Putin's Valdai Club Speech

Combined with Q&A it lasted four hours, so the read is very long.

This year’s Valdai Club discussion topic is A Polycentric World: Instructions for Use. Putin comes right out and says instructions aren’t what he seeks and then tells us why that’s so. The overall event lasts three hours fifty-two minutes according to the video. The format follows the usual pattern of Putin delivering his speech followed by a Q&A session. There are always surprises at this event that Putin has addressed annually during its twenty-two years of existence. For those unaware, the Valdai Club is located in Sochi and is a year-round operation holding presentations and publishing papers. Many on its staff have op/eds published in Russian media and appear on Russian TV. I don’t think it likes being called a Think Tank, but that’s its Western analogue. Here’s Putin:

F. Lukyanov: Dear ladies and gentlemen! Dear friends! Guests of the Valdai Club!

We are beginning the plenary session of the XXII Annual Forum of the Valdai International Discussion Club. It is a great honor for me to invite President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin to this stage.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, thank you very much for taking the time to come to us again. The Valdai Club has an incredible advantage, a privilege, of meeting with you for 23 years now, discussing the most pressing issues. I would venture to say that no one else can boast of this.

The XXII meeting of the Valdai Club, which took place in the previous three days, had the title “A Polycentric World: How to Use It.” We are trying to move from understanding and describing this new world to finding practical ways to live in it, as it is still not very clear.

But we, let’s say, may be advanced, but only users of this world. And you are at least a mechanic, or maybe even an engineer of this most polycentric world, so we are very much looking forward to some instructions on application from you.

V. Putin: Instructions are unlikely to be able to formulate, and there is no purpose in it, because all instructions, advice asked, are given only in order to then not follow them. This formula is well known.

I would like to express my opinion on what is happening in the world, where our country is, what its role is, and how we see the prospects for development.

The Valdai International Discussion Club has indeed met for the 22nd time, and such meetings have become a good, kind tradition. Discussions at the Valdai venues provide an opportunity to assess the situation in the world in an unbiased and comprehensive manner, to record and reflect on the changes that have taken place.

Of course, the special feature and strength of the Valdai Club is the desire and ability of its members to look beyond the obvious. Instead of following the agenda imposed by the global information space [The Western Establishment Narrative], especially since the internet plays a role in this, both positive and negative, but sometimes difficult to understand, they try to ask their own original questions, to see things from a different perspective, and to lift the veil that hides the future. This is not an easy task, but it can be achieved, including on the Valdai platform.

But we have already noted that we live in a time when everything is changing – and changing very quickly, I would say, changing dramatically. Of course, none of us can fully predict the future. However, this does not exempt us from the responsibility to be prepared for anything that may happen. In fact, as time and recent events have shown, we must be prepared for anything. During such periods of history, everyone has a special responsibility for their own fate, the fate of their country, and the fate of the world. The stakes are extremely high.

The annual report of the Valdai Club is dedicated, as has just been mentioned, to the problem of a multipolar, polycentric world. This topic has long been on the agenda, but I agree with the organizers that it deserves special attention. In fact, the existing multipolarity already defines the framework within which states operate. I will try to answer the question of what makes the current situation unique.

First of all, this is a much more open, one might even say, creative space for foreign policy behavior. There is almost nothing predetermined, and things can go in different directions. Much depends on the accuracy, precision, and level of thoughtfulness of each participant in international relations. In this vast space, it is easy to get lost or lose your bearings, which is something that often happens.

Secondly, the space of multipolarity is very dynamic. Changes happen quickly, as I have already said, and sometimes suddenly, just overnight. Of course, it is very difficult to prepare for them, and sometimes it is impossible to predict them. You have to react instantly, in real time, as they say.

Thirdly, and importantly, this space is much more democratic. It opens up opportunities and a path for a large number of political and economic players. Perhaps, never before has there been such a large number of countries on the global stage that are influencing or seeking to influence important regional and global processes.

Next. The cultural, historical, and civilizational specifics of different countries play a greater role than ever before. We need to find common ground and shared interests. No one is willing to play by the rules set by someone far away, as a famous chansonnier once sang: “beyond the fog” or “beyond the oceans.”

In this regard, the fifth is that any solutions are possible only on the basis of agreements that satisfy all the parties concerned or the vast majority. Otherwise, there will be no viable solution at all, only loud phrases and a fruitless game of ambition. Thus, harmony and balance are necessary to achieve results.

Finally, the opportunities and dangers of a multipolar world are inseparable. Of course, the weakening of the dictatorship that characterized the previous period and the expansion of freedom for all are undeniable benefits. However, it is much more difficult to find and establish this delicate balance in such circumstances, which is a clear and extreme risk.

The current situation on the planet, which I have tried to describe in a nutshell, is a qualitatively new phenomenon. International relations are undergoing a radical transformation. Paradoxically, multipolarity has emerged as a direct consequence of attempts to establish and maintain global hegemony, a response by the international system and history itself to the obsessive desire to create a single hierarchy with Western countries at the top. The failure of this endeavor was only a matter of time, as we have always emphasized. In historical terms, this happened relatively quickly.

35 years ago, when the Cold War confrontation seemed to be coming to an end, we hoped that an era of genuine cooperation would begin. It seemed that there were no longer any ideological or other obstacles that would prevent us from working together to solve the problems that humanity faces and to manage and resolve the inevitable disputes and conflicts based on mutual respect and consideration of everyone’s interests.

I would like to make a brief historical digression here. In an effort to eliminate the foundations for bloc confrontation and create a common security space, our country has twice declared its readiness to join NATO. The first time was in 1954, during the Soviet era, and the second time was during President Clinton’s visit to Moscow in 2000, as I mentioned earlier.

And both times, we were actually rejected, right off the bat. I repeat: we were ready to work together, to take non-linear steps in the field of security and global stability. But our Western colleagues were not ready to break free from the grip of geopolitical and historical stereotypes, from a simplified, schematic view of the world.

I also spoke publicly about when I spoke about this with President Clinton, and he said: You know, it’s interesting, I think it’s possible. And then in the evening he says: I consulted with my own people – it’s unrealistic, it’s unrealistic now. And when is it real? Everything is gone.

In short, we all had a real chance for a different, positive vector of development in international relations. However, unfortunately, a different approach prevailed. Western countries succumbed to the temptation of absolute power. This was a serious temptation. To resist this temptation, one needed to have a historical perspective and a high level of preparation, including intellectual and historical preparation. Those who made decisions at the time did not seem to have such preparation.

Yes, the power of the United States and its allies reached its peak at the end of the 20th century. However, there is no force that can control the world and dictate what everyone should do or how they should breathe. There have been attempts, but they have all failed.

At the same time, it is worth noting that for many people, the so-called liberal world order seemed acceptable and even convenient. Yes, the hierarchy limits the opportunities of those who are not at the top of the pyramid, if you will, at the top of the food chain, but rather reside somewhere at the bottom. However, this position relieves them of a significant portion of their responsibility. What are the rules? Simply accept the proposed conditions, fit into the system, receive your fair share, and be happy, without having to think about anything. Others will think and make decisions for you.

And no matter what anyone says, no matter who’s trying to cover it up, that’s exactly what happened. And the experts sitting here remember and understand all of this perfectly well.

Some people thought they were entitled to teach everyone else. Others preferred to play along with the strong, to be an obedient object of trade and exchange, in order to avoid unnecessary problems and receive a small but steady bonus for it. In fact, there are still plenty of such politicians in the old part of the world, in Europe.

Those who objected, tried to defend their interests, rights, and views, were considered, at best, to be, let’s say, eccentric, and they were hinted at: you won’t succeed anyway, so it’s better to accept your fate and acknowledge that you are nothing but an empty space in the face of our power. As for those who were particularly obstinate, the self-proclaimed global superpowers “educated” them without any hesitation, making it clear that resistance was futile. [See The Jakarta Method: Washington’s Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program That Shaped Our World by Vincent Bevins.]

It hasn’t led to anything good. None of the world’s problems have been solved, but new ones are constantly being added. The global governance institutions established in the previous era are either completely ineffective or have largely lost their effectiveness. No matter how much potential a single country or a group of countries has, there are limits to their power.

The Russian side, the audience knows, has a popular expression: “There’s no way to beat a brick with a brick.” And it always appears, you know? This is the essence of what’s happening in the world: it always appears. Moreover, the attempt to control everything and everyone around creates overstrain, which affects internal stability and raises legitimate questions among the citizens of countries that try to play the role of “grandees”: why do we need all this?

Some time ago, I heard something similar from our American colleagues, who said, “We gained the world, but we lost America itself.” I want to ask, “Was it worth it?” and did you gain anything at all?

In the societies of the leading Western European states, there is a growing rejection of the excessive ambitions of the political elite. This is evident in the barometer of public opinion. The establishment is unwilling to relinquish power, resorting to direct deception of its own citizens, escalating tensions on the international stage, and engaging in various schemes within their countries, often going beyond the boundaries of the law.

But it will not be possible to endlessly turn democratic and electoral procedures into a farce, to manipulate the will of the peoples. As it was in Romania, let’s say it was – we will not go into details. In many countries, this is happening, and in some countries they are trying to ban their political opponents, who are already gaining more legitimacy and more trust among voters-to ban them. We know this from our experience in the Soviet Union. Remember the songs of Vysotsky: “Even the military parade was canceled! Soon everyone will be banned to hell!” But it doesn’t work, the bans don’t work.

And the will of the people, the will of the citizens of these countries, is simple: let the leaders of these countries deal with the problems of their citizens, take care of their safety and quality of life, and not chase after chimeras. The United States, where the people’s demand led to a significant shift in the political direction, is a clear example of this. As for other countries, it can be said that examples are known to be contagious.

The subordination of the majority to the minority, which was characteristic of international relations during the dominance of Western countries, is giving way to a multilateral, more cooperative approach. This approach is based on agreements between leading players and takes into account the interests of all parties. However, this does not guarantee harmony or complete conflict-free relations. The interests of countries are never completely aligned, and the history of international relations is a constant struggle to achieve these interests.

But the fundamentally new global atmosphere, with the world’s majority countries increasingly setting the tone, gives us hope that all players will have to take each other’s interests into account when developing solutions to regional and global problems. After all, no one can achieve their goals alone, in isolation from others. Despite the escalation of conflicts, the crisis of the previous model of globalization, and the fragmentation of the global economy, the world remains a cohesive, interconnected, and interdependent entity.

We know this from our own experience. You know how much effort our opponents have put in recent years to, roughly speaking, kick Russia out of the global system, to drive us into political, cultural, and informational isolation, and economic autarky. In terms of the number and scope of punitive measures imposed on us, which are shamefully referred to as sanctions, Russia holds the record for the most in world history: 30 [thousands], or perhaps even more, restrictions.

And what? Have they achieved their goal? I don’t think I need to explain to those present that these efforts have been completely unsuccessful. Russia has demonstrated the highest level of resilience, the ability to withstand intense external pressure that could potentially break not only a single country but an entire coalition of nations. In this regard, we feel a legitimate sense of pride, pride in Russia, our citizens, and our Armed Forces.

But I want to say more than that. It turns out that the very same global system, from which they wanted to expel us, simply won’t let Russia go. This is because Russia is essential to maintaining the global balance. It’s not just about its territory, population, defense capabilities, technological and industrial potential, or its natural resources, although all of these factors are crucial.

But above all, it’s because the global balance cannot be achieved without Russia: neither economically, strategically, culturally, nor logistically. I believe that those who have attempted to disrupt this have come to realize this. However, some persist in their efforts to inflict what they call a strategic defeat on Russia.

Well, if they don’t see the doomed nature of this plan and persist, I still hope that life will show them and that it will reach the most stubborn slow-witted ones. It seems that they have already made a lot of noise, threatened with a complete blockade, and tried to force the people of Russia, as they put it, to suffer. I think it’s time to calm down, take a look around, understand the realities, and start building relationships in a completely different direction.

We also understand that a polycentric world is very dynamic. It seems fragile and unstable because it is impossible to fix the state of affairs permanently, or to determine the balance of power for a long time. After all, there are many participants in the processes, and the forces involved are highly asymmetrical and complex. Each participant has their own strengths and competitive advantages, which create a unique combination and composition in each case.

Today’s world is an extremely complex, multifaceted system. To properly describe and comprehend it, it is not enough to rely solely on the simple laws of logic, cause-and-effect relationships, and the resulting patterns. Instead, we need a philosophy of complexity, akin to quantum mechanics, which is wiser and more complex than classical physics.

However, it is precisely because of this complexity of the world that, in my opinion, the overall negotiability tends to increase. After all, linear, unilateral solutions are impossible, and nonlinear and multilateral solutions require very serious, professional, unbiased, creative, and sometimes unconventional diplomacy.

Therefore, I am convinced that we will witness a kind of renaissance, a revival of high-level diplomatic art. Its essence lies in the ability to engage in dialogue and negotiate with both neighbors and like-minded individuals, as well as, which is equally important but more challenging, with opponents.

It is in this spirit–-the spirit of 21st-century diplomacy–-that new institutions are developing. These include the expanding BRICS community, organizations in major regions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and [other organizations] in Eurasia, as well as smaller but no less important regional associations. There are many of them emerging around the world, and I won’t list them all, as you are already aware of them.

All these new structures are different, but they have one important quality in common: they do not function on the principle of hierarchy, of subordination to someone in charge. They are not against anyone, they are for themselves. Once again, the modern world needs agreements, not the imposition of someone’s will. Hegemony, of any kind, simply cannot handle the scale of the challenges.

Ensuring international security in these circumstances is an extremely urgent and complex issue. The growing number of players with different goals and political cultures, as well as their unique traditions, makes developing approaches to security a much more complex and challenging task. However, it also presents new opportunities for all of us.

The bloc-like tendencies, which are pre-programmed for confrontation, are certainly an anachronism that makes no sense. For example, we see how our European neighbors are trying to patch up the cracks in the European building. However, they want to overcome the division and strengthen the shaky unity that they once boasted of, not by effectively addressing their internal problems, but by exaggerating the image of the enemy. This is an old example, but the point is that people in these countries see and understand everything. Therefore, despite the escalation of the situation on the outside, as I have already mentioned, people are taking to the streets in search of this enemy.

Moreover, they are re-creating the familiar enemy that was invented centuries ago: Russia. Most people in Europe cannot understand why Russia is so scary to them, and why they need to tighten their belts and forget about their own interests in order to confront Russia. However, the ruling elites of a united Europe continue to spread hysteria. They claim that a war with Russia is almost on the horizon. They repeat this nonsense, this mantra, over and over again.

To be honest, I sometimes watch what they say and think, “They can’t be serious.” They can’t believe what they’re saying, that Russia is planning to attack NATO. It’s impossible to believe. And yet, they’re trying to convince their own people. So, what kind of people are they? Either they’re very incompetent if they really believe it, because it’s impossible to believe such nonsense, or they’re not honest, because they don’t believe it themselves and are trying to convince their citizens. What other options are there?

To be honest, I want to say: stop, sleep well, and finally deal with your own problems. Look at what is happening on the streets of European cities, what is happening to the economy, industry, European culture, and identity, as well as the massive debt and growing crisis of social welfare systems, uncontrolled migration, and the rise of violence, including political violence, and the radicalization of left-wing, ultra-liberal, and racist marginal societies.

Please note how Europe is sliding into the periphery of global competition. We are well aware of how much of the threats regarding Russia’s aggressive plans, which Europe is using to intimidate itself, are far-fetched, as I have just mentioned. However, self-delusion can be dangerous. We simply cannot ignore what is happening, as it is crucial for our own security and defense.

That’s why we’re keeping a close eye on the growing militarization of Europe. Is it just words, or is it time for us to take action? We’ve heard, and you know about it, that the German army should be the most powerful in Europe again. Well, we’re listening carefully and trying to understand what they mean.

I think that no one has any doubts that Russia’s retaliatory measures will not be long in coming. The response to the threats will be very convincing, to put it mildly. It is a response. We have never initiated a military confrontation. It is pointless, unnecessary, and simply absurd, and it distracts from the real problems and challenges. Societies will eventually demand answers from their leaders for ignoring their hopes, aspirations, and needs.

But if someone still wants to compete with us in the military sphere, as we say, let them try. Russia has repeatedly proven that when our security, the peace and tranquility of our citizens, our sovereignty, and our statehood are threatened, we respond quickly.

There is no need to provoke. There has never been a case where it did not end badly for the provoker. There will be no exceptions in the future.

Our history has proven that weakness is unacceptable, because it creates the temptation and illusion that some issues can be resolved with the help of force. Russia will never show weakness or indecisiveness. Let those who oppose us by the mere fact of our existence remember this. Let those who dream of inflicting this strategic defeat on us remember this. By the way, those who actively spoke about this, as we say, are no longer with us. Where are these individuals?

There are so many objective problems related to natural, technological, and social factors in the world that it is unacceptable, wasteful, and simply foolish to spend time and energy on artificial and often invented conflicts.

International security is now a phenomenon that is so multifaceted and indivisible that no geopolitical value divide can divide it. Only through painstaking, comprehensive work involving various partners and relying on creative approaches can we solve the complex security equations of the 21st century. There are no more or less important elements, and everything must be addressed as a whole.

Our country has consistently upheld and continues to uphold the principle of indivisible security. I have repeatedly stated that the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of others. Otherwise, there is no security at all, no security for anyone. However, this principle has not been successfully implemented. The euphoria and unrestrained desire for power of those who believed themselves to be the victors after the Cold War, as I have repeatedly stated, led to the imposition of one-sided and subjective notions of security.

This, in fact, became the real root cause of not only the Ukrainian conflict, but also many other acute conflicts of the XX [century] – the first decade of the XXI century. As a result, as we warned, no one feels safe at all today. It’s time to go back to what is called the roots, to correct the mistakes made.

But the indivisibility of security today is even more complex than it was in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It is no longer just about military-political balance and mutual interests. Human security depends on our ability to respond to the challenges posed by natural disasters, technological advancements, and rapid social, demographic, and information processes.

All of this is interconnected, and changes occur largely on their own, often unpredictably according to their own internal logic and laws, and sometimes even, I would say, beyond the will and expectations of people.

Humanity risks being left out in such a situation, just an observer of processes that it will no longer be able to control. What is this but a systemic challenge for all of us and an opportunity for us to work together constructively?

There are no ready-made answers, but I believe that in order to solve global problems, it is necessary, first of all, to approach them without any ideological preconceptions or didactic pathos in the spirit of “I’m going to explain everything to you.” Secondly, it is important to realize that this is a truly common and indivisible task that requires the joint efforts of all countries and peoples.

Every culture and civilization must contribute, because, again, no one knows the right answer individually. It can only be born through a collaborative and constructive search, rather than a division of efforts and national experiences.

I repeat once again: conflicts and clashes of interests have been and will always be, of course, and the question is how to resolve them. As I said today, a multipolar world is a return to classical diplomacy, where attention and mutual respect are needed for resolution, rather than coercion.

Classical diplomacy was able to take into account the positions of various actors in international relations, the complexity of the “concert” of various powers. However, it was eventually replaced by Western diplomacy of monologues, endless lectures, and orders. Instead of resolving conflicts, specific interests were pushed forward, while the interests of others were considered unworthy of attention.

Is it any wonder that instead of resolving conflicts, we have only exacerbated them, leading to bloody armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters? This approach has failed to solve any of the problems. There are countless examples from the past 30 years. [And from the fifty years before that.]

One of them is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which cannot be resolved by Western unilateral diplomacy, which blatantly ignores the history, traditions, identity, and culture of the people living there, nor can it stabilize the situation in the Middle East, which is rapidly deteriorating. We are currently learning more about President Trump’s initiatives. I believe that there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. [They are another case of using a brick on a brick.]

This is a terrible example and a Ukrainian tragedy. It is a pain for Ukrainians and for Russians, for all of us. The causes of the Ukrainian conflict are well known to anyone who has taken the trouble to learn about the background of its current, most acute stage. I will not repeat them, as I am confident that those present in this room are well aware of them and my position on this issue, which I have expressed many times.

There is another thing that is known. Those who encouraged, goaded, armed Ukraine, incited it to Russia, and nurtured rabid nationalism and neo-Nazism there for decades, to be honest, sorry for the hype, they didn’t care not only about Russian interests, but also about the actual Ukrainian, genuine interests of the people of this country. They did not care about this people, as they considered it a disposable asset for the globalists, expansionists in the West, and their minions in Kiev. The results of reckless adventurism are obvious, there’s no need to discuss them.

We can ask ourselves another question: could it have been different? We also know, and I’ll go back to what President Trump said, that if he had been in power, this could have been avoided. I agree with that. Indeed, this could have been avoided if we had worked differently with the Biden administration at the time. If Ukraine hadn’t been turned into a destructive tool in someone else’s hands, and if the North Atlantic bloc hadn’t been used to advance towards our borders. If Ukraine had eventually retained its independence and real sovereignty.

And another question: how should the bilateral Russian-Ukrainian problems be resolved, which were an objective consequence of the collapse of a huge country and complex geopolitical transformations? By the way, I think that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was also related to the Russian leadership’s desire to avoid any ideological confrontation, hoping that now that we had finished with communism, we would embrace brotherhood. However, this was not the case. There were other factors at play, including geopolitical interests. It turned out that ideological differences had nothing to do with it.

How would they be solved in a polycentric world? And how would the situation in Ukraine be resolved? I think that if there were a multipolarity, the different poles would “try on” the situation around the Ukrainian conflict, so to speak, on themselves, on those potential areas of tension, the faults that exist in their own regions, and then the collective decision would be much more responsible and balanced.

The settlement would be based on the understanding that all the participants in this difficult situation have their own interests. These interests are based on objective and subjective circumstances, and they cannot be ignored. The desire of all countries to ensure security and development is legitimate. This naturally applies to Ukraine, Russia, and all our neighbors. It is the countries of the region that should have the final say in creating a regional system. They have the greatest chance of reaching an agreement on a model of cooperation that is acceptable to all, as it directly affects them. It is their vital interest.

For other countries, this situation, in this case in Ukraine, is a card in a much larger game, and it’s their own game, often unrelated to the specific issues of the countries involved in the conflict. It’s just a pretext and a way to achieve their geopolitical objectives, expand their control, and profit from the war. That’s why they “came” to our doorstep with NATO infrastructure, and for years they watched indifferently at the tragedy of Donbass, the genocide, and the destruction of Russian people in our ancestral, historical territories, which began in 2014 after the bloody coup d’état in Ukraine.

The contrast to the behavior of Europe and, until recently, the United States under the previous administration, is the actions of the majority of the world’s countries. They refuse to take sides and seek to genuinely contribute to the establishment of a just world. We are grateful to all the countries that have made genuine efforts in recent years to find a solution to the situation. These include our founding partners in BRICS: China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. We also appreciate the efforts of Belarus and, incidentally, North Korea. These are our friends in the Arab and Islamic world, primarily Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. Serbia, Hungary, and Slovakia in Europe. And many other countries in Africa and Latin America.

So far, unfortunately, the fighting has not been stopped, but the responsibility for this lies not with the “majority” for not being able to stop it, but with the “minority,” primarily Europe, which is constantly escalating the conflict, and I don’t see any other goal there. However, I believe that goodwill will prevail, and there is no doubt about that. I think that Ukraine is gradually changing, and we can see it happening. No matter how much people’s minds are being manipulated, changes are still taking place in the public consciousness, and in the vast majority of countries around the world.

In fact, the phenomenon of the global majority is a new phenomenon in international life. I would also like to say a few words about this. What is its essence? The vast majority of countries around the world are focused on pursuing their own civilizational interests, the most important of which is balanced and progressive development. This seems natural and has always been the case. However, in previous eras, the understanding of these interests was often distorted by unhealthy ambitions, selfishness, and the influence of expansionist ideologies.

Nowadays, the majority of countries and peoples, the global majority, are aware of their true interests. However, the most important aspect is that they feel strong and confident enough to pursue these interests despite external influences, and they are willing to work with their partners to promote and defend their own interests, thereby converting international relations, diplomacy, and integration into a source of growth, progress, and development. The relationship within the global majority serves as a prototype for political practices that are necessary and effective in a polycentric world.

This is pragmatism and realism, the rejection of a “bloc” philosophy, the absence of rigid, predefined obligations, and models where there are “senior” and “junior” partners. Finally, it is the ability to combine interests that are not always aligned, but mostly do not contradict each other. The absence of antagonism becomes a fundamental principle.

A new wave of decolonization is gaining momentum, as former colonies gain political, economic, cultural, and ideological sovereignty in addition to statehood.

In this context, another anniversary is significant. We have just celebrated the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. This is not only the most representative and universal political structure in the world, but also a symbol of the spirit of cooperation, alliance, and even combat brotherhood, which helped to unite efforts in the first half of the last century to fight the most terrible evil in history–-the ruthless machine of extermination and enslavement. [It still exists in Palestine.]

And the decisive role in this common victory, which we are proud of, the victory over Nazism, belongs, of course, to the Soviet Union. All you have to do is look at the number of victims among all the members of the anti-Hitler coalition, and everything will become clear.

The United Nations, of course, is a legacy of the victory in World War II, and it is the most successful attempt to date to create an international organization that can address global issues.

Nowadays, you often hear that the UN system is paralyzed and in crisis. This has become a commonplace. Some even argue that it has outlived its usefulness and should be radically reformed. Yes, there are certainly many problems with the UN’s work. However, there is still nothing better than the UN. This should also be acknowledged.

The problem is not really with the UN, because its potential is very great. The real question is how we, the united nations, which are now unfortunately divided, use all these opportunities.

There is no doubt that the UN is facing challenges. Like any organization, it needs to adapt to changing realities. However, it is crucial not to lose or distort the fundamental purpose of the UN, not only the one that was established at the inception of the organization, but also the one that has been developed over time.

In this regard, it is worth recalling that since 1945, the number of UN member states has increased by almost four times. The organization, which was established at the initiative of several major countries, has not only expanded over the decades, but has also absorbed a wide range of diverse cultures and political traditions, becoming a truly multipolar organization long before the world became so. The potential of the UN system is just beginning to unfold, and I am confident that it will happen even faster in the upcoming new era.

In other words, the world’s majority countries now naturally form a convincing majority within the United Nations, which means that its structure and governing bodies need to be adjusted to reflect this fact, which would also be more in line with the basic principles of democracy.

I will not deny that there is no consensus on how the world should be organized or on what principles it should be based on in the coming years and decades. We have entered a long period of searching, much of it done by trial and error. It is unknown when a new stable system will be fully formed, or what its framework will be. We must be prepared for the fact that social, political, and economic development will be unpredictable and sometimes quite turbulent for an extended period.

And in order to maintain clear guidelines and not go astray, we all need a solid foundation. In our opinion, this foundation is primarily based on the values that have been nurtured in national cultures over the centuries. Culture and history, ethical and religious norms, and the influence of geography and space are the fundamental elements that give rise to civilizations and distinct communities that have been shaped over the years, defining national identities, values, and traditions. These elements serve as guiding principles that help us navigate the challenges and uncertainties of international life.

Traditions are always unique and distinctive, and everyone has their own. Respect for traditions is the first and most important condition for the successful development of international relations and the resolution of emerging problems.

The world has experienced attempts at unification and the imposition of a supposedly universal model that went against the cultural and ethical traditions of most nations. The Soviet Union was guilty of this in its time, imposing its own political system. We know about this. To be honest, I don’t think anyone would argue with that. Later, the United States took over this “baton”. Europe was also quite different. In all cases, it didn’t work out. Superficial, alluvial, and the artificial, especially the imposed from the outside, traditions do not hold for a long time. And those who respect their own tradition usually do not encroach on someone else’s.

Now, in the context of international instability, we are paying special attention to our own foundation for development, which is independent of international turmoil. We are witnessing countries and peoples turning to these foundations. This is happening not only in the majority of the world’s nations, but also in Western societies. When everyone focuses on themselves and avoids unnecessary ambitions, it becomes easier to find common ground with others.

As an example, we can look at Russia’s current experience with the United States. As we know, our countries have many contradictions, and our views on many global issues differ. This is normal for such major powers, and it is absolutely natural. The key is how to resolve these contradictions and how to manage them peacefully.

The current Administration of the White House declares its interests and desires directly, I think you will agree with me, sometimes straightforwardly, but without any unnecessary hypocrisy. It is always better to clearly understand what the interlocutor wants, what he is striving for, than to try to guess the real meaning in a series of equivocations, ambiguous and vague hints.

We see that the current US administration is guided primarily by the interests of its own country, as it understands them. I believe that this is a rational approach.

But then, I’m sorry, and Russia reserves the right to be guided by our national interests, one of which, by the way, is the restoration of full-fledged relations with the United States. And no matter how contradictory the situation may be, if we treat each other with respect, then the negotiation process, even if it is the most difficult and persistent, will still have the goal of reaching an agreement, which means that mutually acceptable solutions are possible.

Multipolarity, polycentrism, a reality that will be with us for a long time, and how soon and how effectively we will be able to create a stable world order on its basis – all of this depends on each of us. And such an order, such a model in the modern world, is only possible as a result of universal efforts, work in which everyone participates. I repeat, the days when a narrow group of the most powerful nations decided for the rest of the world how to live are gone forever.

This is something to keep in mind for those who are nostalgic for the colonial era, when people were divided into those who were equal and those who were not. We are all familiar with Orwell’s phrase. [From Animal House.]

It has never been characteristic of us, of Russia, to have such a racist understanding of problems, or such an attitude towards other nations and other cultures. It has never been characteristic of Russia, and it never will be. [It’s unwise to use never here, and Putin should know better.]

We are in favor of diversity, polyphony, and a symphony of values. You will agree with me that the world looks dull when it is monotonous. Russia has had a very turbulent and difficult fate. The very formation of Russian statehood has been a constant struggle against enormous historical challenges.

I don’t want to say that other countries developed in a sheltered environment, of course not. However, Russia’s experience is unique in many ways, as is the country it has created. This is not a claim to exclusivity or superiority, but rather a recognition of our distinctiveness.

We have experienced numerous upheavals, and we have given the world food for thought, both negative and positive. However, thanks to our historical background, we are better prepared for the complex, nonlinear, and ambiguous global situation in which we all must live.

In all the twists and turns, Russia has proven one thing: it has been, is, and always will be. Its role in the world is changing, as we understand, but it remains a force without which it is difficult, and often impossible, to achieve harmony and balance. This proven fact – proven by history and time – is an unquestionable truth.

But in today’s multipolar world, this harmony and balance that I have been talking about can only be achieved through joint efforts. I want to assure you that Russia is ready for such work.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, thank you very much for such an extensive…

V. Putin: Have I tired you? I’m sorry.

F. Lukyanov: No, you’ve only just started. (Laughter.) But you’ve already set the bar so high for us that we’ll definitely latch onto a lot of the topics that have been mentioned.

Moreover, a truly polycentric, multipolar world is still only the subject of a beginning description. Indeed, it is so complex, as you said in your speech, that we can still be like in the old parable: where everyone touches a part of an elephant and thinks it is the whole elephant, but in reality it is only a part.

V. Putin: You know, these are not empty words. I was speaking from experience. Sometimes, we face very specific issues that need to be resolved in one part of the world or another. In the past, when there was the Soviet Union, there were two blocs, and they agreed on things within the bloc.

No, I’m telling you frankly, in practice, I’ve had several times, here I am thinking: to do this or to do that? Then I think: no, it is not possible, because it will affect here and there, better like this. And then: no, but if I do this, it will affect here and there. This is real. And, to be honest, there were several cases: we will not do anything at all. Really. Because the damage will be greater from the measures taken than just endurance and patience.

These are the realities of today–-I didn’t make anything up: as it is in real life, in practice–- I said so.

F. Lukyanov: Did you play chess in school?

V. Putin: Well, I loved chess.

F. Lukyanov: All right, then I will continue what you just said about practice. Indeed, not only the theoretical understanding is changing, but also the practical actions on the world stage cannot be the same as before.

In particular, in the previous decades, many people relied on institutions, international organizations, and structures within states that were designed to solve specific problems.

Many experts, as we saw at the Valdai Discussion in the previous days, are now saying that institutions are either weakening or losing their effectiveness for various reasons, and leaders and managers are now facing greater responsibilities than before.

In this regard, I have a question for you: Don’t you sometimes feel like Alexander I at the Congress of Vienna, who personally negotiated the new world order? You, alone.

V. Putin: No, I don’t. Alexander I was an emperor, and I am a President elected by the people for a certain term–-there is a big difference. This is the first point.

Secondly, Alexander I did unite Europe by force, defeating the enemy who invaded our territory. We remember what he did–-the Congress of Vienna and so on and so forth. From the point of view of where the world was moving, let historians give their assessments, it is a controversial thing: whether it was necessary to restore monarchies everywhere and try to turn the wheel of history back a little. Wouldn’t it be better to look at the trends and come up with something to move forward and take the lead in this process? This is not relevant to your question, but it is relevant to the topic.

And as for modern institutions. After all, what is the problem? They degraded just as individual countries, or the collective West, tried to take advantage of the post-Cold War situation by declaring themselves winners. Here they began to impose everything on everyone--the first one. Second, everyone else gradually, at first muffled, then more and more actively, actively began to resist this.

During the first period of time, after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western structures stuffed a significant number of their own personnel into the old formats. And all of these personnel, strictly following the instructions they received from the Washington-based committee, acted in a very rough manner, disregarding everything and everyone.

And this led to the fact that Russia stopped using these institutions altogether, believing that nothing could be done there. What was the OSCE created for? To resolve complex situations in Europe. But what did it come down to? The OSCE’s activities were reduced to a platform for discussing human rights in the post-Soviet space.

Well, listen. Yes, there are plenty of problems. But what, are there not enough problems in Western Europe? Look, I think it’s just recently that even the US State Department has noticed that there are human rights issues in the UK. It seems absurd, but God bless those who have noticed it.

But this is not the case now–-these problems have always existed. And these international organizations simply began to deal professionally with Russia and the post-Soviet space. But that’s not what they were created for. And so on in so many ways.

Therefore, they have largely lost their meaning, the meaning they had when they were created in the previous system of reference, when there was the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc, and the Western Bloc. Therefore, they have degraded. Not because they were poorly constructed, but because they have stopped doing what they were created to do.

But there is still no other way to look for some kind of consensus solutions. By the way, we have gradually matured to the point that we need to create some institutions where issues are resolved not as our Western colleagues tried to solve them, but really on the basis of consensus, really on the basis of agreeing positions. This is how the SCO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, came into being.

After all, it originally arose from what? Out of the need to regulate border relations between the former republics of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. And she worked very well, very well. And we started to expand the scope of its activities. And it went! Do you understand?

This is how BRICS came into being, when the Prime Minister of India and the President of the People’s Republic of China were visiting me, I suggested that the three of us get together, as we did in St. Petersburg. RIC was created–-Russia, India, and China. We have agreed that: a) we will meet; b) we will expand this platform for the work of our foreign ministers. And so it went.

And why? And because, right away, all the participants in the process saw, despite some rough edges between them, that in general the platform is good, there are no people who want to push themselves forward, at all costs, to push their interests, and everyone understood that they need to find a balance.

Immediately after that, Brazil and South Africa asked to join us, and BRICS was formed. These are natural partners united by a common goal of building relationships and finding mutually acceptable solutions. They began to gather in organizations.

The same thing started happening around the world when I spoke about regional organizations. And look how the authority of these organizations is growing. This is the key to a new, complex, and multipolar world that has a chance to be sustainable.

F. Lukyanov: You used a beautiful and well-known metaphor in your speech about a crowbar, that there is no way to fight a crowbar if another one does not appear. This is also related to institutions, because again, when institutions do not work, then the crowbar remains: in other words, military force, which has undoubtedly come to the fore in international relations.

There’s a lot of discussion, and we had a whole separate section on this topic at the Valdai Forum, about what a new war, a modern war, is like, and it’s clearly changed. As Commander-in-Chief, or just as a prominent politician, how would you assess what has changed about war?

V. Putin: This is a very special issue, but it is certainly very important.

First, there are non-military ways of solving military issues, which have always existed, but now, with the development of technology, they are gaining new significance and effects. What do I mean? Information attacks, influencing the political consciousness of a potential enemy country, and attempts to deconstruct that consciousness.

And you know what I was thinking about just now? I was recently told that we have a Russian tradition that is being revived: girls and young women are wearing

Kokoshnik

kokoshniks and traditional Russian attire at their events, when they are out and about, at bars and so on. You know, it’s not a joke—it makes me very happy. Why? Because it means that despite all the attempts to undermine our Russian society from within, our adversaries are not achieving any results, but rather, they are experiencing the opposite effect.

And the fact that young people have such an internal defense against any attempts to influence public consciousness from within is very good. It shows the maturity and strength of Russian society. But this is only one side of the coin. On the other side, there are attempts to damage the economy, the financial sector, and so on, which is very dangerous.

But if we talk about the purely military component, there are, of course, a lot of novelties here, which are related, of course, to the development of technology. And so it is on everyone’s lips, nevertheless, I will say: these are unmanned systems. And in three environments: both in the air and on the ground and on the water. These are unmanned, uncrewed boats, these are platforms that are used on land, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

And all this has a dual purpose. You know, this is very important, it is one of the features of today. A lot of things that are actively used in combat operations, they are all dual-use. Take unmanned aerial vehicles. They can also be used where? Both in medicine, and in the delivery of food, and in the transportation of some useful cargo—everywhere. And in combat operations.

This necessitates the development of other systems: reconnaissance systems, electronic warfare systems. This changes the tactics of warfare, and a lot changes on the battlefield. There are no more Guderian’s or Rybalko’s [breakthroughs] like they were during World War II, and tanks are now used in a completely different way. Instead of cutting through and breaking through enemy defenses, they are now used to support infantry from concealed positions. This is also necessary, but it is slightly different.

But the most important thing, you know what? The speed of the changes that are taking place. In a month, in a week, a lot of things change. I’ve already said this many times: we use something, and then, for example, the use of high-precision weapons, including long-range weapons, which is also a very important component today, becomes less effective.

And why? And because the enemy is using the latest electronic warfare systems. He understood what was happening and adjusted accordingly. This means that we need to find an antidote within a few days or a week. This is happening on a regular basis, which is very important, both on the battlefield and in scientific centers. These are modern changes and significant innovations in modern warfare.

Everything changes, except for one thing: it is the bravery, courage and heroism of the Russian soldier, which we are all very proud of. When I say “Russians”, I don’t mean people who are purely ethnically Russian in their passport–-and our guys picked it up, and people of different faiths and different nationalities picked it up. Everyone is proud to say: “I’m a Russian soldier.” So it is.

Why? Let me remind you of Peter the Great. What did Peter the Great say? Who is a Russian? If you know, good, if you don’t know, I’ll tell you. Peter the Great said, “A Russian is someone who loves Russia and serves it.”

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

I got the hint about the kokoshniks, and next time I’ll wear appropriate clothing.

V. Putin: You don’t need a kokoshnik.

F. Lukyanov: No? Okay, whatever you say.

Vladimir Vladimirovich, seriously, you have spoken about the speed and the pace of change. Indeed, it is amazing, and everything is changing incredibly fast, both in the military and in the civilian sphere. But apparently, in the coming years and decades, otherwise, we will not see anything else, and this will be the case.

More than three years ago, when the special military operation began, there was criticism of the Russian army and our country, saying that we were lagging behind in some areas, and that some of the failures we had were related to this.

First of all, have we caught up with what we should have caught up with?

Secondly, since we are talking about Russian soldiers, how do you assess the current situation on the front lines?

V. Putin: First of all, we are not behind, but we really didn’t see some things. It’s not that we wanted to do something but didn’t have time to finish it, but we really didn’t see some things. First of all.

Second. We are at war; we produce military equipment. And there are a lot of countries fighting against us, all the NATO countries are fighting against us. They are no longer hiding it. And unfortunately, there are also instructors, and they are actually taking part in the fighting, from Western countries. There is a special center in Europe that is essentially accompanying everything that the Armed Forces of Ukraine does: providing information, transmitting intelligence from space, supplying weapons, and providing training. And, I repeat, instructors take part not only in training, but also in making decisions and even in their implementation.

Therefore, of course, the challenge is serious for us. But the Russian army, the Russian state, and the Russian defense industry have quickly adapted to this challenge.

I am not exaggerating, and this is not hyperbole or exaggeration, and it is not boasting, but I believe that the Russian army is currently the most combat-ready army in terms of personnel training, technical capabilities, and the ability to apply and modernize them, as well as to supply new weapons to the front lines and even to employ new combat tactics. This is perhaps the answer to your question.

F. Lukyanov: Our interlocutors and your interlocutor across the ocean recently renamed the Ministry of Defense into the Ministry of War. It would seem that this is the same thing, but as they say, there is a nuance. Do you think that the names matter in essence?

V. Putin: You can say no, or you can say that the name of the ship determines how it will sail. There may be some sense in this, but it sounds somewhat aggressive–-the Ministry of War. We have a Ministry of Defense, and we have always based our actions on this principle. We have no aggressive intentions towards third countries. We have a Ministry of Defense, and the goal of the Ministry of Defense is to ensure the security of the Russian state and the people of the Russian Federation.

F. Lukyanov: Is he teasing you about the paper tiger?

V. Putin: “The Paper Tiger”... I said that Russia has been fighting not the Armed Forces or Ukraine all these years, but practically all the NATO countries.

Speaking of... Yes, you asked what’s happening on our front line. Well, I’ll get back to the Tigers.

This means that our troops are confidently advancing along the entire line of contact. If we look at the situation from the north, where the North Group is located, there is a city called Volchansk in the Kharkiv region, and the village of Yunakovka in the Sumy region has just been brought under our control. Volchansk has been partially taken over, and I believe that our troops will soon take over the rest of the city. We are confidently creating a security zone, and this work is progressing smoothly and according to plan.

The Western group of troops has practically taken over one of these large settlements (not taken over, but two-thirds of the city has been taken over): Kupyansk. The center is already in our hands. Fighting is taking place in the southern part of the city. Another fairly large city, Kirovsk, has been completely taken over by us.

The southern group has already entered the city of Konstantinovka, which is one of the main defensive lines: Konstantinovka, Slavyansk, and Kramatorsk are the lines that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been building for over 10 years with the help of Western specialists. However, our troops have already entered these areas, and combat operations are taking place there. Similarly, our troops have entered the city of Seversk, which is also a significant settlement, and combat operations are taking place there.

The Center group is actively and effectively working, carrying out operations, and has entered the city of Krasnoarmeysk, I believe from the southern part, and there are ongoing battles in the city of Krasnoarmeysk. I will not go into details, including because I do not want to inform our enemy, as strange as it may sound. What do I mean? Because they are in a state of confusion, and they do not fully understand what is happening there. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to tell them what is happening, or provide them with additional information. However, our troops are confidently operating in the area.

As for the Vostok group, it is moving confidently and at a fast pace through the northern part of the Zaporizhzhia region and parts of the Dnipropetrovsk region.

The Dnipro group is also very confident and effective. Approximately... Almost 100 percent of the Luhansk region is in our hands, and I believe that the enemy controls only 0.13 percent. The enemy also controls approximately 19 percent of the Donetsk region. The Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions are controlled by the enemy to a lesser extent, approximately 24-25 percent. I want to emphasize that Russian forces are confidently maintaining the strategic initiative.

But if we are fighting the entire NATO bloc and we are moving forward, we are confident, and this is a “paper tiger”–-what is NATO itself? What is it like?

But God bless him. The most important thing for us is to be confident, and we are confident.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

And there are children’s ones–-cut-out and assembled–-paper tigers. You can give them to President Trump when you meet with him.

V. Putin: No, we have our own relationship with him, we know what to give each other. We take it very calmly, you know.

I don’t know in what context it was said, or maybe it was said ironically. There’s something about it, you know... He said to his interlocutor, “It’s a paper tiger.” What’s next? Well, go and deal with this paper tiger. But things are different there.

After all, what is the problem today? The Armed Forces of Ukraine are receiving enough weapons, as much as they need. In September, the Armed Forces of Ukraine lost approximately 44,700 soldiers. Of these, almost half were irreplaceable. During this time, I believe that only 18,000+ soldiers were conscripted. Approximately 14,500 soldiers were returned after treatment in hospitals. Look, if you add up how many were mobilized, how many were returned from hospitals, and how many were lost, you get a total of minus 11,000. per month. This means that not only is there no replenishment on the front lines, but there is actually a decrease.

At the same time, if we look at the period from January to August of this year, there were approximately 150,000 deserters. During the same period, 160,000 people were recruited. However, 150,000 deserters is a significant number. Given the current increasing losses (although they were slightly higher in the previous month), there is only one solution: lowering the level of mobilization and the age of conscription. However, this approach will not yield significant results.

According to both our and, by the way, Western experts, this is unlikely to bring positive results, because there is no time for preparation. Our troops are advancing every day. Do you understand what I mean? They don’t have enough time to establish a foothold or prepare their personnel, and they suffer more casualties than they can replace on the battlefield. That’s the issue.

Therefore, it would be better for the Kiev leadership to think about how to negotiate. We have talked about this many times and have suggested that they do so.

F. Lukyanov: Do we have enough personnel for everything?

V.Putin: We have enough. First of all, of course, unfortunately, we also have losses, but they are much smaller than those of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

And then, you know, what’s the difference? Our guys come and sign up for the army themselves, they’re basically volunteers. We don’t have any mass mobilization, let alone forced mobilization, like the Kiev regime is doing. I’m not making this up, believe me, it’s objective data, and the Westerners confirm it: from January to August, there were 150,000 deserters [in the Armed Forces of Ukraine]. Why? People were grabbed off the street, and they’re running away, and they’re doing the right thing. I’m urging them to flee. We’re urging them to surrender, but it’s difficult for them to surrender because either the rear guard units destroy them when they see someone trying to surrender, or they’re destroyed by drones. And the drones are often controlled by mercenaries from various countries, who don’t care about the Ukrainians and just destroy them. The army is actually a simple, working-class army in Ukraine. The elite doesn’t fight, they just send their citizens to be slaughtered, and that’s it. That’s why there are so many deserters.

We have it too, it always happens during armed conflicts. There are people who leave their units without permission. But compared to what is happening there, there are only a few of them. And there is a mass order. This is where the problem lies. Lowering the draft age to 21 or 18 will not solve the problem, and the leaders of the Kiev regime need to understand this. I hope that they will find the strength to sit down at the negotiating table.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Dear friends, please ask your questions.

Ivan Safranchuk, I see.

I.Safranchuk: Vladimir Vladimirovich, thank you very much for your very interesting opening speech, and you have already set a high bar for the discussion in your exchange with Fyodor Alexandrovich.

This motive was already hinted at in what you said, but I would like to clarify. In the drastic changes that have taken place in recent years, have you been surprised by anything? For example, the level of confrontation that many Europeans have shown towards us, and the fact that some have stopped being ashamed of their participation in the Hitler coalition.

After all, there are things that were difficult to imagine just a short while ago. Was there really an effect of surprise, as if it were impossible? And you said that in today’s world, you need to be prepared for anything, as anything can happen, but just a short while ago, it seemed that there was more predictability. So, in this rapid change of pace, was there anything that truly surprised you?

V. Putin: Initially… In general, by and large, no, nothing was particularly surprising, I had a rough idea of what it would be like. But I was still surprised by the willingness and even desire to reconsider everything that was positive in the past.

Look, at first, very carefully, with probing, but still, in the West, they began to compare the Stalinist regime and the fascist regime in Germany, the Nazi, Hitler regime, and they began to put them on the same level. I saw all of this very well. They began to bring up the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact there, while shamefacedly forgetting about the Munich agreement of 1938, as if this had not happened, as if the Prime Minister [of Great Britain] did not come to London after the meeting in Munich, did not shake the treaty with Hitler on the plane ramp: ”A treaty was signed with Hitler!”—shook it–-“ I brought peace!” But even then, there were people in the UK who said: “Now war is inevitable,” it was Churchill. Chamberlain said: “I brought peace.” And Churchill said: “Now war is inevitable.” Then these estimates were already given.

They said, “The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was terrible, they conspired with Hitler, the Soviet Union conspired with Hitler.” But you conspired with Hitler and divided Czechoslovakia the day before. It’s as if it never happened. Yes, you can use propaganda to indoctrinate people with these incompatible ideas, but we know the truth. This is the first part of the Marseillaise ballet.

Then it got worse. They started not only putting Stalin’s and Hitler’s regimes on the same level but also trying to forget the results of the Nuremberg Trials. This is strange, because they were all part of the same struggle, and the Nuremberg Trials were held to ensure that nothing like this would happen again in the future. However, this is also being done. They have started demolishing monuments to Soviet soldiers and others who fought against Nazism.

I understand that there were ideological things there. I have just said this from the rostrum, that when the Soviet Union pursued a policy, when it imposed its political system on Eastern Europe--yes, all this is understandable. But the people who fought against Nazism gave their lives, what does this have to do with them? They were not at the head of the Stalinist regime, did not make any political decisions, they simply gave their lives on the altar of Victory over Nazism. We started it–-and so on, and so on…

But it still surprised me that there was no end in sight, and I assure you that it had to do with Russia and that it had to be pushed aside.

You know, I wanted to go up to the podium, but I didn’t bring a book with me, and I wanted to read something to you, but then I just forgot and left it here. What do I want to say? I have a copy of Pushkin’s works on my desk at home. Sometimes, when I have a few minutes, I like to immerse myself in it. It’s interesting and enjoyable to read, and I also enjoy getting into the atmosphere and understanding how people lived, breathed, and thought back then.

Just yesterday I opened it, flipped through it, and came across a poem. We all know, the Russian part [of those present in the hall] definitely knows, the poem by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov “Borodino”: “Tell me, uncle, it’s not for nothing...”, and so on. But I never knew that Pushkin wrote on this topic. I read it, and it made a very serious impression on me, because it looks as if Alexander Sergeyevich wrote it yesterday, and as if he said to me, “Listen, you’re going to the Valdai Club, take it with you and read it to your friends.”

I was honestly embarrassed, I think, okay. But since the question was asked, and I have the book with me, will you allow it? This is interesting. This is the answer to many questions. It’s called the Borodino Anniversary.

Great Day of Borodin

We remember with a brotherly feast,

They said, “The tribes were coming.

Threatening Russia with disaster;

Wasn’t all of Europe here?

And whose star guided it!

But we became the fifth firm.

And they took the pressure with their breasts

Tribes obedient to the proud,

And it was an unequal argument.

And what of it? His disastrous escape,

They boast, but they have forgotten.

Forgotten Russian bayonet and snow,

He buried their glory in the desert.

The familiar feast beckons them again –

They are intoxicated by the blood of the Slavs;

But they will have a hard time with a hangover;

But long will the guests sleep

At a cramped, cold housewarming party,

Under the grasses of the northern fields!

(Applause.)

That’s all I have to say. Once again, I’m convinced that Pushkin is our everything. By the way, Alexander Sergeyevich went on to say something else, but I won’t read it, so feel free to do so if you wish. This is from 1831.

You see, many people don’t like the very fact of Russia’s existence, and they all want to somehow participate in this historical event of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on us and profit from it: take a bite here, take a bite there... I want to make such an expressive gesture, but there are a lot of ladies here [in the audience]. This won’t happen.

F. Lukyanov: I want to draw attention to a very important comparison. Polish President Navrotsky literally said in an interview the day before yesterday.

V.Putin: By the way, there is further [in the poem] about Poland.

F. Lukyanov: Yes, well, of course, our beloved partner. So, he said in an interview that he constantly “converses” with General Piłsudski, discussing issues with him, including relations with Russia. And here you are with Pushkin. It doesn’t quite fit.

V.Putin: You know, Pilsudski was such a person, he was hostile to Russia and so on, and it seems to me that under his leadership and guided by his ideas, Poland made a lot of mistakes before the Second World War. After all, Germany offered them a peaceful solution to the issue of Danzig and the Danzig Corridor–-the Polish leadership of that time categorically refused and, in the end, fell the first victim of Nazi aggression.

And she completely refused to do something else, but historians probably know this: Poland refused to allow the Soviet Union to help Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was willing to do so, and we have documents in our archives that I have personally read. When we sent notes to Poland, Poland said that it would never allow Russian troops to help Czechoslovakia, and if Soviet planes flew, Poland would shoot them down. Ultimately, Poland became the first victim of Nazi aggression.

If today’s top-ranking political family in Poland also remembers, understands, and takes into account the complexities and twists and turns of various historical eras, and consults with Piłsudski, then this is actually a good thing.

F. Lukyanov: But there is a suspicion that there is a little different context there.

Okay. Next, please, colleagues, questions.

Professor Marandi, Iran.

:(as translated)M. Marandi Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question, Mr. President. I would also like to thank Valdai, which is an excellent conference.

Of course, we’re all sad, because over the past two years, we’ve seen the genocide in Gaza, the suffering of women and children who are being tortured day and night. And we’ve recently seen President Trump make a peace proposal that was more like a surrender proposal, especially when Tony Blair was asked to come in with his history in this relationship.

What can the Russian Federation do to end this sad situation?

Thank you.

V. Putin: The situation in Gaza is a terrible event in history, in the modern history of humanity. And it is even known that the pro-Western Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Guterres, said publicly that Gaza has become the largest children’s cemetery in the world. What could be more tragic and sad?

As for President Trump’s proposal for Gaza—you know, and this may come as a surprise to you—but on the whole, Russia is ready to support it. If, of course–-and we must look carefully at the proposals we have made--this leads to the final goal that we have always talked about.

Since 1948, and later in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted, Russia has always advocated the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state. In my opinion, this is the key to a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Indeed, as far as I know, I haven’t looked at this proposal very carefully yet, but it suggests the creation of an international body that would govern Palestine, or rather the Gaza Strip, for a certain period of time, with Mr. Blair at its helm. Although he may not be widely recognized as a prominent peacemaker, I personally know him. In fact, I have visited his home, spent the night there, and shared coffee with him in our pajamas. Yes, indeed.

F. Lukyanov: Was the coffee good?

V. Putin: Yes, quite.

But what I want to say is this. He is a man with his own views, but he is an experienced politician. And in general, of course, if his activities, his experience, and his knowledge are directed in a peaceful way, then he can play some kind of positive role.

There are, of course, several questions. First: how long will this international administration last? How and to whom will power be transferred? As I understand it, this plan outlines the possibility of transferring power to the Palestinian administration.

In my opinion, it would be better to put everything under the control of President Abbas and the current Palestinian administration. It may be difficult for them to deal with security issues. However, as I understand it, my colleagues, with whom I spoke about this today, suggest that the control of the Gaza Strip could be transferred to the local security forces. Is this a bad idea? In my opinion, it is a good idea.

We need to understand, I repeat, how long the international administration will be in charge there, and when it is expected to transfer both civilian authority and security issues, which is very important. In my opinion, this should definitely be supported.

It is about releasing all the hostages held by Hamas, on the one hand, and releasing a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. Here, too, we need to understand how many Palestinians can be released, and by when.

And of course, you know, the most important question is: how does Palestine itself feel about this? That’s what we need to understand. And the countries of the region, the entire Islamic world, and Palestine itself, the Palestinians themselves, including, of course, Hamas. There are different attitudes towards Hamas, and we have our own views, but we also have contacts with Hamas. It’s important for us that both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority support this.

But these are all issues that require careful and thorough research. In general, if this happens, it will be a significant step forward in resolving the conflict. However, we believe that the only way to resolve the conflict is to establish a Palestinian state.

Of course, it is also important to know Israel’s attitude towards this. We don’t know how Israel has perceived this yet. I haven’t seen any public statements about it, but it’s not just about public statements. It’s about how the Israeli leadership will approach this and whether they will comply with the President of the United States’ proposals.

There are a lot of questions. But in general, if all these positive things I’ve mentioned happen, it will certainly be a breakthrough. And it could be a very positive breakthrough.

I repeat for the third time: the creation of a Palestinian state is a key element of the overall settlement.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, didn’t you find it surprising a couple of weeks ago when one US ally, Israel, struck another US ally, Qatar? Or is this now normal?

V. Putin: It surprised me.

F. Lukyanov: And the reaction of the United States? How did you feel about it? That is, its absence.

(Putin spreads his hands.)

I see, thank you.

Tara Reid, please.

:(as translated)T. Reid Hello, President Putin!

It is a great honor for me to ask you a question. I would like to thank you first, and then I will ask my question.

I once worked for Senator Biden and Leon Panetta in the United States of America. I decided to expose corruption in 2020, and I was targeted and had to flee. Margarita Simonyan is my hero, and she helped me, as did Maria Butina. I received assistance in Russia. As a result, I was granted political asylum thanks to you. Through your collective efforts, you effectively saved my life. I was in danger, and my life was at risk. I can say about Russia: (speaks in Russian.) “I love Russia.” Russia is a beautiful country, and Western propaganda was wrong about Russia.

I love Moscow. People are very warm to me, they welcome me well, and everything works efficiently. For the first time, I feel safe and more free. I currently work for Russia Today, and I enjoy my job, as I have the creative freedom to work in my field of geopolitical analysis. I would like to thank the Valdai Club for recognizing my intellectual efforts.

Here’s a question. I’ve also met other Westerners who are seeking asylum here, coming to Russia for both economic and shared values reasons. How do you feel about this influx of Westerners who want to live in Russia? Will it be easier for them to obtain Russian citizenship? You granted me Russian citizenship through your decree, which is a great honor and responsibility for me.

(Speaking Russian.) I’m Russian. Thank you very much.

V. Putin: You said about common values and how we treat those people who come to us from Western countries, want to live here and share these common values with us. You know, there was a lot of both good and controversial things in our political culture.

In the identity document of a citizen of the Russian Empire, there was no “Nationality” column. In the Soviet passport, there was, but in the Russian passport, there wasn’t. What was there? “Religion.” There was a common value, a religious value, belonging to the Eastern Christian religion, Orthodoxy, and religion. There were other values, but this was the defining factor: what values do you share?

That’s why it doesn’t matter to us today whether someone comes from the East, the West, the South, or the North. If they share our values, they are one of us. That’s how we treat you, and that’s how you feel. That’s how I treat you.

As for administrative and legal procedures, we have made decisions that make it easier for people who want to live in Russia and tie their fate to Russia for at least a few years or a long period of time. These administrative barriers have been reduced.

I can’t say that the flow of some huge problem has arisen. But still, it’s thousands of people. In my opinion, about two thousand applications were accepted, 1800 or something, about one and a half thousand were considered positively. And this flow goes on.

And indeed, but rather not for political reasons, but for reasons of values, people come, especially from the larger European countries, because there is this gender terrorism, I would say, in relation to children, which does not suit many people–-and people are looking for quiet harbors, they come to us. And God willing, we will support them in every possible way.

You also said, I wrote down: “I love Russia,” “I love Moscow,” you said. We have a lot in common, because I also love Moscow. Let’s start from that.

F. Lukyanov: This is worth a lot coming from a native of Saint Petersburg, Leningrad.

V. Putin: This is a revolutionary event.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, in the development of this issue. A couple of months ago, there was really surprising news that an American citizen who fought on our side, Michael Gloss, the son of the Deputy Director of the CIA, was killed at the front, in a special military operation in Donbas. An American is already attracting attention, especially from such a family.

Did you know about it before it became public knowledge?

V. Putin: No, I did not know this. I found out about it when the draft decree on his awarding the Order of Courage was submitted. And honestly, I will not hide the fact that I was quite surprised myself.

Indeed, it turned out that he had some pretty big parents. His mom is the current deputy director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, and his dad is a Navy veteran and, I believe, the head of one of the biggest Pentagon contractors. This is, of course, no ordinary family. I repeat: I knew nothing about it.

But by the way, when she was speaking to her colleagues about her views and why she was here, Michael Gloss was also here because of that. What did he do? His parents didn’t know where he went. He said he was traveling, then he went to Turkey, and from Turkey he went to Moscow and went to the military recruitment office and said that he shared the values that Russia was defending.

I’m not joking, it’s all recorded. Human rights, the right to speak your own language, the right to practice your own religion, and so on. He stands for human rights, and Russia is fighting for them, and he is ready and willing to fight for these values with a weapon in his hand. He has undergone specialized training and has been enlisted not just in the Armed Forces, but in an elite unit of the Russian Armed Forces, the Airborne Forces.

They were all, in fact, stormtroopers. And he fought on the front line. He fought bravely, and was seriously wounded when a shell hit his armored personnel carrier. He was seriously wounded along with another Russian comrade-in-arms. A third Russian comrade-in-arms pulled them out of the burning armored personnel carrier, and suffered 25 percent of his skin burned. He pulled them out and dragged them to a nearby forest.

And you know, this guy, a young guy, 22, I think, was bleeding himself, trying to help his Russian comrade-in-arms, the second wounded man. Unfortunately, they were spotted by a Ukrainian drone, which dropped a mine on them, and both were killed.

I believe that such people make up the core of the MAGA organization, which supports the current President Trump. Why? Because they share these values and stand up for them, just like him. They are like this. And he turned out to be like this.

And as the national anthem goes, “The United States is a land of brave men,” right? He’s a brave man, and he’s proven it through his actions and his life. In fact, a significant portion of the United States population can be proud of a guy like the one we’re talking about.

I gave this order to Mr. Whitkoff. Moreover, when I was transmitting, I asked to come, and Michael’s comrades-in-arms arrived, the Airborne Forces commander arrived, the brigade commander arrived, the company commander in which he served arrived, and directly the serviceman who pulled him out of the burning armored vehicle and who himself, as I said, was seriously wounded, in fact, you can say, 25 percent skin burn. By the way, he recovered and went back to the front. These are the guys we have.

Most recently, at the initiative of the leadership of the Donetsk People’s Republic, one of the schools in Donbass was named after both an American and a Russian soldier who died alongside him. The school was named after an American soldier who died alongside him. We will, of course, do everything we can to ensure that the school is in good condition, as well as all the other schools in Donbass.

That’s the kind of person Michael Gloss was. I’ll say it again: both his family and his country, those who support his views, can certainly be proud of him.

And in general, I was talking about people of different nationalities who consider themselves Russian soldiers. Even though he was an American, he was a Russian soldier.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anton Khlopkov, please.

A. Khlopkov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, can we continue the American topic?

V. Putin: Yes.

A. Khlopokov: You mentioned attempts to “knock Russia out” of the global system. I would add: from the global markets. In recent weeks, there have been increasing calls from Washington for China, India, and other countries to refuse to purchase Russian raw materials and energy resources.

At the same time, you also spoke about the importance of uniting rather than dividing efforts, including the experience of cooperation between Russia and the United States, and the need to restore full-scale relations.

This week, to the surprise of many analysts and observers who do not work in the nuclear energy industry on a daily basis, statistics were released showing that Russia remains the largest supplier of enriched uranium for nuclear fuel to the United States.

Given the current format and level of bilateral Russian-American relations in the political sphere, how do you assess the prospects for cooperation between Russia and the United States in this area, in the supply of enriched uranium, and in nuclear energy in general?

Thank you.

V. Putin: I will also say something about these possible tariff restrictions on the United States’ trade with our trading partners – China, India, and some other countries.

We know that there are advisers in the [US] Administration who believe that this is the right economic policy. There are experts in the same States who have doubts, and we have many doubts that this will bring a good result.

What is the problem? And there is certainly a problem. Let’s say that some increased tariffs are imposed on goods from countries with which Russia trades in energy resources, oil, gas, and so on. What will this lead to? It will lead to a decrease in the availability of goods, such as Chinese goods, which will result in higher prices for these goods in the US market. Alternatively, these Chinese goods may be imported through third or fourth countries, leading to higher prices due to a shortage and increased logistics costs. If this happens, prices will rise, and the Fed will have to keep interest rates high or raise them to curb inflation, which will slow down the US economy.

There is no politics here, it is purely an economic calculation. And we have many of our experts believe that this will happen. The same applies to India and goods that are produced in India. All the same, there is no difference, what about Chinese goods.

So, for the United States itself, the gain is not very obvious. For the countries that have been threatened, such as India, if India refuses to use our energy resources, it will incur certain costs, and these costs vary. Some estimates suggest that the cost could reach up to $9-10 billion if India refuses. However, if India does not refuse, it will face sanctions in the form of high tariffs, which will also result in costs. What will these costs be? They will be similar. Then why refuse, if you also have to bear huge domestic political costs? Because, of course, the people of a country like India will carefully monitor the decisions made by the political leadership, and they will never allow any humiliation to be inflicted on them. And besides, I know Prime Minister Modi, and he would never take such a step himself. Therefore, there is no economic rationale for it.

As for uranium, for example. What is uranium, in fact? Uranium is a fuel, an energy resource for nuclear power plants. In this sense, it is no different from oil, gas, fuel oil, or coal, because it is also an energy resource that produces electricity. What is the difference? There is no difference. The United States does indeed buy uranium from us.

You asked: Why is it that the United States buys our energy resources, but tries to prevent others from buying them? The answer is simple, and it dates back to the Latin era. Everyone knows the saying: What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the ox. This is what it means.

But neither China nor India, even if we take into account that in India cows are sacred animals, do not want to be bulls. There are such political figures, first of all, in Europe, who are ready to be both a bull and a goat, and a ram, there are such people, let’s not point the finger. But this is certainly not about China and not about India, not about other large states, and not about medium-sized states, small states. Not about those who respect themselves and will not allow themselves to be humiliated.

As for the trade in uranium, yes, this trade continues. The United States is one of the largest, if not the largest, producers of energy through nuclear power plants. I don’t remember the exact number, but I believe there are approximately 54 nuclear power plants and around 90 reactors. However, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 18.7% of the total energy production. We produce less, we have fewer units, but in our energy structure it is about the same – 18.5 percent. But since nuclear power is well developed in the United States, of course, it also requires a large amount of fuel.

We are not the largest supplier. (Addressing A. Khlopkov.) You said that we are the largest, but this is not true. The largest supplier is an American-European company, I don’t remember its name, which supplies approximately 60% of nuclear fuel, uranium, to the American market. However, Russia is the second-largest supplier of uranium to the American market, providing approximately 25% of the total supply.

Last year, I don’t remember the absolute figures or even the percentages, but I do remember how much we earned, which was around $800 million, somewhere between $750 million and $760 million. In the first half of this year, we sold more than $800 million worth of uranium to the United States, and I believe that by 2025, this figure will exceed $1 billion, reaching $1,200 million.

We have a rough idea of how much will be sold next year, and it’s already over 800 million dollars. Therefore, this work continues. Why? Because it’s profitable. Americans are buying our uranium because it’s profitable. And they’re right to do so, as we are ready to continue these deliveries consistently and reliably.

F. Lukyanov: I have recorded that we need a section on animal husbandry at the next Valdai Club–-to discuss sheep and bulls.

V. Putin: This is an important question. Why? Because, if we abstract from the double meaning, which, of course, everyone has grasped, and stay on the agenda related to energy, then, for example, the refusal to use Russian gas in Europe has led to higher prices and the production of mineral fertilizers based on this gas in Europe has become unprofitable, and enterprises have started to close down.

The price of fertilizers has increased, which has affected agriculture, and the price of food has increased, which has affected the purchasing power of the population. This is why people are going outside.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, let’s stay on the nuclear topic for a moment. There has been a lot of writing about the situation around the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in the last week, claiming that there is a threat of a major accident that will affect all the surrounding areas. What is happening there?

V. Putin: Everything that has happened so far is happening. The militants on the Ukrainian side are trying to strike the area around the nuclear power plant. Thank God, it hasn’t come to strikes on the nuclear power plant itself. There have been several strikes on the training center, I think it’s called.

A few days ago, just before the arrival to us, to Russia, Mr. Grossi, an artillery strike hit the towers providing the power supply, they fell, and now the supply of electricity to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is carried out using generators, reliably carried out. But the question is to put these networks in order. And the difficulty is that this, as you understand, is in the zone of reach of Ukrainian artillery, they are striking these places and actually do not allow our repair teams to approach there. At the same time, they tell us that we are doing this. But Mr. Grossi was there, and the IAEA staff is present, and they are silent, embarrassed by what is actually happening, but they see everything. They see everything that is happening. Are we the ones who are striking? It is clear that this is nonsense.

This is a dangerous game. And on the other side, people should also understand that if they play with this in a dangerous way, they still have a working nuclear power plant on their side. And what’s stopping us from responding in kind? Let them think about it. This is the first thing.

Second. In the Ukrainian times, about 10,000 people worked at the station. But this is still a Soviet approach, because the station was responsible for social services and other things. Now, more than 4,500 people work at the station, and I think only 250 have come from other regions of Russia. The rest are people who have always worked here. Some people have left. No one has forced them to stay, and no one is keeping them here. People just wanted to stay, and like our colleague [Tara Reed], they took Russian citizenship, lived there as they had been living there, and worked as they had been working there. All of this is happening in front of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s observers, who are present at the plant and witness everything.

This is the situation that is developing there. In general, it is under control. We are trying to carry out measures related to the physical protection of both the station itself and the spent fuel. This is the situation. It is not easy.

All I can add to this is that the sabotage and reconnaissance groups of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as they have done in previous months and even last year, have repeatedly attempted to sabotage high-voltage power lines at the Kursk Nuclear Power Plant and the Smolensk Nuclear Power Plant, infiltrating them through forests and causing damage. However, our specialists have been able to quickly restore these lines.

What is happening at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is no different from the actions of these intelligence and sabotage groups, which are essentially terrorist groups. This is a very dangerous practice, and it should be stopped. I hope that this will somehow reach those who are involved in this.

F. Lukyanov: So Grossi knows what’s going on there?

V. Putin: He knows perfectly well. They’re sitting there at the station, and they see the shell coming and falling. So, we’ve crossed over to the Ukrainian side and struck ourselves? It’s ridiculous and lacks any common sense.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Gabor Stier, please.

G. Stier: Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for sharing your Russian opinion and your opinion about the world, the future world order, and the current world order with us.

I am from Hungary, a country that is often referred to as the “black sheep of the European Union.” In recent days, we have been discussing the current state of the world, the readiness of the West to make changes, and its place in the new global order. We have also addressed the current challenges facing the European Union and Europe as a whole.

I think so, and many people in Hungary think so, and they ask the question: what will happen to the European Union? Because it is not clear at all whether the European Union will remain or whether the future is unclear. And many people think that the integration of Ukraine will be the final nail in the coffin of the European Union.

Do you think that the European Union is in a very deep crisis today? And what is your opinion on this situation?

And if I’ve already mentioned whether Ukraine will become a member of the European Union, you recently said that Russia is not opposed to this. Many people don’t understand this because... On the one hand, I understand that if Ukraine becomes a member, the European Union will become weaker. Of course, this is beneficial for many people. However, if the European Union or Europe becomes too weak, it poses a risk and a danger to the Eurasian region. This is one aspect.

Second. The European Union is becoming more and more like NATO lately. And if we look at how they treat the Ukrainian crisis, it’s very visible. And I see it this way: Ukraine will be the fist of the West, the fist of the European Union, the army of the European Union. And then, if [it] becomes a member of the European Union, it will even threaten Russia.

What do you think about it?

V. Putin: First of all, the European Union, of course, has been developing primarily as an economic community since the time of its founding fathers, since the creation of the Coal and Steel Community, as we remember, and then further and further.

I’ve already spoken publicly, but I can’t resist the pleasure of mentioning it again. In 1993, I was in Hamburg with the then-Mayor of St. Petersburg, Sobchak, and he had a meeting and conversation with the then-Chancellor Kohl, and Kohl said that if Europe wanted to remain an independent center of global civilization, it had to be with Russia, and Russia had to be with the European Union and Europe, and they would complement each other very well, especially since they shared a common foundation based on traditional values, which were still highly respected in Europe at the time.

And what can we say about today? It’s just my general assessment. I’ve already expressed my opinion here and now, and I’ve mentioned Pushkin. But if we’re being serious, of course, this is a very powerful association with great potential, a powerful civilizational center. But it’s a fading center. I think this is an obvious fact.

And it’s not just that the European economy’s locomotive, Germany, is experiencing stagnation, which has been going on for years, and it seems that stagnation is also on the horizon for the next year. It’s not just that the French economy is facing significant challenges, including budget deficits and rising debt. The real issue lies in the erosion of European identity. This erosion is occurring from within, with uncontrolled migration corroding the fabric of the European Union.

I won’t go into it now, you know better than I do. Europe should be something-a quasi-state entity? Or is it a “Europe of nations”, Europe-an independent state? This is not our business; this is an intra-European discussion. But all the same, one way or another, such a value basis should remain. If it doesn’t exist, if it disappears, then Europe, which we all loved so much, also disappears.

You know, we have a lot of very liberal people in Russia, from the creative and intellectual circles, and there are a lot of people who, as we like to say, are “Westerners.” These are people who believe that Russia should be closer to the West.

But even they say in their contacts with me: “The Europe that we loved so much is no more.” I won’t mention their names, but they are very well-known people in our country. They are European intellectuals in the truest sense of the word, believe me. They have been living in Europe for six months, and they say, “The Europe that we loved and cherished is no more.”

And what is this, first of all? It is the erosion of these value orientations and the foundation of values. If this continues, then, of course... I said that this is a fading center, and it will gradually shrink and fade away. And the erosion of this value basis will lead to problems with the economy. It will not be better if this continues.

Why? Because then we lose our value sovereignty. And if we lose our sovereignty, then we also lose our economic sovereignty. So what should we do? We’ve just talked about how we can supply uranium, which is essentially an energy resource, to the United States, but we can’t supply gas or oil to Europe. Why not, if it’s profitable? We can’t do it because they have their own reasons. What are these reasons? If we don’t consider national interests, there are dozens of reasons. And if we focus on our national interests and strive to be sovereign, there is no reason to give up on this. When sovereignty is lost, everything falls apart.

Nowadays, there are political forces in Europe that are national-oriented, such as in France and Germany. Hungary, led by Viktor Orban, has been taking this stance for a long time. I think that... I don’t know, I don’t follow the internal political developments in Hungary, but I believe that most Hungarians want to remain Hungarians and will support Orban. If they don’t want to remain Hungarians, then they should support von der Leyen. But then they’ll all be von der Leyen. Do you understand?

That is, if these forces in Europe continue to gain momentum, then Europe will be revived. But this depends not on us, but on Europe itself.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, now, literally in these days, the story: near the coast of France, in my opinion, captured, as they say, an oil tanker. The sovereignty of the French. This is naturally, in one way or another, tied to Russia, although the tanker under another flag. What is it, from your point of view?

V. Putin: This is piracy. Yes, I am aware of this case. The tanker was seized in neutral waters without any justification. Apparently, they were looking for some military cargo, drones, or something similar. There is nothing there, and there never was or could be. The tanker is indeed flying the flag of a third country, and the crew is international.

First of all, I don’t see, I honestly don’t know how much it has to do with Russia, but I know that this fact is true. And what is it, really? Is it important for France? Yes, it is. Do you know why? Because of the difficult domestic political situation for the ruling elite in France, they have no other way to divert the attention of the French people from the complex and challenging issues within the French Republic.

And that’s why I really want to transfer the tension, as I said in my speech, to the external circuit, to stir up some other forces, other countries–-Russia, in particular–-to provoke us into taking some active measures and to say to the French: “Come to me, French, rally around me, and I will lead you to victory.” Like Napoleon. That’s the whole point.

F. Lukyanov: You have flattered the President of France.

V.Putin: I’m happy to do this. We actually have a good working relationship. But this is what is happening right now, exactly what I told you, and I have no doubts about it. I know him well.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Feng Shaolei.

Feng Shaolei: Feng Shaolei is from the Center for Russian Studies in Shanghai.

Dear Mr. President! I am very glad to see you again.

I fully agree with you, with your point of view–-the classic diplomatic approach should return. As a great practice, you have successfully made two very important official visits in the last month and a half. The first is the Russian-American summit in Alaska, and the other is the SCO summit and then the parade in Beijing.

I would very much like to know what the specific results and significance of these two very important visits are. And are there any mutual influences and connections that help us move forward on the path of normalizing the international situation? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: First of all. You started with a visit to the United States, Alaska. We didn’t talk to President Trump there about almost any issues, not even the bilateral agenda, but only about the possibilities and ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. In general, this is already good. In my opinion, President Trump, we have known him for a long time, he likes to shock a little bit, we all see it, everyone around the world sees it, but he is basically a person who knows how to listen, oddly enough. Listens, hears, and reacts. So, he’s a pretty comfortable conversationalist, I’d say. And I think it’s a good thing that we’ve made an effort to find possible solutions to the Ukrainian crisis. That’s the first thing.

Second. All the same, in one way or another, the issue in this case was, albeit superficially, the restoration of Russian-American relations, which are not just at an impasse, but at the lowest level in history that can be recalled.

And I think that the very fact of our meeting, the very fact of this visit–-and I am grateful to the President for the way he organized it–-are all signs that we should think about restoring our bilateral relations. And in my opinion, this is good for everyone: for us bilaterally and for the entire international community.

I am now moving on to my visit to China. And when we were talking with my friend–-and I do consider President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China to be my friend, and we have established a very trusting personal relationship–-he said, “We in China welcome the restoration and normalization of Russian-American relations,” and he said this not in public, but when we were talking together, “if we can contribute to this, we will do so.”

But the visit to the People’s Republic of China was, of course, much more extensive. Why? Well, first of all, because we were celebrating the end of World War II together. As a result of this joint struggle, Russia and China, Russia primarily in the fight against Nazism and then together in the fight against Japanese militarism, made a huge contribution. I have already mentioned this, and it is enough to look at the enormous human sacrifices that Russia and China made on the altar of this victory. This is the first point.

The second point. This is, of course, on our part, as well as on the part of China, when the Chairman came to celebrate May 9 in Russia, it means that we remain in the spirit of this alliance. This is very important. Therefore, I believe that in this sense, the visit to China was global and fundamental, and it allowed us to discuss the situation in the world, to “check our watches,” and to talk about the development of bilateral relations in the economic, humanitarian, cultural, and educational spheres.

We have decided to declare the coming years as the Years of Education. What does this mean? It means that we want to work with young people, and we are working with them. This is a look into the future. In this sense, this was a very important visit.

And then some of President Xi Jinping’s initiatives on global governance, for example, they are very much in line with our ideas of Eurasian security. And it was very important to “synchronize” on these issues, too, in the literal sense of the word, of a global nature, bilateral and global. So I highly appreciate the results. And this, in my opinion, was another good step forward in the development of our relations.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, it seems to me that you are the first leader in the world to call Trump a comfortable interlocutor. They say all sorts of things about him, but not this.

V. Putin: You know, I’m speaking sincerely. I know, as I said, he likes to engage in shocking behavior, in my opinion, as well as to pose questions in a harsh manner. And, as I mentioned in my speech, he defends his national interests as he sees fit. However, I would like to reiterate that sometimes it is better to hear a straightforward position rather than ambiguous statements that are difficult to understand.

But I want to repeat, this is not just to say some nice words. We talked–-how much was it, an hour and a half? I expressed my position, and he listened to me carefully, without interrupting me. I listened to him carefully, too. We exchanged opinions, the issues are complex. I won’t [go into] the details, because that’s not the way it’s done, but he says, “Look, this is going to be hard to do.” I say, “Yes.” Do you understand? We started discussing some details. We discussed it, you know? I want it to be clear: we discussed it. Nobody said: I think you should do this, and you should do that, and you should take off your hat. Do you understand? There was no such thing.

Of course, it is important that this comes to a logical conclusion, to a result, and this is true. However, this is a complex process. I have already mentioned this in my speech: it is difficult to achieve a balance of interests and consensus. However, if we approach this and achieve it through discussion, then these are solid agreements that can be expected to last for a long time.

F. Lukyanov: Did you tell him anything about the history of Ukraine?

V. Putin: No.

F. Lukyanov: All right.

V. Putin: No, it’s not funny.

I have told my American interlocutors about this. I will not hide the fact that we have actually talked about possible settlement options–-we have talked quite openly and honestly. I do not know what will come of it. But we are ready to continue this discussion.

F. Lukyanov: So, who came up with the idea of meeting in Alaska?

V. Putin: Well, what does it matter? The main thing is that we met.

F. Lukyanov: I see.

V. Putin: But we were comfortable in Alaska. There is still Orthodoxy in Alaska. There are Orthodox churches, and people come to services in these churches. The services are held in English, and then, during special occasions, when the service ends in English, the priest addresses the congregation in Russian and says, “Happy Holidays!” And everyone responds, “Happy Holidays!” It’s a good thing.

I. Timofeev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, in your speech you mentioned economic sanctions against Russia. Indeed, their number is unprecedented. You have just spoken about Orthodox churches, including Patriarch Kirill, who was subjected to restrictive measures by a number of states.

Our economy has withstood and shown high resistance to sanctions. By the way, both our opponents and our friends have been surprised by the resilience of our economy. However, we will likely have to live with sanctions for years or even decades.

How would you assess their impact on our economy, and what needs to be done to ensure the long-term sustainability of our economy?

Thank you.

V. Putin: Indeed, I have already said in my speech that we have gone through a rather difficult and responsible path of development, formation, and increasing our level of independence and sovereignty, in this case, economic sovereignty and financial sovereignty.

What have we done and what has happened? First of all, we have changed our main trade and economic partners to a large extent, we have reorganized our logistics for working with these partners, and we have reorganized our payment systems. And it all works.

But of course, this is not enough in today’s world. We need to focus on other issues. The main one is the further diversification of our economy. We need to make it more modern and high-tech. We need to change the structure of the labor market and the wages in that market.

What do I mean? We must, as I said, make it more high-tech, increase labor productivity, which means that highly qualified specialists should be paid more. First.

And the second. We should pay attention to people with small incomes. Why? Because it has not only socio-political significance, but also economic. People with small incomes, when they get more income, they spend money primarily on products that are produced in the country itself, which means that our domestic market is growing, which is very important.

We must, without a doubt, continue to strengthen our financial system. And here, it is very important to achieve two things.

First. We need to further strengthen macroeconomic stability and reduce inflation, but at the same time try to maintain positive economic growth rates. Over the past two years, we have achieved both 4.1 percent economic growth and 4.3 percent. This is much higher than the global values.

But at the end of last year, we said, “Yes, in order to combat inflation, we must sacrifice such record-breaking growth rates.” And the Central Bank has raised the key interest rate, which certainly affects the economy as a whole. I hope that this will not freeze the economy. However, we will implement measures related to forced cooling. We will sacrifice these growth rates in order to restore macroeconomic indicators, which are crucial for the overall health of the economy.

We already know about the decisions made by the Government in the field of taxation, such as the two percent increase in VAT. It is very important that we do not increase the volume and scale of the shadow economy.

All of this together is the main tasks for the near future. And such fundamental things, with which our economic situation is connected, namely a relatively small debt, and a relatively small budget deficit–-it is this year 2.6%, probably, next year will be 1.6%. So, in any case, we plan. At the same time, the debt load, the national debt is below 20 percent.

All of this gives us reason to believe that even if the Government decides to raise the VAT, which will certainly have an impact on economic growth, as we understand, this increase in the tax burden on the economy will be reflected in the economy. However, this will allow the Central Bank to find a better balance in its decisions on macroeconomic issues related to the key interest rate, and the Government to find a better balance in its budget expenditures, while maintaining the main parameters and creating conditions for further development.

All of this together, in a complex way: a) gives us reason to believe that we have passed a very difficult stage; b) gives us confidence that we have not only passed this stage, but we also have all the reasons and opportunities to move forward.

I’m sure it will.

F. Lukyanov: Alexander Rakovich was holding out his hand.

A .Rakovich: Dear Mr. President!

I am Aleksandar Raković, a historian from Belgrade, Serbia. My question is: What do you think about the attempts of a “color revolution” in Serbia?

Thank you.

V. Putin: I agree with President Vučić, and our special services confirm this–-some Western centres are making attempts to organize a “color revolution”, in this case in Serbia.

There are always people, especially young people, who are not very well-informed about the real problems, the background of these problems, and the possible consequences of illegitimate forms of power change, including those resulting from “color revolutions.”

Everyone knows what the “color revolution” in Ukraine led to. A “color revolution” is an unconstitutional, illegal seizure of power. That’s what it is, if we use direct language. It usually doesn’t end well. It’s always best to stay within the framework of the Basic Law and the Constitution.

Influencing young people is always the easiest thing to do. The simplest thing is to act on the minds of young people. Why did I mention our girls and young guys who appear in public wearing kokoshniks or other Russian symbols and are proud of it? This is the key to the success of society, it is the self-defense of society from external influence, and negative influence.

And the young people in Serbia–-even those who are taking to the streets–-are patriots in general, and we shouldn’t forget about that. We need to engage in dialogue with them, and I believe that President Vučić is trying to do so. However, we should not forget that they are first and foremost patriots.

They should never forget what the Serbian people went through before the First World War, during the First World War, and after it, and in the run-up to the Second World War, and during the Second. The Serbian people suffered. And those who push young people onto the streets want the Serbian people to continue suffering. Just as some people want the Russian people to suffer, and they say so openly. In Serbia, maybe those who are pushing people onto the streets aren’t saying it directly, but I think that’s what they’re thinking.

These promises, according to which you will go now, you will overthrow someone now, and then everything will be fine. But no one ever says: how fine, how quickly fine, and at the expense of what suddenly everything will be fine. Those who provoke such events never say this. And, as a rule, this all leads to the opposite result, to the opposite of what those who organize it expect.

It seems to me that if you have a normal dialogue with these young people, you can still come to an agreement with them. Because they are first and foremost patriots, and they need to understand what is best for their country: revolutionary changes or evolutionary ones, with their participation, of course.

But, please, this is not our business. This is an internal matter for Serbia.

F. Lukyanov: Do you have a good relationship with President Vučić now? There have been some complaints from Serbian colleagues.

V. Putin: I have good relations with everyone, including Vučić.

F. Lukyanov: Adil Kaukenov.

A. Kaukenov: Hello, Vladimir Vladimirovich!

My name is Adil Kaukenov, and I am a doctoral student at the Beijing University of Language and Culture. I would like to return to the topic of your visit to China.

There is a lot of discussion about the big news that China has introduced a visa-free regime for Russian citizens. By the way, even in Beijing, this new wave is already noticeable.

How do you assess this event? Is Russia ready to introduce a similar reciprocal measure for Chinese citizens entering Russia? And what effect do you expect from this?

Thank you very much.

V. Putin: As for our reciprocal steps, I have already said this in Beijing, and we will do everything in a mirror image. To be honest, I recently had a conversation with our Minister of Foreign Affairs, and he said, “We have already done it.” Then he said, “No, I need to check it.” This bureaucracy works in a similar way in all countries. However, if we haven’t done it yet, we will definitely do it.

The announcement of visa-free entry for Russian citizens into the People’s Republic of China was unexpected, but it was the Chairman’s initiative, and it was a pleasant surprise.

And what consequences will there be? I think the most positive ones, because the basis of interstate relations is created primarily at the human level. The number of people who will visit the People’s Republic of China for various purposes, such as tourism, science, and education, will be significantly higher than it is now. The same applies to the opposite direction.

First of all, of course, we are talking about tourists who will get acquainted with the life of the People’s Republic of China from our side and with Russia from the Chinese side. But these are, you know, really fundamental things. We only welcome this and will contribute to this process in every possible way.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

General Sharma.

: (as translated)B.K. Sharma Mr. President!

We are looking forward to your visit to India in December. My question is: what will be the strategic focus of your visit to India? How will it deepen bilateral relations and regional international cooperation?

V. Putin: Relations with India are still special, since the times of the Soviet Union, since the times when the Indian people fought for their independence. In India, they remember, know, appreciate, and we appreciate that in India they do not forget. And our relations are developing, we will have 15 years to our statement about our special privileged partnership strategic.

In fact, this is true. We have never had any problems or interstate tensions with India. Prime Minister Modi is a very balanced and wise leader, and he is definitely nationalistic. Everyone in India knows this.

The main thing now is to build effective and mutually beneficial trade and economic ties. We currently have a trade turnover of about $63 billion with India. How many in India–-one and a half billion people, and in Belarus ten [million]. But the turnover with Belarus is 50 billion dollars, and with India 63. Obviously, this does not correspond to our potential capabilities, just absolutely does not correspond.

And here we need to solve a whole range of tasks in order to unlock our opportunities and potential benefits. The first of them is, of course, to solve the issue of logistics. The second is that we need to solve issues related to financing and payment processing. There is something to work on here, and there are opportunities to do so.

This can be done within the framework of BRICS instruments, and it can be done on a bilateral basis, using rupees, using the currency of third countries, and using electronic forms of payment. But these are the main things that need to be discussed. We have an imbalance in our trade balance with India, and we know and see this. We are working with our Indian friends and partners to improve this trade relationship.

Just a few days ago, I gave an instruction to the Government, to Mr Manturov, the co-chair of the intergovernmental commission on our side, to work with his colleagues from the Government to consider all possible options for developing trade and economic relations. The Russian Government is currently working on this and will propose joint steps to our Indian friends.

As for our political relations and our contacts in the international arena, we almost always coordinate our actions. We always listen to and take into account the positions of our countries on key issues. Our foreign ministries work very closely together.

And the same goes for the humanities. We still have quite a large number of students studying in Russia. We love Indian cinema, as I’ve already mentioned. We’re probably the only country in the world, apart from India, that has a dedicated channel dedicated to Indian films, which airs them day and night.

We have a very trusting relationship in the field of security. We are engaged in the joint production of some very advanced and promising types of weapons. This further emphasizes the trust that has been established between our countries.

And to be honest, I’m also looking forward to this trip in early December, to meeting my friend and our reliable partner, Prime Minister Modi.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Anatoly Livin.

:(as translated)A. Livin Thank you very much, Mr. President, for coming to see us.

Recently, there has been a discussion in the West about two potential escalation points: the supply of Tomahawks to Ukraine and the potential seizure of ships carrying Russian cargo on the high seas, not just in territorial waters.

Can you tell us your opinion on how dangerous this is and how Russia would respond?

V. Putin: It’s dangerous. As for the Tomahawks, they are powerful weapons. They may not be the most modern, but they are still powerful and pose a threat.

Of course, this won’t change the situation on the battlefield in any way. As I’ve already mentioned, the fundamental problems of the Ukrainian armed forces, no matter how many drones they have or how many seemingly impenetrable defense lines they create with drones, will remain unchanged if there are no personnel to fight. Do you understand?

I was talking about changing the tactics of warfare in connection with the new equipment. But look at what we’re seeing on the TV channels about our troops advancing. Yes, it takes time, two or three at a time, but they’re making progress. The electronic warfare is working, suppressing, and advancing. And the same will happen here.

There were ATACMS, and what? Well, they caused some damage. In the end, Russia’s air defense systems adapted, despite the fact that they are hypersonic, and they started shooting them down. Can Tomahawks cause us damage? They can. We will shoot them down and improve our air defense system.

Will this damage our relations, which are showing some light at the end of the tunnel? Of course it will. How could it not? It is impossible to use Tomahawks without the direct involvement of American military personnel. This would mean a completely new and qualitatively different stage of escalation, including in the relationship between Russia and the United States.

As for the seizure of some ships. Well, what’s so good about it? It’s piracy. What do they do with pirates? They destroy them. Well, how do we deal with pirates? But this doesn’t mean that a war will break out across the world’s oceans tomorrow, but the risk of conflict will certainly increase significantly.

I believe, on the example of the French Republic, that this is what is happening: this escalation, this increase in the level of escalation, in my opinion, is primarily related to an attempt to divert the attention of its citizens from the growing problems within these countries, which are currently talking about it or trying to do so. I am saying that they are waiting for a response from our side.

This immediately changes the vector of political attention: “Help! We’re being attacked!” – “Who?” – “The terrible Russia! Everyone must stand in line and unite around the political leadership.” This is the main goal, and the citizens of these countries must know that this is the goal, that they are being deceived and tricked into staying away from protests, including those on the streets, while simultaneously suppressing their civic activism and maintaining their own power.

But the citizens of these countries should understand that this is a risky game: they are being pushed towards escalation and possible major armed conflicts. I would not do this.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, you cite Europe as an example of using external threats for internal consolidation. But in the United States, we have recently seen a high-profile political assassination, which is perceived as a polarization of society and an internal conflict. Does this mean that they also need an external threat to solve this problem?

V.Putin: You know, this is a disgusting atrocity, especially since it was broadcast live, and we all saw it. It was really disgusting and terrible. First of all, I would like to express my condolences to Mr. Kirk’s family and all his loved ones, and we are all expressing our sympathy and empathy.

Especially since he was defending these very traditional values, by the way, which Michael Gloss came to defend with a gun in his hand, and he gave his life for it. He gave his life here in the fight for these values as a Russian soldier, and Kirk gave his life there in the United States, essentially, in the fight for the same values. What’s the difference? There’s practically no difference. By the way, Kirk’s supporters in the United States should know that we have Americans here in Russia who are also fighting and are willing to give their lives for this cause.

What happened is, of course, a sign of a deep split in society. In the United States, in my opinion, there is no need to escalate the situation on the outside, because the country’s political leadership is trying to bring order to the inside. I don’t want to comment on this right now, as it is not our concern, but I believe that the United States is following this path.

Although what you said, and what my colleague has just raised the issue of new long-range precision weapons, is also a way to divert attention from internal problems. However, I see that the U.S. government is currently pursuing a different policy, focusing on achieving national development goals as they see it.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you.

Glenn Diesen was holding out his hand.

G. Diesen President Putin, thank you very much for sharing your point of view.

My question concerns Finland and Sweden, which have joined NATO. This is changing the geopolitical landscape of Europe. And my question is how does Russia interpret this step, that is, it is the Far North, and how will it affect the situation in the Baltic? I would particularly like to ask how Russia can respond to the detention of its fleet.

V. Putin: As for the fleet, I said that this could lead to conflicts. I don’t want to go into details right now and give food for those who expect a strong reaction from us. I’m going to say that we will do this or that. They will say, “Oh, Russia is threatening us, we’ve been talking about this for a long time.” And then it will start. It will start exactly what it’s all about. It will divert attention from internal problems and increase the factor of external danger.

Of course, we will react. It’s not us who are detaining someone’s fleet, but they are trying to interfere with us. However, they have introduced the concept of a “shadow fleet.” Can you tell me what a “shadow fleet” is? Can anyone here tell me? I’m sure they can’t, because there is no such concept in international maritime law. Therefore, these actions are illegal. Those who attempt to do so should be aware of this. First of all.

The second, or rather, the first, in your question is the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. But this is nonsense. We have had no problems with Sweden, and even less so with Finland, no problems at all. You know, in Helsinki, you could freely buy everything in the central stores for rubles, and even three years ago, people freely entered Helsinki, took out their rubles, paid, and that was it. In the border regions of Finland, all the signs were in Russian. We were happy to hire people for hotel staff and shopping malls, and we hired people who spoke Russian, because there were a lot of tourists, and many of our citizens bought real estate there.

Well, I don’t know, some nationalist part of these countries might have such a suspicion or fear that there is such a quiet introduction of Russia. But the world is such, interdependent. If you don’t like something, you see some danger in it, take some measures of an economic, administrative nature, restrict the acquisition of real estate, movement. Everything can be solved. But joining NATO, a bloc that pursues an aggressive policy towards Russia – why? To protect what? What interests of Finland or Sweden should be defended? Was Russia going to take over Helsinki or Stockholm? Russia had already achieved everything it wanted with Sweden after the Battle of Poltava.

That was a long time ago, and we don’t have any problems anymore. And the fact that Sweden was led by a very difficult person, Charles XII, and it’s unclear who killed him... There’s a theory that he was killed by his own people because he was exhausting everyone with his endless campaigns and attempts to involve Turkey in another war with Russia. But that was a long time ago, centuries ago.

What’s the problem with Finland? What’s the problem? There’s no problem at all. Everything was decided, and all the treaties were signed as a result of World War II. Why? Did they want to profit from Russia’s strategic defeat and take something back? Again, I can make a certain gesture, but I can’t do it in the presence of ladies.

Listen, both Finland and Sweden have lost the advantages of their neutral status. Take the negotiations on a possible settlement in Ukraine. Why did the Helsinki Act come into existence in the first place? Why is it called the Helsinki Act? Because it was a neutral country where everyone felt comfortable meeting. But who would go to Helsinki now?

Here’s Mr. Stubb, Donald says, he’s a good golfer. That’s good. But it’s not enough. (Laughter in the audience.) I don’t mean to say anything bad, I love sports myself. But it’s not enough. Where’s the perspective? Can anyone tell me what the advantage is? At least give me something. I said that perhaps the nationalist part of Finnish society also has concerns that Russia is quietly infiltrating Finland. Well, introduce administrative and legal restrictions. Why not do it?

I always had very good relations with the previous leaders: we came, they came to us, and we always discussed some issues: border issues, such and such issues, and traffic. It was all very comfortable.

Why? Because Russia is pursuing an aggressive policy and has attacked Ukraine. Yes, but what about the coup d’état in Ukraine? And what about the fact that children have been killed in Donbas since 2014? What about the use of tanks and aircraft against civilians and the bombing of cities? It’s all documented and captured on camera. Is this acceptable? There was just no desire to analyze anything, but there was a desire to be in the same gang that was trying to take something from Russia. So what?

The former president told me–-we talked on the phone, we had a good relationship, we played hockey together many times–-he said, “Norway is in NATO, and nothing happens. And nothing good happens.”

We negotiated with them, we negotiated with NATO on the sea, and so on, and we had normal relations. But now the border between Russia and NATO has become larger. So what? We didn’t have any armed forces in this part of Russia, but now we do. We have to create a separate military district. They told us in Finland that they wouldn’t allow any weapons that could be dangerous for Russia, especially nuclear weapons. Sorry, I’m sorry for being a jerk, but who knows? We know how decisions are made in NATO. Who’s going to ask the Finns? You know, I don’t want to offend anyone, but I know how decisions are made. They’ll put it in, and that’s it. So what? Did you hit the hole or didn’t you? Here’s the Pershing. You’ll be responsible for it, so we’ll put these systems there and do something else. So what? Why?

Now they’re talking about our planes flying without transponders over the Baltic Sea. When I visited Finland and Helsinki, I noticed that NATO planes were flying without transponders. The Finnish president suggested that we all agree to use transponders. We agreed, and Russia agreed as well. But what did the NATO countries say? They said, “We won’t.” They won’t? Okay, then we’ll fly without transponders.

This is just an escalation in another region of the world. And so stability is being jeopardized, including military-strategic stability in these regions. There will be danger for us–-we will also put it there so that it will be dangerous for those who have put it there. Why? Who will benefit from this? Has the security of Finland or Sweden increased in any way? Of course not.

So... We will work normally, of course. If they want to build and restore relations in some way, we don’t mind, we agree. But the situation has changed. The spoons have been found, but the sediment remains.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, why are you sending so many drones to Denmark?

V.Putin: I won’t do it again. I won’t go to France, Denmark, or Copenhagen again. Where else do they fly to?

F. Lukyanov: Yes, they reach everywhere.

V. Putin: Lisbon. Where are they flying to?

You know, there are people who used to have fun with unidentified flying objects – UFOs. There are so many weirdos there, just like in our country. It’s no different, especially among young people. They’re going to launch these things every day, every single day. Let them catch it all.

As you can imagine, if we’re being serious, we don’t even have drones that can reach Lisbon. We have drones with a certain range, but the main issue is that there are no targets there.

But this is also one of the ways to escalate the situation in general, in order to follow the instructions of the “Washington Regional Committee” and increase defense spending.

Although the situation in the European economy, as we have just discussed, is not easy. I am not even mentioning Germany and France. They, especially Germany, have recently been the driving forces of the European economy. And no matter how much Poland wants to be a driving force, it will not become one. Poland wants to be one of the leaders of the European Union, as we can see. However, this is a difficult task for Poland in the near future. And these countries are losing this quality due to the stagnation of their leading economies, as well as the fact that their budget deficits are much higher than ours, and their other macroeconomic indicators are complex. As I mentioned earlier, our deficit is 2.6%, while theirs is much higher, ranging from four to six times higher. To divert attention from these underlying issues, this hysteria is being fueled.

F. Lukyanov: But now they’ve scared Portugal, they mentioned Lisbon. They don’t have a very good sense of humor there. Well, it was just a joke, if you’re wondering.

V. Putin: No, what kind of joke is this?

F. Lukyanov: No?

V. Putin: No.

F. Lukyanov: Ah, then I’m sorry. Then they warned, it’s also fair, a gentleman.

V. Putin: Forewarned is forearmed.

Maybe I should? It’s not democratic.

F. Lukyanov: Yes, please.

V. Putin: A girl in a light-colored blouse.

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, a little bit about aggression and the global majority.

You have mentioned several times today how BRICS was created, and what is happening and what this association is striving for. You know, you still hear from our Western experts and colleagues that BRICS is an aggressive entity. Although we and each of the countries separately say that our agenda is positive, and we prove the opposite with our actions, nevertheless.

They still remember Kazan, and they remember how isolated our European colleagues were, saying that Russia was isolated.

There are many important initiatives. I would like to thank you personally for your support. Last year, we launched the BRICS Civil Society Council. This is a very important moment. So, how can we ensure that BRICS does not lose momentum, that it grows twice as much as its partners, and that it lives up to the trust that the global majority has placed in it?

Thank you.

V. Putin: The question is rhetorical. BRICS is growing. This is both a good thing and a problem. You are right to draw attention to this, because the more participants there are, the more interests and opinions there are, and it becomes more difficult to agree on a common position, but there is no other way. The only way is to agree, find common interests, and work together in this area. So far, we have been successful in this regard.

BRICS has many tasks to accomplish. One of them, as we believe, is not just to create a common platform and common principles of interaction, including and above all in the economy. By the way, as I have already said here, we are not building a policy against anyone; the entire BRICS policy is aimed at itself and its members.

We don’t have any anti-dollar campaigns or anti-dollar policies. Not at all. As far as we’re concerned, we’re just not allowed to use dollars for payments, and that’s it. What should we do? We use national currencies for payments. We’re going to do the same as many other countries, including the United States. We’re going to focus on expanding the possibilities for electronic trade and electronic payments.

We will also develop BRICS, and we are trying to do this now, promoting the idea of a new investment platform, where, in my opinion, we can achieve success. If we use modern technologies, including in the payment system, as I have just mentioned, we can create a unique system that operates with minimal risks and virtually no inflation. The key is to develop projects that are mutually beneficial for all participants. However, the success of these projects depends on the location where they are implemented.

We want to do this primarily in the fast-growing markets of Africa and South Asia, which will certainly grow rapidly. They are already growing rapidly, and the growth rate will only increase. Today, if we look at global GDP, BRICS accounts for 40% of global GDP. The European Union accounts for 23%, and North America accounts for 20%. And this growth rate is increasing. If we look at the share of the G7 countries 10 or 15 years ago and now, we can see a significant difference. And the trend continues.

And what do we want? We want to join this development trend and work together with the main BRICS countries in these markets and in Africa, which also has a very bright future.

Look at the countries there. They have more than 100 million people, and they are very rich. The same is happening in South Asia and Southeast Asia. This is a huge development opportunity for humanity, and these countries will strive to increase the average standard of living for their citizens and bring it closer to those countries where it is already high.

It will inevitably be a struggle to achieve this result, and we want to be a part of this positive work together. What is so aggressive about this? It is just a slightly nervous reaction to our success, and a reaction to the growing competition in global affairs and the global economy.

Please, the gentleman was raising his hand. Please, I’m asking you.

A. Gupta (as translated): Thank you very much, Your Excellency!

Thank you very much for the comprehensive presentation, and I think you’ve answered many of our questions and clarified a lot of things. It’s very helpful to hear from you directly. Thank you to the Valdai Club for this opportunity.

You mentioned your upcoming visit to India and also mentioned some projects and initiatives that could be implemented.

I would like to touch on one point, one area–-this is the possible cooperation in the field of high technologies, new technologies that are just emerging. I am sure that there is a need for special attention, special initiatives that will allow us to strengthen this cooperation in the field of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and other areas.

Could you suggest any specific steps? For example, creating an Indian-Russian technology fund that would promote such cooperation. Because if there is no incentive at the highest level, such cooperation will not develop as quickly.

The second question. Today, you also spoke about the civilizational culture and the importance of it. And here at the meeting, you once again emphasized this point. Please, could you tell us in more detail what the role of civilizational culture is in modern international politics? Do you see that cooperation between civilizations can possibly ensure stability? Or is there a possibility of a clash between civilizations, as some scholars predicted many years ago?

Thank you.

V. Putin: This is a difficult question. I will start with something easier–-artificial intelligence and other modern areas of civilization development, and the possibility of creating a foundation.

It is possible to create it. I have already said that I have instructed the Russian Government, in particular the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the co-chair of the intergovernmental commission on the Russian side, to think about proposals to our Indian friends and colleagues, to think about where we see the most promising areas of cooperation, how we could smooth out this imbalance in trade, and so on. And we want to do this. We can buy more agricultural products from India, as well as medical products and drugs. We can also take certain steps on our part.

As for the foundation and interaction with Indian friends in general, there are certain peculiarities, which are that the Indian economy is primarily a purely private economy, and it develops on the basis of private initiatives, where you often have to deal not with the government, but directly with companies. And the government, in fact, as well as in our country, is engaged in regulating these relations.

Of course, it is necessary to strive to create conditions at the state level for the positive development of relations in the economy between participants in economic activity, but also to work directly with companies. However, the idea is generally good to unite efforts in key areas of development, including the development and use of artificial intelligence.

We have certain developments that we can already be proud of, and there are companies that are engaged in this and are achieving very good results. In this regard, joining forces is extremely important and promises a good joint outcome.

Thank you for the idea. I will slightly modify my instructions to the Government, taking into account your suggestions.

Now, about civilization and the clash of civilizations, about the considerations of some experts on this matter. In general, I am aware of them.

Apparently, we are talking about one of the American researchers who studied the problems and future of civilizations and said that ideological differences are fading into the background, and the essential and fundamental foundations of civilization are coming to the surface. The contradictions that used to exist between states on an ideological basis may now take on a civilizational character, and we are not facing a clash of ideologies or states based on ideological differences, but rather a clash of states and a unification based on civilizational characteristics.

You know, if you just learn to read, you’ll read what’s written, and there seems to be some sense in it. However, in recent years, I’ve been trying to analyze what I read. I’ll tell you what I think about this. In my opinion, the ideological considerations that were at the forefront in previous decades were merely a facade for the real struggle of geopolitical interests. Geopolitical interests are more profound and closer to civilizational issues.

Look, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the Russian simpletons and former Soviet officials thought that now, and I thought so too, we were one civilizational family. We would embrace each other, kiss on the lips, despite our adherence to traditional values, and go on to live a good family life together.

Not a fig like that. Even for me, a former foreign intelligence officer of the Soviet Union, it was somewhat unexpected. When I became director of the FSB, I also mentioned this–-we are like our own people, and our partners, as I said at the time, support both separatism and terrorists, including Al-Qaeda in the North Caucasus—and when I told them: What are you doing, you’re crazy, we’re all bourgeois,” as they wrote in a famous children’s book. “Give us a barrel of honey, a big spoon, and we’ll all chomp and eat it together.”

But no, after all, our opponents at that time, let’s call it that, I saw what I saw as the future director of the CIA (laughter). I was once introduced to secret papers by Bush in the presence of the CIA director. And he said: Mr. President, you have read these top-secret papers, please sign, we have such an order. I say, all right. I took it and signed it.

As the director of the FSB, what did I discover? It seems that we are all the same now, the shackles of the old ideology have fallen, but what do I see? I apologize, but the CIA is working in the Caucasus, the North Caucasus, and the Transcaucasus, maintaining agents, including radicals, providing them with money, information, and political support, even giving them weapons and transporting them by helicopter. To be honest, even I, a former foreign intelligence officer of the Soviet Union, and even then, having climbed to such high posts, was simply stunned, I think: well, what is happening? And this is the geopolitical struggle. Everyone wanted to spit on all sorts of ideological differences. They don’t exist and they don’t exist. Well, that’s fine. And we have to crush the rest of the Soviet Union, the largest part of it, and do what Brzezinski said–-split it into at least four parts. And some of the world’s major powers know that such plans have been hatched against them, and perhaps still are.

What does this tell us? It tells us that, according to this author–-I’ve forgotten his name, but he seems to be a smart man–-ideological considerations were mostly a facade, and the underlying conflicts were geopolitical and civilizational.

Will there be any further clashes? The struggle of interests always takes place in the international arena. The question is how we can build our practical work in such a way, as I have already said, in order to find consensus among ourselves and achieve a balance of interests.

We have great respect for ancient cultures and ancient civilizations: the Indian civilization, the Buddhist civilization, the Hindu civilization, the Chinese civilization, and the Arab civilization. The Russian civilization is not as ancient as the Chinese, Indian, or even the Arab civilization, but it is also over a thousand years old, and we have our own experience.

The individual feature of our culture is that... Yes, and in India, and in China, and in the Arab world, societies have also developed gradually, and they are also multi-ethnic. However, we were originally formed as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. And we have never had reservations, as some of my colleagues and assistants say, you see, we have never had reservations.

When Russia absorbed other nations and representatives of other ethnic and religious groups, it always treated them with great respect and saw them as part of something greater. The United States is a melting pot, as we know, where many people from different religions, ethnicities, and countries come together.

But they are all emigrants there, they are breaking away from their national soil, but we are not, we have people of different religions and nationalities, all on their native soil, but they have been living together for centuries. This is a special culture and a special civilization that we have developed. We have learned to live together, to exist and develop, and moreover, to understand the benefits of such joint development.

And in this sense, I think this is a good example, including for finding compromises and balances between all other participants in international communication and other civilizations. Therefore, yes, there may be some contradictions, even inevitable ones, but if we follow the path that Russia has generally taken in forming a unified state, we can find ways to solve problems within the framework of international communication.

F. Lukyanov: We’ve been here for 3.5 hours.

V.Putin: I think the audience will hate me, but let’s do this: we were on this side of the hall, let’s move over here. Please.

K. Khudoley: Vladimir Vladimirovich, [Konstantin] Khudoley, St. Petersburg University.

I have the following question for you. Some time ago, you came up with, from my point of view, a very important initiative to extend the Strategic Arms Treaty with the United States for a year. In the West, this initiative is mostly being ignored. I may be overly optimistic, but let’s hope that common sense prevails and this treaty will be extended for a year, and your initiative will be accepted.

But the question arises: what will happen next? Will we continue to strive to extend the Russian-American agreements? Or will the next wave of treaties, which will replace the current one, be about arms control in a more complex configuration, taking into account other poles of the modern world?

V. Putin: It is very difficult for me, Konstantin, to say what will happen next, because it does not depend only on us. If the American Administration agrees with our proposal, then I know what will happen within a year, but it is difficult to say what will happen beyond that.

The dialogue is not easy, and we know the pitfalls of this dialogue. First of all, we have many modern high-tech weapons systems. Take the Oreshnik, for example. Not Oreshkin, but Oreshnik. We have recently demonstrated that these types of weapons are not strategic. However, some experts in the United States argue that they are still considered strategic weapons. We need to address this issue. I will not go into details, but we need to resolve this matter. It will take time.

We have another hypersonic weapon, the Kinzhal, and an intercontinental-range weapon, the Avangard. We may have other systems as well. We haven’t forgotten anything from our plans, and the work is progressing. These are the first steps.

The second is tactical nuclear weapons. It talks about strategic weapons, but tactical weapons are much more powerful than the ones the Americans dropped on Japan, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. They were about 20 kilotons, but tactical weapons are much more powerful. There are also some hidden dangers. We don’t have them anywhere except in Belarus, but the Americans have them all over the world, including Europe, Turkey, and other countries. But we have more of it, that’s true. We need to deal with it.

There are a lot of things to deal with. We know that there are people in the States who say, “We don’t need any extensions.” But if they don’t need it, then we don’t need it either. We’re generally fine, we’re confident in our nuclear shield, and we know what to do tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. We don’t need it, and we don’t need it.

There is a third aspect, the international one. We are constantly told: you will persuade China to join this system of strategic offensive arms limitation. Why us? Whoever wants to involve China, please negotiate with China. What about us?

But we have a question: if China should be involved in this, then why should the nuclear potential of the United Kingdom and France be left out? They are members of NATO, after all. Moreover, France wants to provide its nuclear umbrella to the entire united Europe. So, shouldn’t we consider it? There are many complex issues that require careful research.

But if they want to fix the status quo for a year, we’re ready, we want to. If they don’t want to, well, they don’t have to. We have parity today. The Americans have more submarines, but the number of nuclear warheads on these submarines is approximately the same. They have more nuclear submarines, and we have slightly fewer strategic nuclear submarines, but we have more multi-purpose submarines, which also play a significant role in the overall count. We have the Strategic Missile Forces, which are land-based. Experts know what the Russian Strategic Missile Forces are.

We are doing well in this regard, in the sense that our level of modernity is higher than that of any other nuclear country in the world. We have worked hard and for a long time to achieve this. And, I repeat, our level of modernity is very high in our strategic forces. However, we are ready to take a break and work with our American colleagues, if they deem it necessary. No, we do not need to do this. But this is the last thing in the world that limits strategic offensive weapons.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, aren’t nuclear tests overdue?

V.Putin: Someone is preparing these tests, we see it, we know it, and if they happen, we will do the same.

Please give it here.

F. Lukyanov: Please give this to Mr. Feng Wei.

V. Putin: The comrade has already stood up.

:(as translated)Fen Wei Mr. President, I am from the China Innovation and Development Institute and am one of the organizers of the Chinese conference of the Leading Platform for International Exchange in China, under the auspices of Chairman Xi.

We are currently cooperating with the Valdai Club to promote mutual understanding between Russia and China. We believe that this is very important.

Relations between Russia and China are at the highest level now, thanks to your personal efforts and those of Chairman Xi. It is necessary to further consolidate the foundations of these relations at the level of ordinary people.

Together with the Valdai Club, we are also organizing joint events, including one in China this year.

Mr. President, give us some advice. What can we do to do our job better?

Secondly, say a few words to the audience of the conference in China, so that they better understand Russia. You have many friends in China, and they will be happy to hear your voice. China is a big country, but there are still many people who need to better understand Russia. A personal message from you would be very helpful. Not as a great leader or statesman, but as a brother to your Chinese brothers and sisters.

V.Putin: You know, I can only tell my Chinese brothers and sisters that we are on the right track. We need to keep this going, we need to cherish the relationship we have, and we need to do everything we can, no matter where we are: at the top of the government, at the factory, in the theater, in the cinema, or in a university or college, to strengthen this cooperation. This is extremely important for both the Chinese and Russian people.

I want to thank you for everything you have done so far, and I want to wish you success. For our part, both I and Chairman Xi Jinping, we will do everything we can to support you.

F. Lukyanov: I suggest that we give the microphone back to Mr. Al-Faraj, who had it taken away, and maybe we can wrap this up.

V. Putin: Let’s wrap it up.

A. Al-Faraj: It’s a pleasure to see you, Mr. President!

V. Putin: The feeling is mutual.

A. Al-Faraj: You have spoken about a multipolar world. This issue is of great interest to us, primarily because we are oil exporters and importers of everything we need for consumption and development, and we are particularly interested in ensuring free navigation at sea and the safety of our oil export lines.

Therefore, my question, Mr. President, is whether the multipolar world will be able to ensure maritime navigation and global energy security in the future, so that the Nord Stream incident does not happen again.

Thank you.

V. Putin: As for ensuring security at sea, I have already said this, and I want to repeat it because I consider it important. Our opponents, let’s call them that, always urge us to comply with international law. In turn, we urge them to comply with international law.

There is nothing in international law that says that you can rob, pirate, and seize other people’s ships without any reason, and this can lead to serious consequences. However, if we act in the way I described in today’s speech, if the multipolar world fights for everyone’s interests and finds ways to coordinate positions, I believe that this will not happen. First,

And secondly. I very much hope that public organizations, citizens of those countries where the leadership is trying to escalate the situation, including creating problems for the global economy, international logistics, and international global energy, that political parties, public organizations, and citizens of these countries will do everything to prevent their leaders from causing a collapse and serious international complications.

But no matter what happens, I am convinced that the international energy sector will continue to operate in a sustainable manner. As the global economy grows, the demand for primary energy sources, such as uranium for nuclear power plants, oil, gas, and coal, will increase. This means that international markets will continue to consume these energy resources.

Today, we have only been talking about uranium for nuclear power plants, but when it comes to oil, oil transportation, and so on, transportation, and production, the United States produces the most oil in the world, followed by Saudi Arabia and Russia. However, it is impossible to imagine that a decrease in the volume of Russian oil will maintain a stable situation in the global energy and economic sectors. This is not going to happen.

Why? Because even in a bad dream, it’s impossible to imagine that the Russian producer and Russian traders, who provide a significant portion of the oil on the global market, could be excluded. If this were to happen, the prices would skyrocket, and everything would be gone in an instant for just $100. Is this in the best interests of the economies of countries that are already struggling, including those in Europe? Either no one is thinking about this, or they are aware of the risks but still choose to take them.

But no matter what happens, the global market’s energy needs will still be met, and this will be achieved, in part, thanks to the people who work in this crucial sector for the world and the global economic system, including people like you. Thank you very much.

F. Lukyanov: Vladimir Vladimirovich, you said one very important thing at the beginning of your speech.

V. Putin: At least I said one important thing. We didn’t waste any time today.

F. Lukyanov: I have noticed one thing, let’s put it more correctly: You said, speaking about the world order, that prohibitions don’t work. So, “Prohibitions don’t work” has been the slogan of the Valdai Club for 23 years. We have always tried to avoid prohibitions and instead encourage discussions, debates, and conversations. We will do our best to maintain this approach. We very much hope that this principle will spread to the whole world, as you said, to our country, because we also sometimes have a desire to ban more than we need to, and we are trying to convey the spirit of Valdai, so to speak.

And the second thing that is important today, I heard and we all heard: we now know who is a comfortable interlocutor for you, and this is a very high bar. But we at the Valdai Club will strive to reach it, so that you come to us more often and you feel comfortable.

V.Putin: First of all, I want to say that I have a lot of comfortable interlocutors. I don’t want to give the impression that this is some kind of monopoly. No. I’m not joking.

You know, we have practical work, don’t we? I don’t think there are many countries I haven’t visited, but I haven’t seen much of them. How does the work go? Airport, plane, event hall, airport, plane, Kremlin. Again, Kremlin, plane, trip, return. You don’t see much, to be honest, and I’m sorry for the simplicity of my expression. But there’s always someone to discuss with and talk to.

Unfortunately, very often everything is very protocoled. This dictate of the protocol, it simply empties out often the very content of this work. And very rarely there are moments, I’m talking frankly now, when you sit with a colleague and talk about something. Well, just talk. This is very rare.

We have such things with Prime Minister Modi, and with Chairman Xi Jinping. He came to St. Petersburg, for example. We went on a boat, moving from one point to another, and we passed by the Aurora. He said, “Oh, is that the Aurora?” I said, “Yes, do you want to stop?” He said, “Yes, please.” We stopped. It’s important for the Chinese leader and the CCP leader to see the Aurora. Then we went to the Hermitage and watched our artists perform. We talked all the time. It’s a real human interaction. But it doesn’t happen often. Usually, you come, sit down, talk, pack your things, and leave.

But nevertheless, there are a lot of deep and interesting people. It’s just that, due to some very unfortunate circumstances, people don’t make it to the top of the power structure, and they’re all people who have gone through some struggle or challenge.

I’m currently on a trip to Tajikistan, where the CIS is gathering and so on. I’ll be meeting with the President of Tajikistan, Mr. Rahmon. By the way, there are many deep and interesting people in the post-Soviet space.

Just as an example, after the takeover of power by radical Islamists, the current President of Tajikistan, Mr. Rahmon, entered the capital of his country, Dushanbe, with a machine gun in his hands. Do you understand? And now he has built a situation there. It is probably not an easy situation either.

What am I talking about? Of course, it is both interesting and useful to talk to such people. And I very much hope that this community of people with whom it is possible to talk will certainly expand, grow, and find ways to come to an agreement among themselves on key issues of global development, the global agenda. And such an intellectual elite, which has gathered here today, will help us in this.

Thank you very much.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you very much. [My Emphasis]

Four hours of discourse provides a large volume of issues to comment upon. And having reached the end of the transcript it must be reviewed to remind us of what we read that we deemed important. Yes, I emphasized what I saw, but I’m sure readers read other portions that they thought important. I’m only going to comment on a few points, otherwise this will go on for several more pages and overtax readers’s endurances. First, there’s great sensitivity to the Gaza issue and the puzzling nature that suggests a lack of attention by Russia to the remarks made by Netanyahu and Trump. Russia’s long stated position is clearly antagonistic to the Zionists’s aim and what the Global Majority has long demanded. The Zionists actions show they are more dangerous than NATO, yet there’s very little pushback that can be seen by Russia. And it cannot be said that the Palestinian’s plight is just some nation’s internal affair to be resolved by that nation. And then there’s the clearly linked war on Iran whose second round will soon be launched. And we just again saw piracy committed by the Zionists. Furthermore, Russia’s interpretation of the 7 October 2023 revolt by Hamas against the occupation and genocide being waged on Gaza is fundamentally flawed as that was a legitimate military attack, not a terrorist act as the Zionists immediately along with Global Media professed. Connected to this problem for Russia is the fact that in its history there were many problems with anti-Jewish behavior that was racist and acted on at the national policy level and within the regions, which Putin clearly ignored that I found very unfortunate as that greatly undermines Putin’s credibility. I also found it interesting that there were no European civilizations named. Then there’s the repetition of the claim that America’s a “melting pot” which has never really been the case as ICE’s actions are proving today.

I’m going to leave my commentary at that although much more ought to be discussed. I expect that will occur in the reader comments. It was a very long read, so I congratulate those who made it through to the end.

*
*
*
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!