Dushanbe. Vladimir Putin answered media questions

Vladimir Putin answered media questions.
Photo: Kremlin.ru

Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.

Dushanbe, October 10, 2025

President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Good evening.

I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.

You are welcome to proceed.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.

Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.

You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon – both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.

Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?

If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.

Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.

Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.

All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.

Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.

Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.

It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.

As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.

At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.

Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.

In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.

Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.

My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Two major international summits have been held – the CIS summit and the Russia – Central Asia summit yesterday. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it and what “added value” does it have?

Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.

Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.

It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.

Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.

People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.

This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.

Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.

The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.

Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.

Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.

This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.

Photo: Kremlin.ru

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?

I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.

It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.

I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.

But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.

The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.

I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.

Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.

Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.

Please.

Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.

Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.

Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.

We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.

Thank you very much.

Please.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?

One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.

Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.

We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.

These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.

Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.

There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.

Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.

I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.

The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.

If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.

But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.

Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.

You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?

Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.

Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.

You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.

And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.

Welcome.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.

As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.

Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.

Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.

Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.

And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.

Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?

Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.

Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.

Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?

Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.

In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.

Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?

Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.

Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.

I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.

Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.

If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.

Please.

Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.

My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.

My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.

Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.

However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.

All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.

Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.

But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.

Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs