dollars, I say without exaggeration. We are currently building a nuclear power plant in Egypt, but we are investing almost $ 20 billion there-just for a moment. But in other countries, in other areas, we are ready to work in the same way.

But, of course, it is very difficult to work in the economic sphere if the conditions for ensuring security are not created. After all, for example, in the Sahel zone, the Sahara-Sahel region, people are still tormented by various semi-terrorist or terrorist groups. There is internal political instability in one country or another. And almost everyone turns to us to help them in this area. We are happy to try to help them within the framework of international law.

At the same time, we are not trying to squeeze anyone out of there, you know? Sometimes some Europeans take offense at us: you create conditions, they squeeze us out. Yes, we have nothing to do with it, they just don't want to see you there already, that's the whole point. And in order to avoid creating a security vacuum, they are asking us to fill this vacuum. We try to do it carefully enough, but still as efficiently as necessary to solve this problem.

There is a great deal to be done—and above all in the economic sphere. We will try to work in this direction.

And such meetings as tomorrow or the day after, such as a ministerial meeting, are designed to create favorable conditions for this.

Training of personnel continues, it is still underway, and personnel in both the civil and military spheres. Future specialists of the armed forces of these countries are trained in our military educational institutions. And in the field of training personnel in the law enforcement field–-the same thing. In general, we will work in all areas. In the field of culture: we have a huge interest in the culture of the peoples of Africa in Russia. I must say that this is a mutual interest. We will work hard, responsibly and systematically in this area.

:(as translated)Question I am very pleased that I am the second woman to ask you a question.

Mr. President, I represent the Chinese International Dialogue Club.

If we make this assumption: go back two years, most likely to February 2022, what would you say to the Chinese leader on the Taiwan issue at that time?

If we look at what the world will look like, say, over the next 25 years, in 2049, what do you think a multilateral, multipolar world will look like? Are there any powerful forces that support such a world? Should any one country come out in support of such a world?

Vladimir Putin: I'll start where you left off. I would like the world to be balanced and the emerging multipolar system to take into account as much as possible the interests of all participants in international communication. To create a system that takes into account each other's interests, and to create a mechanism for finding compromises. I hope that we will be able to create such a system – in any case, we need to strive for this.

Who wants this, and are there forces that want it? There is, of course. First of all, these are the BRICS members. We have just discussed this and discussed it at the summit in Kazan. Excuse me, this is quite a lot.

Your home country is the People's Republic of China, India, South Africa, Brazil – the largest country in Latin America, Russia, which is represented by your humble servant today, and the entire Russian people, I assure you, are committed to such a peaceful development of the situation in the world, which creates conditions for all participants in international communication to flourish. I don't know, it's impossible to predict, but we need to strive for it.

So, come on, please. Please stand up.

I ask you to.

Question: Mr President, thank you for your very interesting presentation and answers to your questions. You have already said that sometimes it is difficult to talk about the means, including military means. I have a question about that.

Russia has traditionally criticized the use of military force to resolve complex international situations, but in 2022, Russia itself resorted to force. You very convincingly explain why this was necessary and why Russia has the right to use military force in this case. But it is impossible for others not to recognize the right to which you appeal yourself.

And specifically if you ask about the Middle East. Who in this region does Russia recognize the right to use military force, and whose military actions it considers illegal in the current conditions of the crisis that is developing?

And another clarifying, almost technical question in this regard. Within what borders does Russia recognize Israel? Because when it comes to aggression, self-defense, appeals to this basic right, the question of borders, of course, arises.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is a simple question. The situation is complicated, but the question is simple. I will try to formulate it in two parts at once.

Russia considers it necessary to implement all the decisions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly on Israel and Palestine.

This is not an opportunistic policy. This position has been traditional since the days of the Soviet Union, and Russia has continued this line. So if all the decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly regarding the creation of two independent sovereign states are implemented, this, in my opinion, will be the basis for resolving the crisis, no matter how severe and acute it may seem today. That's all.

F. Lukyanov: Mr President, I can't help but ask you more, since we are talking about borders. And what borders do we recognize Ukraine within?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we have always recognized the borders of Ukraine within the framework of our agreements after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Declaration of Independence of Ukraine says–-and Russia supported it–-that Ukraine is a neutral state. And on this basis, we also recognized borders. But later, as you know, the Ukrainian leadership made changes to the Basic Law and announced its desire to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we did not agree on this. That's the first thing.

And secondly, we never support any coups d'etat anywhere, nor do we support him in Ukraine. We understand and support the people who did not agree with this coup, and we recognize their right to defend their interests.

I have already had several discussions with the UN Secretary-General [Antonio Guterres], and there is no secret here. I don't think he'll be mad at me either. He supports those who say that we have violated the norms and principles of international law, the UN Charter, and that we have started military operations in Ukraine. I have already said this, but I will also take advantage of your question and repeat the logic of our actions once again.

Look, if in accordance with Article one, in my opinion, of the UN Charter, every nation has the right to self-determination, then both people who live in Crimea and people who live in the south-east of Ukraine, who did not agree with the coup, and this is an illegal unconstitutional act, have the right to self-determination, right? So.

The UN International Court of Justice for Kosovo has decided, analyzing the situation around Kosovo, that a territory declaring its independence should not, should not, ask the opinion and permission of the central authorities of the country that this territory currently belongs to, at the time of making a decision, right? Of course, this is true, because this is a decision of the International Court of Justice.

So, these territories, including Novorossiya and Donbass, had the right to decide on their sovereignty, right? Of course it is. This fully complies with today's international law and the UN Charter. If this is so, then we had the right to conclude relevant interstate agreements with these new states, right? Of course it is. Did we do it? Made.

These agreements include provisions on mutual assistance. We have ratified them and made certain commitments. And then these newly formed States appealed to us for assistance within the framework of these treaties. We had the opportunity and had to do it. That's what we did, trying to stop the fighting launched by the Kiev regime in 2014. We have not launched any intervention or aggression, and we are trying to stop it.

The Secretary-General [of the UN] listened to all this, nodded in silence, said: well, yes, well, but still you attacked. I'm not joking, just word for word. There is no rational answer. Where is the error in this chain? What did I say wrong? Where have we violated international law and the UN Charter? There are no such violations anywhere.

And if this is so, then the border of Ukraine should be held in accordance with the sovereign decisions of people who live in certain territories and which we call our historical territories. It all depends on the dynamics of current events.

F. Lukyanov: Mr President, if we return to the first link in your chain, can we understand that when there is neutrality, then we will talk about borders?

Vladimir Putin: If there is no neutrality, it is hard to imagine any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine.

Why? Because it means that Ukraine will be constantly used as a tool in the wrong hands and to the detriment of the interests of the Russian Federation. Thus, the basic conditions for the normalization of relations will not be created and the situation will develop according to an unpredictable scenario. We would very much like to avoid this.

On the contrary, we are determined to create conditions for a long-term settlement and for Ukraine to eventually become an independent, sovereign state, and not be an instrument in the hands of third countries and not be used in their interests.

Look at what is happening now, say, on the line of contact or, say, in the Kursk region? Here they came to the Kursk region—the losses are colossal: for three months of fighting, the losses are more than for the entire last year for the Kiev regime–-over 30 thousand. Well, we lost less tanks: now it's somewhere around 200, and last year for the whole year we lost 240 there, in my opinion. It's just that there are fewer tanks, so there are fewer losses and fewer people are being used.

And why are they sitting there, suffering such losses? Yes, because it was ordered from overseas: at any cost, at any cost, to hold on at least until the elections, in order to show that all the efforts of the Democratic Party administration in the Kiev direction, in the Ukrainian direction, were not in vain. Hold on by all means, at all costs. That's the price. A terrible tragedy, I believe, both for the Ukrainian people and for the Ukrainian army.

And the decisions are dictated not by military considerations, to be honest, but by political considerations. Now in some directions, in the Kupyansk direction, I don't know whether the military said this or not yet, because there are two hotbeds of blocking. In one hotbed, there is practically an encirclement: Ukrainian troops are pinned down to the reservoir, about 10 thousand people are blocked. In another, near Kupyansk, about five thousand people are already surrounded. And they are trying to build pontoon crossings in order to at least partially evacuate, but our artillery instantly destroys them.

On the direction in the area of responsibility of our group "Center", there are also already two or three sections of blocking–-two for sure, probably soon there will be a third. It is all the Ukrainian military that sees this, and decisions are made at the political level not in the interests of either the Ukrainian state or the Ukrainian people.

If this continues indefinitely, of course, it will not lead to the creation of favorable conditions for the restoration of peace, tranquility and cooperation between neighboring states for a long historical perspective, and this is exactly what we should strive for. This is exactly what Russia is striving for.

That is why we say: we are ready for peace talks, but not on the basis of some "wishlist", the name of which changes from month to month, but on the basis of the realities that are emerging, and on the basis of the agreements that were reached in Istanbul--on the basis of the current realities.

But we should not talk about a truce for half an hour or half a year, so that the shells are rolled up, but in order to create favorable conditions for restoring relations and cooperation in the future in the interests of the two peoples, who are certainly fraternal, no matter how complicated this may be by the rhetoric and today's tragic events in relations between Russia and Ukraine.

Therefore, our position is clean and clear. We will act in this direction, we will move in this direction.

F. Lukyanov: Mr President, it's 23: 18 right now.

Vladimir Putin: It's time to stop, as people say.

F. Lukyanov: Let's have another blitz, a few more questions, and wrap it up.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

F. Lukyanov: Come on, Algeria.

:(as translated)But. Karif Mr. President, in the light of the monstrous genocide that is currently unfolding in Palestine, would Russia support and help the international community once again support the initiative to criminalize Zionism? There was such an initiative at the UN in the 80s--to declare Zionism criminal.

And secondly, Mr. President, you talked about the Olympic Games, you talked about women boxers. I think we are talking about an Algerian boxer. It's a woman, her father says she's a woman. We have a very conservative society, and nothing like this could happen in our country.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, if she is a woman, God grant her health and new sporting achievements. I wasn't talking about her then. I said that it is impossible for someone to declare himself a woman and compete with women, although, I apologize, external sexual characteristics indicate otherwise. But some sports theorists believe that external sexual characteristics have nothing to do with it, a person has declared himself a woman–-and go ahead. You can get anywhere that way, you know? This is the first one.

The second is about Zionism. I understand that I have said this many times, and I have said that any actions should be proportionate to the threat and what is happening on the other side. We certainly condemn any manifestation of terrorism; the attack on Israel is a manifestation, and it happened on October 7. But, of course, the answer must be proportionate.

As you know, we must now strive to minimize the suffering of the Palestinian people. We must immediately stop fighting there, and we must do everything possible to ensure that both Israel and Palestine, in this case Hamas, agree on this. You can escalate, accuse, and condemn as much as you want, but the most important thing right now is to stop fighting immediately. Israel is fighting, and it would seem that there is no place to fight there, but the fighting continues, the armed formations of the same Hamas are fighting. How long can this last?

Or in the south of Lebanon: a group of 63 thousand [people], according to our ideas, one hundred and t-troops entered the southern part of Lebanon, but the main group is on the border. We must not lead them to a tragedy, but we must look for ways to find mutually acceptable solutions.

Question: do they even exist? Is it possible? I believe that yes, it is possible, as strange as it may seem. We even have our own thoughts on this matter. We are even trying to talk to all the participants in this conflict, trying to find out what could be acceptable for everyone. And in general, there may be a light at the end of the tunnel looming. I think we should all think about it now. I believe that this is possible, as naive as it may seem, maybe. But it's possible. We are in constant contact with literally everyone, if not every day, then every week.

Let's try to follow this path. I am very much afraid of destroying anything from the efforts that we are currently making. We are not alone, but we are also in contact with some of our partners on this issue. A common desire. I speak sincerely: it seems that we are moving in the right direction here.

I have a feeling that today almost all the participants involved in this difficult process at least do not want further development towards confrontation, but, on the contrary, they are also thinking about how to reach some agreements. Let's think about it now, okay?

We're working on it. No matter how strange it may seem–-we ourselves have a conflict with Ukraine—but since many participants in the conflict also come to us with these ideas, with proposals, and we are in natural contact with everyone, we also try to make our own, so to speak, carefully and modestly, feasible contribution to solving these problems. problems.

F. Lukyanov: You used to have very good personal relations with Netanyahu. Have they been preserved?

Vladimir Putin: I try not to spoil anything, only to improve everything. But today's conditions are very peculiar, and they leave their mark on everything, including our relations.

I also had good relations with Macron, but what about bad ones? I talked to Scholz, too. But at some point, they decided that they didn't need it. If you don't need it, then you don't need it, as I said before. I also had a normal relationship with Trump. I don't know if he wants to or doesn't want to talk right now. I was on good terms with Biden, too. We met in Switzerland, talked, talked on the phone, called up, joked, laughed.

(introducing the speaker):F. Lukyanov Saudi Arabia.

Remark: I'm glad to see you, Mr. President.

Vladimir Putin: Likewise.

Question: Listening to your speech in this Hall, I couldn't help but think of your speech at the Munich Conference in 2007.

Indeed, the world order has ceased to be unipolar. Now there are three great powers: the United States, Russia and China. Apparently, these countries will compete with each other. A hot war between them is unlikely, because each of them has weapons of mass destruction. But the West has already begun to conduct trade wars and sanctions. And this can escalate into financial wars.

So my question, Mr. President: is Russia ready for such a development, especially if these wars will be long-term, or, in your opinion, does the world order have a different development option?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First, India should definitely be included in the list of great powers: one and a half billion people, the largest economic growth rates among major economies, the oldest culture, and so on. And the prospect, a very good growth prospect.

But there are other rapidly developing countries that will certainly be among the States that have a great influence on current politics, on world development and on the future of humanity. Look at what's happening to Indonesia–-300 million [people]. And in some African countries? Saudi Arabia, by the way, also plays a very important role in the global energy sector. That alone is enough. One move, one word from the Crown Prince is enough to influence the global energy markets--the impact is enormous.

As for the countries you mentioned, you mentioned the rivalry between them. But you know, healthy competition is always good, it has never harmed anyone. I say this without any irony, really. It simply brings to life the inner forces of one or the other side, helps its development.

Monopoly is bad. There, across the ocean, they say that there is only one good case when a monopoly is good: when it is its own. But this is a joke, because in fact it is bad, it undermines the internal foundations, the internal growth energy of those who sit on this monopoly.

Therefore, there is nothing special here. The main thing is that this natural competition does not develop into some kind of aggression of one side against the other. The main thing is that the rules developed and agreed between all participants in international communication, which are agreed upon, and not invented by someone for their own sake and in their own interests, should be observed. So that restrictions and sanctions, which we call illegitimate, are not accepted and used as a competitive tool. Why do I say "illegitimate"? Because they contradict the current international norms, WTO norms, and so on. Therefore, they are illegitimate. What is legitimate here? This is an obvious thing. They are politicized and then used in competition.

The introduction of sanctions against Russia or the introduction of sanctions against China—this often goes to the detriment of those who apply it.

The United States and China--they have a huge amount of economic interaction. Well, they applied sanctions against China, then what? And they may have done something to their own detriment.

In Europe, for example, some Chinese goods are being restricted and restrictions are being imposed. And what was Europe sitting on? The Europeans themselves admit that the two main advantages are relatively cheap energy resources from Russia and cheap consumer goods from China. And what will happen now? They will cover it up, they have voluntarily turned off our relatively cheap resources, I repeat. We can see that everything is teetering on the brink of recession. They will now give up quite cheap Chinese goods. What will happen? There will be inflation. The same thing will happen in the United States. There are enough problems there: a triple deficit, 34 trillion [dollars] in debt, a foreign trade deficit, a budget deficit—how much do they have there, six percent or something. Despite all the restrictions they are trying to impose on us, we have a deficit of about two percent, less than two percent. And there are six. They undermine their own development methods and institutions.

Therefore, healthy competition-–yes, it is natural and possible. Using illegal tools as a competitive tool is bad and will harm primarily those who use them. I hope that awareness of this will come at such a sound, good political level, and we will be able to agree on everything. And how to do this, I said in my speech.

Thank you.

Let's finish up, or we'll be sitting here with you until morning."

F. Lukyanov: Mr President, let's get this over with. But if you'll excuse me, I'm a German philologist with a degree…

Vladimir Putin: "Philologist-harmonica player".

F. Lukyanov: Yes, the harmonist . But you were also a "harmonica player".

Vladimir Putin: No, I'm a lawyer.

F. Lukyanov: You really worried me by saying that you forget German.

Vladimir Putin: I don't use it. It's like a musical instrument–-you have to use it every day. Your vocabulary is disappearing.

F. Lukyanov: Can I give the floor to Roger Keppel? He is our main representative of the German language.

Vladimir Putin: Who?

F. Lukyanov: Roger Keppel from Switzerland. You are welcome.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please. But this is Schweizerdeutsch [Swiss German].

F. Lukyanov: But it can also be hoch.

: (as translated)R. Keppel Thank you very much, Mr. Lukyanov, Mr. President.

It was a truly outstanding evening. I've never seen a leader of your caliber take so long to communicate with everyone so late and for so long. I congratulate you. Stunningly.

Nevertheless, I would like to question your term "collective West". I may be part of the "collective West", but I don't consider myself part of any collective. I don't see a collective West, but I do see a group of politicians with a growing number of problems. We see governments that are on their last legs, we see a leadership crisis.

I was at a summit held in Vienna with former Chancellor Schroeder and Prime Minister Orban. Mr. Schroeder was the last guardian of Europe's strategic autonomy, as you know. It was interesting, because I saw that there was a significant interest in such events. It seemed to me that tectonic shifts were taking place in Europe, and the landscape was changing.

And here I will allow you to criticize, with great power comes great responsibility. It seems to me that you are refusing to communicate with the wider public in Western Europe, in the whole of Europe, in the German-speaking part of Europe, because you are extremely important as a person, as a President, as a politician representing your country. This is an extremely important topic in politics. If you communicated, if you encouraged these people, it would have an impact, without interfering in the elections, it would help bring about the changes that many people in Europe want.

My question is: do you share this view? And would you be willing to give an interview to independent journalists? I won't mention any specific names, of course. (Laughter.)

F. Lukyanov: You know this journalist.

Vladimir Putin: You mentioned Mr. Schroeder. I had and still have a very good personal relationship with him. He is an amazing person for the modern European political class. I speak without any irony, without any exaggeration. And why? Because he has his own opinion, and he formulates it freely.

When relations with Russia began to deteriorate, he was not afraid to formulate his positions and state them publicly. They began to accuse him of all the deadly sins. I just tried not to interfere in any way, not to comment on anything.

What did he do, what did we do to him? We built Nord Stream and supplied gas to Europe. What's wrong with that? Currently, there is no Russian gas in Germany. The consequences are severe, not only because of this, but also because of this. And now we still don't see anything that could replace all this.

Me, when I talk to our experts… I'll tell you now, I didn't say that, I'll just repeat what they said. I don't want to offend anyone, God forbid. It doesn't sound very good. I still ask our colleagues and experts: what is missing in Europe right now? The answer is that they don't have enough brains. Not because they are stupid, no, but because economic decisions are made by politicians who have nothing to do with the economy. Decisions are politicized, unread, and have no real justification.

This also applies to the green agenda. Is it a noble thing to fight for the climate? Well, of course, noble. Does this make us all uneasy? Yes, but it scares some people. But it's not fair to the voters to deliberately frighten them so that they can push through decisions that are impossible to implement. It's not fair.

Is the Green agenda good? Yes, it's good. Do you need new tools and technologies? Are needed. And is it possible to live in an economy like Germany solely on new, "green" technologies? It is impossible, but we must reduce the volume of the economy or return to coal generation, as is happening now in many European countries, including the Federal Republic.

Under pressure, they rocked public opinion, scared people—they took and removed nuclear power, then coal-fired power, and then gas is not needed. Then, no, they finally came to their senses, and we started to supply gas there through different channels. Schroeder did it. He did not do this in the interests of the Russian Federation, not because he created conditions for us to sell and get some economic benefits. He did this solely in the interests of the German people and fought to ensure that there were the best conditions for these supplies, and [for] creating these infrastructure opportunities.

And judging by what is happening in the German economy, after these opportunities were lost, the result of his work was very good. Now we see that this is not the case – and here is the result. But he did it, made decisions that were completely unpopular from the point of view of domestic economic policy, and risked his political career-–and he did it deliberately. It was just necessary to make not very popular decisions in the field of reducing social spending and so on. But from an economic point of view, it was absolutely necessary. He knew that this would have unfavorable political consequences for him. But he did it anyway. He is a man who makes decisions not in his own interests, but in the interests of Germany.

He also built relations in foreign policy. Let us recall the events in Iraq. He was opposed to the American intervention there and spoke directly about it publicly – just like Chirac, which, of course, caused the displeasure of those who thought otherwise, and those who commanded from overseas. In the end, he was out of business. He is a very decent person and consistent. There aren't many of them. There are such people in Europe, but there are very few of them–-you can count them on your fingers, it will be enough on one hand.

I think that this will still happen in Europe. Because people can see what happens in real life if the gap between the so-called ruling elites, who for various reasons are even forced to focus on other people's interests, and the bulk of the population increases. We can see that. And the growth of nationally oriented political forces is growing and will continue to grow.

As you said, I avoid communicating with a wide audience in Europe. You know, I think it is incorrect to address directly the population of those countries whose leadership is anathematizing us and does not want to listen to anything, does not want to listen to any arguments.

We have relevant structures working there–-they are also being suppressed, despite the declared freedom of speech. Our journalists are not allowed to work there anywhere: neither in Europe, nor in the United States. They close everything, come up with a lot of difficulties. If you ask Margarita [Simonyan], she will tell you how they are treated and how their journalists are treated. We have only one foothold there--Russia Today, and that's it, there's nothing. We do not have an extensive system, not like the Anglo–Saxons--the world's media. We don't have any. But they are also trying to close it, and they are afraid of it.

Please, I am open [to the interview] as much as possible. You know, I met with Tucker Carlson, and from time to time I have contacts with Western journalists, please.

Just go straight there–-the reaction is unhealthy: at any word there, the stream of consciousness begins.

Do you remember how the President-elect was accused of having ties with Russia? Then they held congressional hearings, created a commission to investigate his ties with Russia–-nothing. So, there was nothing, so there isn't. They didn't prove anything, there is nothing. And yet, with unimaginable energy, which could have been put to better use, they used imaginary ties with Russia almost until the last moment. That's bullshit. I don't want to create any problems there–-that's the third thing.

And fourth, all the processes that take place in a particular country should take place within the country. This will continue to happen. These nationally oriented political forces will grow not because I say something to our like-minded people in Europe, and there are many of them, and there are many like-minded people in the United States, but because it is dictated by the laws of internal development of society. This is the most solid foundation for future changes. They will be there for sure.

F. Lukyanov: Mr President, the last one. In Western commentaries, there is always one thought-recently again, yesterday, or something, I met…

Vladimir Putin: If you have any thoughts, it's already good.

F. Lukyanov: It already exists. This is a very good idea, by the way, from those who seem to be, as it were, positive. So they write: of course, nothing is possible with Putin, but Putin will leave sooner or later, and then it will be necessary to establish [relations] with Russia, integrate it back, because it will return to its former path. Will she return to her old path?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is going its own way. I hope she will not turn away from the path of following her national interests. Of course, it needs to be integrated. We have never given up on this. But I would not like Russia to return to the path it followed until 2022, as I already said in my speech, and this was a path that was associated with a hidden, veiled intervention against our country aimed at subordinating it to the interests of some other countries that believed that they have the right to do so. Russia cannot exist in such a subordinate or semi-subordinate state. And it seems to me that our people, the simplest people, ordinary citizens, realized this when they realized what our geopolitical opponents were trying to do to us.

What does the whole logic of the events show? People understood what was happening, understood what they were trying to do to us, no matter how beautiful it looked and no matter how patronizing they patted us on the shoulder. And this is precisely why such an unusual, I would even say, consolidation of Russian society is connected. It is with an understanding of what the cardinal, strategic interests of the country are – in strengthening its independence, independence, sovereignty.

During our presidential election campaign, I remember, there was not much time to follow everything, but I watched, turned on the TV: a foreign correspondent–-some foreign, by the way, I don't remember which one—approached a man on the street in the Belgorod region, in Belgorod–-you can probably find this episode in the archives–-and asks: Where are you going? He says: to the polling station. "But it's dangerous, drones can fly in, you can get hurt. Why are you going? Why aren't you afraid?" The answer was very short. It was a middle–aged man, he turned to him, looked at him so sternly and said: I'm Russian, and went.

This is how a representative of any ethnic group of the Russian Federation could answer today: from the Volga region–-I don't want to name anyone specifically right now, because I can't list them all, we have 190 ethnic groups—and from the north of the Russian Federation, and from the North Caucasus, from everywhere. Because today's events have led to the highest consolidation of Russian society and to an understanding of what sovereignty is for our country. This is one of the key, vital foundations for the development of Russia and its existence in the future.

Thank you.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much to you and our presenter. Thank you.

Up top, IMO what we’re and what we’ve seen isn’t “nonsense: whatsoever. In Palestine its Genocide. and before that it was an orchestrated campaign to justify the invasion and killing of as many Muslims as possible. Putin doesn’t seem to be aware that his answer goes way beyond the world of sport, which is unusual for him.

As for why the Outlaw US Empire pursues its anti-Russian policy, there’re many known reasons why that is so—the authors of those policies have published why in their books. That Putin answered in that manner again is odd. IMO, currently it’s impossible for a POTUS to become “an independent political figure” or the POTUS will be JFKed. That power elite/Secret Team IMO has gained power over those 60+ years, not waned, and now controls the national level of federalism.

As we know, Zionism is the genocidal philosophy driving those in power of Occupied Palestine. In that sense, it differs in no way from the Nazi philosophy that drove the German leaders from 1933-1945, and its plans were 100% genocidal, but toward Slavs specifically, not any other group. IMO, this is Russia’s weakest policy point. This question must be asked of Putin and Lavrov: Aren’t the conditions under which Palestinians forced to survive akin to terrorism on a daily basis even in the West Bank? You demand the world look at the root of the Ukrainian problem but turn your back on the root of the Palestinian problem. That double standard is hard to miss, although clearly many nations don’t bother to mention that fact.

A more complete assessment of Putin’s Valdai Club appearance is warranted. I see Pepe Escobar has an excellent recap at Sputnik, but it could be even larger.

*
*
*
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!