Vladimir Putin held a meeting with heads of the world’s leading news agencies

Meeting with heads of international news agencies.
Photo: Kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin held a meeting with heads of the world’s leading news agencies, Kremlin informs.

Among the participants are James Jordan, news director for Europe and Africa at US’ The Associated Press; Simon Robinson, executive editor at UK’s Reuters; and Karim Talbi, editor-in-chief at Agence France-Presse.

Also present are Martin Romanczyk, head of news service at the German news agency DPA (Deutsche Presse-Agenture), and Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote, director of international relations at the Spanish news agency EFE (Agencia EFE).

Many countries friendly to Russia are also represented. News agencies from China, Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan are participating in the meeting.

TASS has organized this event on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) for many years.

June 19, 2025, St Petersburg

First Deputy Director General of TASS News Agency Mikhail Gusman, moderator of the meeting: Mr President, colleagues,

First of all, I would like to say that I am honoured to moderate this meeting as a representative of the host organisation, TASS News Agency. I would like to express my gratitude to President Putin for accepting our initiative. Incidentally, this is your ninth meeting in this format.

It is notable that interest in these meetings is growing. I remember that my colleagues from Reuters told me after such a meeting last year that they did not recall so many breaking news reports published after a political meeting before.

You can imagine the interest in this year’s meeting. So many events took place over the past year, which seems to have flown by so quickly, that our colleagues were fighting for an opportunity to take part in this meeting, but not everyone managed to succeed. We have representatives from 14 leading news agencies with us today.

If I may, I suggest starting with questions and answers immediately because we know that you have had a very busy day today.

Shall we proceed?

 

 

Photo: Kremlin.ru

 

 

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Yes, but first I would like to say a few words.

Mikhail Gusman: Certainly, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: I would like to welcome everyone. Thank you for your interest.

We have just attended a short but very enjoyable concert, a high-quality performance. It is late, and we are in a good mood, so let us not prolong this. Let us all begin with the second octave C, which is a sign of professionalism for tenors, according to experts. Let us give each other the opportunity to do our best before retiring for the day. You will have a lot to do tomorrow and the day after.

Go ahead, please.

Mikhail Gusman: Our first speaker is our colleague from Vietnam, an outstanding journalist and General Director of the Vietnam News Agency Vu Viet Trang. It is worth noting that she is the first woman to head the Vietnam News Agency in its 75 years of existence. She enjoys high standing in Vietnam as a highly experienced and distinguished professional.

Ms Vu, the floor is yours.

General Director of the Vietnam News Agency (VNA) Vu Viet Trang: First of all, I would like to express our sincere gratitude to TASS News Agency for arranging this very special interview with President Vladimir Putin. And thank you for your time, Your Excellency.

Mr President, in your greetings to the 28th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, you affirmed that the discussions within the forum could help shape the future agenda and initiatives capable of changing the world for the better. Could you please elaborate on the initiatives and vision that the Russian Federation is pursuing to foster peace in the world built on mutual development? And what role does Russian cooperation with Asia and particularly South Asia, including Vietnam, play in advancing this agenda?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Everyone is familiar with our official agenda today, so I see no need to go over it. However, our goal is not as ambitious as trying to use this forum to exert influence on the international agenda or change anything. No, this forum has been held for a long time now, since the 1990s. It has been growing slowly and gaining more popularity.

As Mr Gusman just mentioned, with growing numbers of our partners joining us, the very fact of communicating and signing a considerable number of agreements, treaties, and memoranda is the ultimate purpose of our efforts in the current circumstances, which are, frankly, quite challenging. I do not think I need to explain what makes them so challenging, as there are armed conflicts, trade wars and so on out there. All of that hampers global trade. There is every reason to believe that forecasts predicting a slowdown in world trade are not without grounds.

If we think beyond the official agenda, our goal is to look for ways to overcome these challenges, one way or another, and to indirectly influence the global economic situation.

The forum will be attended by our colleagues from leading economies, which are significant in terms of the size of their economies and their influence on global economic processes. We expect that their involvement will be a factor in exerting a positive impact on these processes.

There is probably no need to repeat that we advocate for a just world order and for respecting the rules of the World Trade Organisation, rather than changing them month to month based on shifting political agendas. We firmly oppose all forms of trade wars, restrictions, and so on.

Our cooperation with Southeast Asia is making progress year in and year out. Trade is up. I will not cite absolute figures to avoid any inaccuracies, but growth is undeniable, and these are absolutely reliable facts that apply to all countries in the region, including Vietnam.

Regarding the region as a whole (I will speak about Vietnam separately in a moment), we consider it extremely promising, because the share of Southeast Asian countries in the global economy and their growth rates exceed the global average. We believe these countries are very promising partners.

We have special relations with Vietnam – everyone is aware of this – dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, especially during Vietnam’s quest for independence. Much time has passed since then, the world has changed, and our countries have changed, too, but the bonds of friendship and cooperation have remained intact.

We are pursuing many excellent joint projects, not to mention the well-known Tropical Centre and our energy cooperation, in which we are working both in Vietnam and the Russian Federation. We are willing to expand this cooperation, including by offering our Vietnamese friends opportunities to work in the Russian hydrocarbon sector.

However, our collaboration is not limited to that. We are cooperating in agriculture as well. It may seem unusual to some, but Vietnamese businesses have invested significant amounts – billions of dollars ­– into Russian agriculture. These projects have been functioning quite successfully in recent years. Our colleague is surely aware of the investments I’m talking about. We will continue to create all the necessary conditions to ensure Vietnamese entrepreneurs feel confident operating in Russia.

We have also made considerable progress in the humanitarian sphere, primarily professional training. Several thousand Vietnamese students are studying in Russia across various disciplines, both in higher education institutions and vocational schools. We will do our best to support this process, being fully aware that it benefits not only the Vietnamese side but also us, as we are building a strong human foundation for promoting future cooperation across all areas.

You may have noticed that during my last visit to Vietnam, the entire Russian delegation, including myself, met with graduates of Russian universities. It felt like we were back home in Moscow or St Petersburg. The atmosphere was very warm and friendly. These people are very enthusiastic and eager to work together, and, importantly, their capacity to do so is growing.

The most recent visit by General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam [To Lam] to Russia confirmed that our and our Vietnamese friends’ plans are absolutely realistic and achievable. I am confident that we will fulfil our goals.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr President.

We will stay with the Asian region for now. I must admit, it is with a special feeling that I would like to pass the floor to our great friend, President of China’s Xinhua News Agency, Mr Fu Hua, who is sitting right next to you.

Aside from being a journalist, he is also a member of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee, an expert in the history of the Chinese Communist Party and holds a doctorate in law. Last year, he attended the BRICS Media Summit in Russia. Overall, Xinhua is our long-term and reliable partner.

Mr Fu Hua, please.

President of Xinhua News Agency Fu Hua (retranslated): Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. You have been a good friend of the Chinese people for a long time. Last time, you provided Xinhua journalists with a platform to speak, which was a great opportunity and we are grateful for it. Now, to the question that we would like to ask you.

In recent years, the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China have shown consistent growth, yielding considerable benefits in strengthening political trust. In your opinion, what other areas of cooperation exist for Russia-China relations to deepen further?

Last year, during the interview with Xinhua News Agency, you spoke about your family’s interest in learning Chinese. Could you elaborate on the significant role that, in your opinion, people’s diplomacy plays in strengthening the foundation of Russia-China relations?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when I mentioned that some of my family members are learning Chinese, I was referring to my granddaughter, who has a nanny from Beijing. She speaks fluent Chinese with her.

But back in the early 2000s, even before any significant and prominent events, my daughter decided she wanted to learn Chinese – simply out of her own interest. She found a tutor and started learning.

In addition to this, I can say that interest in learning the Chinese language is growing in Russia. This is not surprising, and there is nothing in this case that would make Russia-China relations any different from Russia’s relations with other countries when it comes to expanding contacts and economic activity.

Whenever economic activity expands, there is a demand for professionals who speak a foreign language – just as we once saw with English and earlier with German. In the 19th century, it was French, and this language is still considered a language of diplomatic communication. But what has become of its universal status? Unfortunately for French, it has been completely replaced by English.

As for growing contacts in all spheres, as I have said, this is encouraging the study of each other’s languages. We continue with student exchanges. For example, 51,000 Chinese young people are studying in Russia, and approximately 25,000 Russians are studying in China. Our universities, namely Moscow State University and Chinese universities, have established direct contacts.

We have also developed many humanitarian and cultural contacts. We regularly hold thematic years, the Year of China in Russia and the Year of Russia in China. If I remember correctly, we began this process with the Year of the Chinese Language in Russia and the Year of the Russian Language in China, which was no coincidence. I believe that we did well because it encouraged our peoples’ interest in each other.

Look, $240 billion is a substantial sum. It is true that China’s trade with Europe is larger, not to mention its trade with the United States. But Russia is becoming a major economic partner for the People’s Republic of China. Our mutual projects alone, including investment projects, have been estimated at $200 billion. All of them are realistic and will be implemented. I have no doubt about that.

Of course, we need professionals in the Russian and Chinese languages. That is a given, and we will certainly train them. In fact, we will redouble our efforts in this sphere, considering that China is the largest economy and Russia is the fourth largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity.

I would like to repeat – I said this last year as well – that this course is not connected to Russia’s supposed turn towards Asia. No, this is a natural sphere of cooperation. The reason is the growth of our economies. We noticed this trend back in the early 2000s, if not at the end of the 1990s, and started developing relations with China. This did not begin yesterday. That is the point at issue.

We are not doing this for considerations of momentary advantage. This is being done in large part – I will say this openly – because of the growing volume and quality of the Chinese economy, and hopefully, the growing volume and quality of the Russian economy. We will probably talk about this later.

What priorities do we see in this sphere? One of them is funding, of course. We must ensure reliable financial flows for the growing volume of our trade, which has reached $240 billion. This is a decent sum.

Vladimir Putin: If the Federal Chancellor wishes to initiate a call and engage in discussions, I have expressed this many times – we do not refuse any contacts and always remain open to them. A year and a half ago – or perhaps two – such discussions with Chancellor Scholz and other European leaders were regular. However, at a certain point, when our European partners adopted the idea of delivering a strategic defeat to us on the battlefield, they themselves terminated these contacts. They ended them – fine, let them resume. We are open; I have reiterated this on numerous occasions.

Can Germany contribute more than the United States as a mediator in our negotiations with Ukraine? I have doubts. A mediator must be neutral. Yet, when we observe German Leopard tanks on the battlefield, and now we are discussing the Federal Republic’s potential supply of Taurus missiles for strikes on Russian territory – not just the equipment, but also with the involvement of Bundeswehr officers – naturally, serious questions arise. It is well known that if this occurs, it will not alter the course of the hostilities – that is beyond question – but it will completely destroy our relations.

Therefore, as of today, we view the Federal Republic, as well as many other European countries, not as a neutral state but as a party supporting Ukraine – and, in some cases, perhaps, as a participant in these hostilities.

Nevertheless, should there be a desire to discuss this topic and present ideas on the matter, I reiterate once again: we are always ready and open to this.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President. We remain in Europe. The Reuters agency requires no special introduction. Representatives from Reuters have attended virtually all the meetings that you have held.

Today, we are joined by Reuters Executive Editor Simon Robinson. He was, in fact, born in Australia but has worked across various regions – the Middle East, the United States, and Africa. This is his first time at our meeting, and he has some questions for you.

Reuters Executive Editor Simon Robinson: Thank you, Mr President, I’d like to ask a question, please, about Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel has said that Israel’s attack on Iran may lead to regime change. And Donald Trump, the President of the United States, has called for Iran’s unconditional surrender. I wonder if you agree with the Prime Minister and the President?

Vladimir Putin: I do not quite understand your question. What is it that you would like me to agree or not to agree with? They stated such and such, and then you asked: “Do you agree with this?” Agree with what?

Simon Robinson: Do you agree with either of their statements that it could lead to regime change, and that Iran should prepare for unconditional surrender?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, Russia and I personally maintain contact on this issue with the Prime Minister of Israel and US President Trump. When you begin doing something, you should always assess whether you are closer to your goal or not.

We can see that society is consolidating around the national political leadership despite the complex internal political processes in Iran, which we are aware of, so there is no need to talk about this in detail. This happens almost always and almost everywhere, and Iran is no exception. This is the first point.

A second and very important point, which everyone is talking about, and so I will only repeat what we know and hear all the time, is that nothing has happened to Iran’s underground facilities. I believe that in this context it would be correct to join forces to put an end to hostilities and to find a way for the conflicting sides to come to an agreement, so as to ensure both the nuclear interests of Iran, including in the sphere of nuclear energy and other peaceful uses of nuclear power, as well as Israel’s interests regarding the unconditional security of the Jewish state. This is an extremely delicate issue that calls for extremely careful actions. However, I believe that a solution can be found.

As you know, we have taken over the project that was launched in Iran by German companies and completed the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. The German companies withdrew from the country, and the Iranians asked us to take over that project. It was difficult because the German specialists were building it to their design, and Rosatom had to do a great deal to adapt it to the power units of the Russian design.

Nevertheless, we have accomplished that project, and the power unit is working successfully. We have signed a contract for the construction of two more power units. Work is underway, and there are Russian professionals at the construction site. There are over 200 of them. We have agreed with the Israeli leadership that their safety will be ensured.

Overall, we could work with Iran, taking into account its plans to continue using and further developing non-military nuclear technologies, in particular in agriculture, medicine and so on, which are not related to nuclear energy, but we could also work with it in the sphere of nuclear energy itself. What makes me think so? The reason is that there is a sufficiently high level of trust between our countries. We have very good relations with Iran. We could continue this work and ensure Iran’s interests in this sphere.

I will not go into detail now, because there are many nuances we have discussed with both Israel and the United States. We have also sent certain signals to our Iranian friends. In general, Iran’s interests in the field of non-military nuclear energy can be ensured and Israel’s security concerns can be lifted at the same time.

I believe that such solutions exist. We have put them forth to all our partners, as I have said, including the United States and Israel, as well as Iran. We are not trying to impose anything on anyone. We are simply articulating our perspective on a potential solution. However, the choice rests with the political leadership of these countries, primarily Iran and Israel.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

As you know, this year marks 75 years of diplomatic relations between Russia and Indonesia. The President of Indonesia is attending the economic forum in St Petersburg, and as far as I know, you are meeting with him tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

But President Director of the Indonesian News Agency has got ahead of his President by meeting with you today. I would like to pass the floor to him.

Please.

President Director of the Indonesian News Agency (ANTARA) Akhmad Munir (retranslated): We are very proud today to witness President Prabowo’s visit to Russia. We also want to make a big contribution to the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

We can see that President Prabowo is particularly close to Russia. Even before taking office, he has met with you, Mr President. We regard this as a very important official occasion for both our countries.

I also have a question: what priorities does Mr President have in relation to Indonesia as our relationship with Russia marks 75 years?

We are already making investments today. Our countries cooperate in tourism, the military sector, and trade. Indonesia is trying to attract investment, especially from major countries where Indonesia has special programmes for nickel production and the production of goods sourced from Indonesia. This is the first point.

Second, we would like to know how Russia can contribute to alleviating economic uncertainty in the world. There is also a situation concerning the axis in China, the axis in the United States, and the axis in other major countries.

I think that in the future, Asia will need to ensure economic stability, of course, including Indonesia, which has enormous potential in terms of its population and workforce, as well as its geopolitical position on the international stage.

Vladimir Putin: You are absolutely right in your description of the relations between Russia and Indonesia and my relationship with the President of Indonesia. It is true he found it possible to visit Moscow after the election but before his inauguration, and we appreciate this. It is indeed a very good sign indicating that under the current President, Indonesia intends to develop our links across the entire scope.

What can I say? Indonesia is developing rapidly, very fast. It is transforming into one of the world’s biggest countries. What is the current population of Indonesia? Almost 300 million people, correct?

Akhmad Munir: Two hundred eighty million.

Vladimir Putin: Two hundred eighty million, can you imagine? Many European countries, even we in Russia, consider themselves great powers. But just think that Indonesia has 280 million people and is growing steadily.

Do you see what is going on? The world is changing radically and dramatically, and the point at issue is not just the number of people. The point is that these countries and their economies have started changing rapidly. The structure of their economies is changing, and their aggregate GDP, economic growth rate and educational standards are growing.

All these countries will certainly work towards achieving a high level of income for their people. This will inevitably involve a package of measures these countries will implement in the economy, science and education. They are advancing to very serious, strong positions in the world and the global economy.

This is how we view Indonesia, especially in light of the good, friendly and trust-based relations we have developed over decades. Of course, there are traditional spheres of cooperation that we will maintain. But we will also strive to diversify our ties. I believe that our current trade is definitely not reflective of our capabilities.

We will certainly discuss all the spheres we consider to be of priority concern tomorrow, during our substantive conversation with the President of Indonesia. I would not like to get ahead of things, because he has arrived and we will meet in the morning, when we will have several hours to discuss all these issues in detail.

You have mentioned several problems, such as tariff and trade issues that exist between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. It is true that there is a trade surplus in favour of the People’s Republic of China, and the sides should probably try to balance it. But I agree with our Chinese friends that this should be done calmly at the negotiating table, where a satisfactory result can surely be achieved.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the United States will ultimately accept this view. As for what the current US administration is doing, it sets the bar for negotiations too high but ultimately resumes the talks and the search for mutually acceptable solutions. I believe that the same will happen in other spheres as well.

The President of China has proposed the Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to create conditions for interaction with all neighbouring countries, including those that are not geographically close but have similar approaches to the development of trade and economic ties. You know, this method really works.

Indonesia has started working within BRICS, and it is doing so confidently. We will do our utmost to help Indonesia join the BRICS Family, gain the necessary benefits from this collaboration, and feel that the BRICS Family and BRICS rules are having a positive effect on the development of your economy.

The BRICS countries, including Russia, are certainly interested in building up relations with Indonesia in the spheres that are a priority for you, primarily high technology. We have plenty to offer our Indonesian partners in this sphere, and I am confident that Indonesians have interesting ideas they can share with us. We will discuss all this in detail with the President of Indonesia tomorrow.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you.

Mr President, you know, we have maintained very close ties with our friends from the Kazakhstani media for years; we keep in touch with our partners on a regular basis.

Some time ago, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev established a major television and radio complex, incorporating, among others, the Kazinform news agency with its sprawling connections.

One of our friends and colleagues has joined us today. Askar Dzhaldinov used to head Kazinform in the past; today, he is deputy head of the television and radio complex, but continues to oversee news reporting.

I would like to give him the floor.

Deputy Director of Kazakhstan President’s TV and Radio Complex Askar Dzhaldinov: Mr President, thank you for the invitation.

My question is as follows. Economic cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia continues to show a positive trend. What do you believe our countries can do to stimulate further growth in trade and economic cooperation, especially in light of the global challenges?

Vladimir Putin: In fact, we do have a special relationship with Kazakhstan – this is obvious, and everyone knows that. We are allies in the truest sense of the word. Our shared history within a single state and the enormous number of interpersonal and humanitarian ties between Russia and Kazakhstan are of great importance.

On a more general level, Kazakhstan is a member of the CSTO defence association and our economic union. We also cooperate within the SCO and other international organisations. All this is of great importance, because it creates conditions for further cooperation in the most important areas of mutual interest.

I must certainly mention energy: indeed, this has always been one of our most significant cooperation tracks. You know that we have begun to export energy resources, gas to Kazakhstan and are now thinking about expanding these exports. The gas infrastructure in the Soviet Union did not include relevant facilities in Kazakhstan because energy resources were shipped to the country from Russia. You do not have a pipeline system of your own because this is the way gas supplies were arranged within a single state. Gas was supplied to Kazakhstan from Russia, and we continue to do this.

Today, the President of Kazakhstan and I are discussing the possibility of expanding this energy cooperation. We are contemplating joint exports to third countries. We are considering the potential logistics of exporting Kazakhstan’s oil.

You know that the bulk of Kazakhstani oil exports are shipped via the Russian Federation. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium is used for that, along with other channels. Almost all of Kazakhstan’s oil is exported through Russia. But we understand that Kazakhstan is interested in diversifying its export routes, and we are ready to accommodate this and provide assistance. We also cooperate in Europe – at least we did until now.

Our work in space exploration continues, and this pertains not only to the use of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It also encompasses the development of satellite constellations and joint research in the field of space exploration.

At present, we are managing almost 95 percent of our trade turnover – which is steadily increasing – in national currencies. This is a very positive indicator, offering us opportunities to avoid any deceleration in trade growth due to difficulties related to processing payments and mutual financial flows for goods and services.

I need not elaborate on our system of relations in the cultural sphere, particularly in education. It is developing very actively. I certainly expect this progress to continue: President Tokayev is a man who fully understands the importance of advancing relations with Russia for Kazakhstan, and we highly value this. We reciprocate and will continue to do so.

Finally, in the domain of law enforcement, we are working together to neutralise threats arising from organised crime and terrorism. We regard this as of paramount importance. I have already mentioned that we are members of a defence organisation – the CSTO. Here, our defence ministries cooperate on a permanent basis, functioning very effectively.

I would like to emphasise that this activity has never been, and is not today, directed against third countries. We are solely focused on ensuring security within the region of our responsibility, recognising that there are numerous factors causing concern, including, for example, the situation in Afghanistan. While Kazakhstan does not share a border with it, other countries do, and we are aware of incidents in previous years where terrorist groups infiltrated these neighbouring states, both yours and ours.

After all, we share the world’s longest state border – between Russia and Kazakhstan – the longest land border in the world. This holds considerable significance for us. We will continue to develop our relations with this in mind. Therefore, I would like to reiterate: Kazakhstan is undoubtedly one of the closest states to us, our ally.

I see no obstacles in the development of our relations – none whatsoever. We will continue to explore new areas of cooperation. As you are surely aware, we meet regularly with President Tokayev, he visits us, and I travel to Kazakhstan with great pleasure. At the government level, through our foreign ministries, consultations and interaction are ongoing without interruption.

Askar Dzhaldinov: Thank you very much.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

Seated to my right is our esteemed colleague and friend from the Spanish news agency EFE, Manuel Sanz Mingote, whom you already know. In Spain, he is recognised not only as an outstanding journalist but also as an expert in history and philosophy, and a widely respected public speaker. He has been looking forward to this opportunity for some time, so I would now like to invite him to ask you a question.

Mr Mingote, please go ahead.

Director of International Relations of EFE News Agency Jose Manuel Sanz Mingote (retranslated): First of all, I would like to join my colleagues in expressing sincere appreciation for the opportunity to be here and for your willingness to engage directly with representatives of news agencies. I would also like to thank TASS for its hospitality.

As you are aware, a NATO summit is set to take place in just a few days. Among the key topics on the agenda will be Europe’s rearmament efforts and its intention to significantly increase military spending.

My question is very straightforward: if you had the chance to address the members of this organisation, what would you say to them? What message would you convey, and what is your main objective? Do you view NATO’s rearmament efforts as a threat to Russia?

Vladimir Putin: We do not view NATO’s rearmament as a threat to the Russian Federation. Our security is fully self-reliant, and we are continuously enhancing both our Armed Forces and our overall defence capabilities.Whatever actions NATO takes inevitably pose certain risks, but we will effectively counter any threats that may emerge; there is no doubt about that. In this context, efforts to rearm or raise military spending to five percent of GDP by NATO member countries are meaningless. That is the first point.

Second, and this is an unfortunate but well-founded observation: for centuries, the notion of a threat from Russia has periodically resurfaced in the West. Western elites have long found it convenient to invoke this perceived threat as a tool for shaping domestic policy. By pointing to an imagined danger from the East, they could justify extracting more funds from taxpayers and deflect blame for their own economic mistakes. If we take a moment to look through the pages of history, we will see that this narrative has been repeatedly revived time and again.

It is evident that the current crisis in relations between Russia and Western Europe effectively began in 2014. However, the issue is not that Russia, as it were, incorporated Crimea, but rather that Western countries facilitated a coup d’état in Ukraine.

You see, we were constantly told previously: we must live by the rules. What rules? What kind of rule is it when three states – France, Germany, and Poland – travelled to Kiev and, as guarantors, signed an agreement between the opposition and the authorities led by President Viktor Yanukovich? The three states signed it, their foreign ministers – my colleague from the Federal Republic of Germany is looking at me. Mr Steinmeier – he was then the Foreign Minister – put his signature to it, and a few days later, the opposition carried out a coup, and no one so much as batted an eyelid, as though nothing had happened, you understand? And then we hear: we must live by the rules. What rules? What are you inventing? You write rules for others, but you yourselves have no intention of following them – is that it? Well, who would live by such rules?

This is where the crisis began. But not because Russia acted from a position of strength. No, those whom we until recently called partners began acting from a position of strength. And the former US Deputy Secretary of State, Ms Victoria Nuland, if I recall correctly, said outright: “We have spent five billion dollars. Well, we’re not about to walk away now.” Five billion dollars spent on the coup. Quite the revelation, I must say!

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, our Western partners have always acted from a position of strength, at the very least. It is clear why – and I have written about this, and not only me. Because the post-World War II international order was based on a balance of forces among the victors. But then one of the victors ceased to exist – the Soviet Union disintegrated. And that was it – the West began rewriting all these rules to suit themselves. What rules?

After Crimea, events unfolded in south-eastern Ukraine. What happened? The people in the southeast of the country did not recognise this coup. Instead of negotiating with them, the authorities began using the army against them. We watched this, observed it, tried to reach agreements – for eight years, do you understand? This was not five days. For eight years, we tried to broker agreements between the Kiev authorities, whose source of power was the coup, and what was then south-eastern Ukraine – that is, Donbass. Yet in the end, the current authorities declared: “We are not satisfied with the Minsk Agreements, meaning we will not implement them.” For eight years, we endured this, do you understand?

But I feel for the people: after all, they were subjected to abuse for eight years. Even now, the Russian Orthodox Church is being persecuted, and the Russian-speaking population continues to suffer mistreatment. Everyone pretends not to see what is happening.

In the end, we made the decision to put an end to this conflict – yes, by using our Armed Forces. But what does that mean? That we are planning to attack Eastern Europe?

There was once a well-known Nazi propagandist who said, “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” This myth that Russia plans to attack Europe or NATO countries is exactly that kind of lie, an absurd fabrication that Western European societies are being told to believe. We understand how ridiculous this is. And those spreading this lie do not actually believe it themselves. Do you? Does anyone here genuinely believe that Russia is preparing to attack NATO? What nonsense.

NATO countries currently spend $1.4 trillion on defence, more than the rest of the world combined, including Russia and the People’s Republic of China. The population of NATO countries exceeds 340 million. Russia’s population, by comparison, is around 145–150 million. Our military spending is not even remotely comparable. And we are the ones supposedly planning an attack on NATO? It is absurd.

Everyone understands it is absurd. But people are being misled to justify inflated defence budgets – 3.5 percent, 5 percent of GDP – and to distract from failures in the economy and social sphere. Germany, for example, the leading economy in the European Union, is teetering on the edge of recession. And to this day, I still do not understand why the Federal Republic gave up Russian energy supplies. We continued gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine, and Ukraine earned $400 million annually in transit fees. Yet Germany chose to stop receiving Russian gas. Why? There is no rational explanation. None.

Volkswagen is suffering, Porsche is in trouble, the glass industry is in decline, fertiliser production is struggling, too. For what? It’s like cutting off the nose to spite the face. It makes no sense.

So, if NATO countries choose to further increase their defence spending, that is their decision. But it won’t benefit anyone. On the contrary, it will only increase risks – of course it will. Still, these are NATO’s decisions, not ours. I believe it is irrational and pointless. There is no threat coming from Russia – none at all. It’s simply nonsense.

As Goebbels said: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” And some people in Europe apparently do believe it.

They would be better off saving their automotive industry and raising wages.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would like to turn to my long-time friend from Turkiye. In fact, all eyes have been on this country lately. On the one hand, Istanbul has become a major international negotiating platform, while, on the other hand, the summer season has started, and many people from Russia, and not only Russians, headed to Turkiye to spend their vacations there.

Serdar Karagoz represents Anadolu, Turkiye’s leading news agency. He chairs its board and is also its CEO. But there is one more thing I wanted to mention. I think that he made the wisest decision among our colleagues, since he is the only one who brought his wife along for this meeting. This is to say that we welcome this initiative. It can send our other colleagues a signal so that next time they come with their spouses too.

Serdar, go ahead, please.

Vladimir Putin: Either he brought his wife along, or his wife did not let him go alone. We do not know.

Mikhail Gusman: Let me be honest with you. We had a conversation, and it seems quite plausible that she was the one who refused to let him go on his own. He can confirm that this conversation happened.

Vladimir Putin: Let us assume, and hope, that your spouse wanted to visit Russia and St Petersburg. I hope she likes it here.

Mikhail Gusman: In addition, she speaks Russian.

Vladimir Putin: Wonderful.

Anadolu News Agency Director General Serdar Karagoz (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

My wife studied at a Russian university. It is true that she really wanted to come here, and we really enjoyed the wonderful concert. It was magnificent.

Art and literature have always been important for Russia no matter the conditions it faced throughout its history. But all while this effort to hold all these events in culture and arts in Russia carries on, there is also a de facto war between Russia and Ukraine. I would like to discuss how this war could end.

During this war, at one point, you signed an agreement with President of Turkiye Erdogan to create a grain corridor. You worked together to save millions of people from starvation and succeeded in addressing these complex matters in this challenging environment.

Last week, Mr Erdogan called for holding a peace summit in Turkiye, and Mr Zelensky instantly agreed. Mr Trump said: “If Putin comes, then I will come too.” The Kremlin told us that conditions for carrying out this initiative had yet to materialise.

In this connection, I would like to ask you whether you believe that leaders can play an important role in finding a solution to this crisis? What conditions must materialise to bring leaders together and put an end to this conflict?

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding President Trump’s statement, I perceived it differently. Mr Trump said: “Putin is not going because I am not going. Why would he go if I’m not going?” And he is correct. In this regard, he is absolutely correct. This is the first point.

Secondly, he has also repeatedly stated that “if I were President, this war would have never happened.” I believe he is correct here as well. I will now explain why.

During one of my most recent telephone conversations with Mr Biden, I told him – I will not go into detail at present, though we naturally have records of these discussions – I informed him that we must not allow the situation to escalate into an open conflict, that all matters must be resolved peacefully, and that the current Ukrainian leadership must be compelled to address the demands of its own citizens in the southeast of the country: to cease the genocide of Russian-speaking people, to halt human rights violations there – an issue that the previous administration consistently raised: human rights.

Incidentally, I told him at the time: “You may think this will all be resolved easily now, but in time, it may become clear that it would have been better not to push the situation in the direction you are taking it.” I said this to Biden. And indeed, had Trump been President at the time, perhaps this conflict would not have occurred. I fully acknowledge that possibility.

Now, regarding high-level meetings. You know, I participated in the Minsk negotiations when we sought principles for a peaceful settlement, and we spoke for 17 hours straight, throughout the night. Indeed, we agreed on those principles, but the Western side did not implement them. The former Chancellor publicly stated that the goal was simply to buy time in order to arm Ukraine. She said this openly – no one coerced her. The former President of France confirmed the same. They said it themselves, you understand? So, it turned out that our so-called Western partners never intended to fulfil any of the agreements.

We must find a solution that will not only end the current conflict but also create the conditions necessary to prevent such situations from recurring in the long-term historical perspective.

When the conflict first broke out, we urged the Ukrainian side to reunify the breakaway region of Ukraine as provided for by the Minsk agreements, but they refused to do so. The armed conflict ensued.

Here is what we did. I mentioned this to UN Secretary-General [Antonio] Guterres, and said so publicly as well. You can provide any argument you want. You can blame Russia for starting an aggression as much as you like. But listen to me: you do not have to be an expert in international public law to grasp the logic I am about to unfold.

A portion of a country decided to secede from the mainland. Southeastern Ukraine – Donetsk and Lugansk – decided to secede. Were they within their rights to do? Strictly speaking, under international law and the UN Charter, they did have that right. The corresponding article speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. I believe the first article says that. You see, this is about the people’s right to self-determination. That is the first point.

Second, was this portion of the country under obligation to seek permission from central authorities in Kiev during that process? No, it was not. There is a ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding the precedent set by Kosovo. The UN International Court of Justice explicitly stated that if a portion of a country decides to secede, it is not obligated to ask the central government for approval. That is it.

So, Donbass seceded. Did we have the right to recognise their independence? We did not recognise them for eight years. For eight years, we tolerated that state of affairs and tried to come to terms [with Ukraine]. Eventually, they declared independence. Did we have the right to recognise them? Why not? We recognised them.

Having recognised them, we signed a mutual assistance agreement with them. Were we within our rights to do so? Of course, we were. And we did. Under that agreement, which was ratified by our parliament, we were under obligation to provide assistance, including military assistance. They officially requested our help, and we are providing that help.

Where did I make a mistake? At which step did I go wrong? You will not be able to find any, because there is no mistake. Each step logically followed the previous one.

With regard to the Kosovo precedent, I remember exactly what happened then. Western European countries and the United States exerted significant pressure on the UN Court, and it handed down that ruling: when a region secedes, it is not required to get consent from the central authorities.

That is all there is to it. You see? They did all of that with their own hands. And now they say, “How could you do this?” Well, this is how. If you could do it, why cannot we do it? It will not work like that. Rules must be consistent. Only then will they be stable and that is the guarantee of security for everyone, not at the expense of the security of others which is the key point, the key principle.

So, the point is that we are ready to hold talks. By the way, I said I was ready to sit down and talk with anyone, including Zelensky. That is not a big deal. If the Ukrainian state entrusts someone with conducting talks, fine, let it be Zelensky. That does not really matter. What really matters is who is going to sign the document? Listen, I have not made any of this up. You can say whatever you want about the legitimacy of the current government as part of a propaganda campaign. But when it comes to addressing serious matters, we are concerned with legal aspects, not propaganda.

What is the legal aspect? According to Ukraine’s constitution, the President is elected for a five-year term. There is no mechanism for extending presidential powers, not even under martial law. It clearly states so, go ahead and read it carefully: under martial law, only the powers of parliament, the Rada, can be extended. It says elections shall not be held under martial law. That is true. But does it say anywhere that the President’s powers can be extended. Nowhere. That is it.

Under Ukraine’s constitutional arrangements, that country is not a purely parliamentary or a presidential republic, but a mixed presidential and parliamentary one. What does it mean? It means that all branches of government are formed by the President. Everyone thinks it is a democratic society. A state can be structured in a way where all appointments are made by the President: all military leaders are appointed by the President, all ministers are appointed by the President, and all governors are appointed by the President. There is no election involved in this process. But if the head of state is illegitimate, the entire public administration system becomes illegitimate as well.

Why am I saying this? We do not care who conducts the talks, even if it is the current head of the regime. I am even willing to come to a meeting on a final stage, just so that we do not sit there dividing things up endlessly, but to come to a meeting and put a full stop to it. But that full stop – the signature – must come from legitimate authorities. Otherwise, the next person who will assume office will throw the whole thing in the trash. That is not acceptable. We are dealing with serious matters. So, I am not ruling out talks, but I am saying that a lot of preparatory work needs to be done first.

Finally, the key thing, or maybe not the key, but still very important. Before the conflict began, we were pleading with the Ukrainian authorities to comply with the Minsk agreements, but they refused. Then the special military operation began. Shortly after it started – we told them openly, “Withdraw your troops from the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, which we have recognised as independent states, and it will all be over the next day.” They said, “No, we will keep fighting.” Well, all right, here we are fighting…

Some time later – I have also mentioned this publicly – a Western colleague of mine asked me: “Could you imagine the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions..? You were fighting for Donetsk and Lugansk, and these two regions do not seem to be part of it.” I said, “That was the logic of the combat operations.” Then he asked, “Could you imagine withdrawing from there?” I said, “We might consider some form of Ukrainian sovereignty, but only with mandatory servitude, that is, a guaranteed right of overland pass to Crimea.”

Why? Because they keep threatening to destroy the Crimean Bridge. It is a simple matter. He asked: “Can I say this in Kiev?” I said, “Go ahead.” So, he went there and said it. They told him he was a Kremlin agent. He is a top government official from a foreign country. Sheer nonsense. They just rejected the idea outright.

Alright, fine. As requested by the people residing in that territory, we held a referendum, and this region is now an integral part of the Russian Federation. As I said earlier, the situation would get worse for them, and it did. Now, the issue is not just about Donetsk and Lugansk, but two more entities that are now subjects of the Russian Federation plus, of course, Crimea. Let us talk about that.

By the way, when we held talks in Istanbul in 2022 – many thanks go to President Erdogan – it may sound strange, but we have actually come to terms with them on everything. A draft agreement was put together that addressed denazification and territorial issues.

We came up with the language that was acceptable to us and Ukraine. But then those who want to increase defence spending in Europe and overseas came and said, “No, Russia must be defeated on the battlefield.” And everything we had agreed on was thrown in the trash. And from then on they have been pursuing that admirable goal.

The situation has changed. They say, “Let us talk.” Okay, let us open up those “packages” and resume talks. After all, we are not going to sit there day and night for a whole year. So, we are ready to continue these talks.

At the humanitarian level, the situation warrants such talks. We have agreed to exchange 1,200 POWs. We are bringing our people back home, which is a good thing. We have handed over 500 men and received 400 in return. I think it will be a fair exchange, and we will get back everyone we are supposed to get.

Sadly – and it is a painful and tragic matter to mention – we have returned over 6,000 dead bodies, even more than 6,000, and received in return, I believe, 57. That is, we’ve returned over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian military personnel. We are ready to return 3,000 or so more. But again, these are sad, tragic numbers.

However, this is a humanitarian matter and, ultimately, a positive outcome of the Istanbul talks. Thank you very much for providing the venue, and thanks go to President Erdogan as well.

We are also ready to hold substantive talks on the principles of negotiated settlement. The Ukrainian side needs to be willing to hold them as well, though. Its Western sponsors and “allies” should stop pushing them to fight to the last Ukrainian, and instead urge them to face the existing realities and to work towards reaching agreements, not continuing hostilities. That is all.

We remain in contact. Our negotiating teams maintain contact. I just asked Medinsky, and he told me he spoke with his counterpart from Kiev today. They are basically making arrangements for holding a meeting after June 22.

But I must say right away that Mr Fidan – not to mention President Erdogan – is doing much to facilitate this settlement. US President Trump, in my view, is genuinely striving for a resolution as well.

We will, of course, take into account the positions of our friends from China, India, and other BRICS countries. We maintain contacts with them on this matter. They are also deeply concerned about this. Whenever I meet with the leaders from these countries, almost always they start our dialogue with this issue, and I inform them about the latest developments.

We are grateful to them for thinking about it and looking for ways to resolve this conflict. Believe me, we are willing to end it too, the sooner, the better, preferably through peaceful talks, in case we are able to come to terms. That is all.

 

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

You certainly know Irina Akulovich – she heads, without exaggeration, our fraternal Belarusian agency. Her job is not as easy as it seems – with the head of state as demanding, strict and respected as Alexander Lukashenko, it is not easy to head a state news agency. But she is doing a great job. BelTA is an excellent agency, and we have very close ties.

I would like to give her the floor. Please.

BelTA Director General Irina Akulovich: Thank you for this assessment.

Mr President, you said at the outset that you are against wars and restrictions. The stance you take against wars and economic restrictions – I am referring to trade wars and economic pressure – is well known. The Belarusian leader holds the same view.

Nevertheless, we are where we are: Western sanctions against Russia and Belarus have prompted them to revise many of their economic ties. On the other hand, those restrictions gave rise to some interesting and promising projects in Russia and Belarus.

So, does the Union State of Russia and Belarus have a Plan B if the sanctions pressure increases, which, most likely, will happen?

Concerning the EAEU, Minsk will host the Eurasian Economic Forum in just ten days, and I would like to ask your opinion on this organisation. Is there a chance that it will expand?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding Plan B – most importantly, we have Plan A, which spells out what we need to do to expand our ties and promote economic growth, and how. Then there is Plan B: if something does not work, see Plan A. Everything will work out – there is no doubt about that.

I know it will because trade between Russia and Belarus has reached a significant threshold of $50 billion, and the growth continues – also through cooperation. We are looking for opportunities to extend our cooperation to fields we might have overlooked before, or where cooperation had remained at the Soviet-time level – in microelectronics, for example.

Although President Lukashenko was often criticised or mocked for preserving Soviet-type centralised economic planning – which is not exactly true anyway – he has effectively preserved industries that are more in demand than ever today, in the face of tough sanctions, including microelectronics facilities.

True, we need to further expand cooperation. Much needs to be done to accelerate development, something other countries have been doing for decades. But we have a good opportunity to make a fast and strong leap together.

We have opportunities for cooperation in aircraft industry. Belarus can produce small, modest aircraft on its own, with our collaboration, in some segments of the industry. It can also participate in deeper cooperation in aircraft manufacturing with final assembly taking place in Russia.

I don’t even need to mention agricultural machinery – everything is well known in this respect. The mutual cooperation in what is assembled in Russia – I don’t remember the exact percentage but it already exceeds well over 50 percent. I will not even enumerate everything else — we have many areas of engagement.

Concerning logistics: Belarus is one of the world’s largest suppliers of fertiliser but nearly all of it is now exported via the Russian Federation, through Russian ports.

There are issues we debate, and these debates continue non-stop – they are ongoing, truly non-stop. I will not go into details now, but in the end, we always find solutions because we sincerely strive to reach them. I believe we will continue this way.

As for the EAEU, it is definitely the most deeply integrated association in the territory of the former Soviet Union, which is integrated not in words but in practice. Some time ago, Kazakhstan initiated the creation of the EAEU, for which we are grateful to our friends, and this association is developing.

True, not everything runs smoothly there. True, we may not yet be ready for fully unified markets in some energy sectors, but we are moving towards this goal. We will get there, I have no doubt about it. The question is time, the pace, and so on.

You surely know about our ongoing discussions regarding energy supplies. We do find solutions in this area. Sometimes we even come up with quite original solutions – I don’t want to go into specifics now to avoid speaking about them publicly – but we do find them. I firmly believe that we will continue to do so.

I am very optimistic about cooperation within the EAEU, as well as about bilateral interaction, including the building of the Union State. We have accomplished a great deal in recent years. I don’t recall the exact percentage but we have achieved very high numbers if we count in percent, and we have practically completed nearly our entire plan.

You see, we have achieved great progress in customs and tax statistics. As is known, taxes and customs are fundamental to creating conditions for further economic cooperation.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would like to introduce another participant from last year’s meeting – Karim Talbi, Editor-in-Chief for Europe at the France Press Agency (AFP). He is a master of news reporting and enjoys undisputed authority within the agency. Additionally, he speaks Russian – I noticed that he listened to all your responses practically without using headphones.

Karim, please proceed.

AFP Editor-in-Chief for Europe Karim Talbi: Good afternoon.

May we return to Iran and Israel?

Vladimir Putin: Certainly.

Karim Talbi: If tomorrow Israel – with or without US assistance – were to assassinate Khamenei, what would be your reaction, Russia’s response, and your immediate actions? This is the first part of the question.

Vladimir Putin: Mr Talbi, if I may, I hope this will serve as the most appropriate answer to your question: I do not wish to even discuss such a possibility.

Karim Talbi: But they are openly discussing it – Mr Trump, Mr Netanyahu.

Vladimir Putin: I am aware of these statements. But I do not wish to even discuss this.

Karim Talbi: The second part of my question also concerns Iran. There exists a Strategic Partnership Treaty between Russia and Iran. While it does not stipulate Russian defence obligations towards Iran, there remains the matter of weaponry.

Given the current escalation, are you prepared to supply Iran with new types of weapons to enable its defence against Israeli strikes?

Vladimir Putin: You know, we once proposed to our Iranian partners cooperation in air defence systems. At the time, our partners showed limited interest, and the matter concluded there.

Regarding the Strategic Partnership Treaty you mentioned, it contains no clauses pertaining to defence cooperation. That is the second point.

Thirdly, our Iranian friends have not made such requests of us. Therefore, there is effectively nothing to discuss.

Karim Talbi: May I seek clarification?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Karim Talbi: If I am not mistaken, you have previously supplied S-300 and modified S-200 systems, meaning Russia does play a role in Iran’s air defence.

Vladimir Putin: You see, that is not quite the case. Our proposal was fundamentally different: to develop integrated systems – not individual deliveries, but systems. We ultimately… We did discuss this matter previously, but the Iranian side showed no particular interest, and the initiative consequently lapsed.

As for specific deliveries: yes, yes, we did conduct such transactions in their time. These bear no relation to the current crisis. They constituted what might be termed routine military-technical cooperation within international regulations. Neither has Iran requested anything from us that would contravene any established regulations endorsed by the Russian Federation, nor have we acted outside these boundaries. We have always remained fully compliant with both domestic and international legal frameworks.

Anything further?

Karim Talbi: Just one more question.

Mikhail Gusman: In the next round.

Mr President, I would like to introduce Mr Abdusaid Kuchimov, whom you know. He is the Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency (UzA), a prominent journalist who has led the agency for many years and the author of nearly 20 books of poetry. I suspect that he is not so much interested in asking a question as in reading his verses. But I suggested that he should save the reading for next time and only ask his question today. He agreed.

Said, you have the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Are his verses in Uzbek?

Mikhail Gusman: Yes, he writes wonderful poetry.

Director General of the Uzbekistan National News Agency (UzA) Abdusaid Kuchimov: Mr President,

You know that interest in Russia and everything related to it is extremely high in our society, due above all to our traditionally friendly historical ties and the similar mentalities of our people.

Second, our society appreciates and supports the titanic efforts you have been making jointly with President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev to strengthen our cooperation.

Relations between Uzbekistan and Russia have reached an unprecedentedly high level. Of course, there are some shortcomings and drawbacks, in particular in the migration sphere, but we see that work is underway to address them.

In this connection, I have both a question and a proposal, if I may. I believe that the development of our relations in the long term depends on our young people’s attitudes towards each other and their interaction. A great deal is being done in this sphere. Our youth organisations are actively communicating with each other and taking part in various events.

However, I believe that there is a dire need for a large-scale and long-term programme of youth exchanges, with concrete projects and spheres of activity. This would help strengthen the bonds between our young people, promote their positive and friendly attitude towards each other for years to come based on the traditional values of our societies and our shared history, and address the issues I have mentioned.

Mr President, I would like to ask what you think about this.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to confirm that relations between our countries are expanding and advancing steadily. When I responded to your colleague from Kazakhstan, I mentioned the possibility of developing trilateral projects there, including major nuclear energy projects, in both Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. We are already working on them and have made good progress.

By the way, I pointed out at the beginning of our conversation, when we talked about Indonesia, that global development has accelerated. Indonesia now has [a population of] almost 300 million people. The world is changing rapidly. Thirty years ago, there were maybe 15 or 18 million people in Uzbekistan; today, there are 38 million. And every year, another million is added. Every year! That’s how rapidly things are changing.

We certainly realise that there are many social issues and labour market-related challenges. So, President Mirziyoyev and I agreed to address these migration issues jointly. Why? Because we are aware of the current state of the labour market. There is pressure on your side.

We agreed on what needs to be done: to prepare people who want to work in Russia in advance. This includes learning to speak Russian and studying Russian culture. We have a solid plan in place, and I hope that it will be implemented.

In this regard, working with young people is very important – and valuable in itself. I fully agree with you on this point. As far as I know, President Mirziyoyev’s assistant, Saida, recently visited Moscow and met with many of my colleagues in the Government and the Presidential Executive Office. She has been instructed by the President to focus on youth contacts, overseeing the youth track [of our cooperation].

There are specific proposals here, and we will certainly work on them together. Youth cooperation is one of the most important areas – I agree with you.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would now like to give the floor to the News Director for Europe and Africa at the Associated Press, who has joined us for the second time at this meeting.

Let me note that despite the ups and downs in Russia-US relations, our TASS news agency and the Associated Press have maintained consistent cooperation in many forms. AP colleagues have participated in virtually all nine of your meetings with global media.

So, Mr Jordan, please.

News Director for Europe and Africa at The Associated Press James Jordan: Thank you, Mr Gusman, for the introduction, and thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to ask these questions directly to you. It is much appreciated.

In relation to the fighting between Israel and Iran, on June 13, a statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the Israeli strikes on Iran. It said: “Unprovoked military strikes against a sovereign member of the UN, against its citizens, peaceful cities and critical infrastructure facilities are totally unacceptable.”

It is a simple question: How does that sit in relation to Russia’s continued aggression in Ukraine? Yesterday, 28 civilians were killed in Kiev. AP journalists witnessed a tower block that had been destroyed by a Russian missile. So, how do those two positions reconcile themselves? Then, a follow-up to that. Do you have any plans to meet with President Trump or talk to him again by telephone?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding our actions in Ukraine, I have just gone into considerable detail in response to your Turkish colleague’s question, so I don’t think it makes much sense to repeat myself.

We believe we did not start the war in Ukraine – we are trying to end it.

The current Ukrainian leadership launched the conflict on their own territory. After the coup in Kiev, they deployed their armed forces, including heavy weapons and aviation, against the civilian population in what was then southeastern Ukraine, against Donbass, Lugansk and Donetsk.

They targeted residential areas directly. No one seems to want to remember that today, but this policy is what led to the current armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine. That is the first point.

Second, if your journalists had actually witnessed our missile strikes allegedly destroying entire residential blocks, they likely wouldn’t have lived to tell the tale. What they saw, if anything, was from a distance. The strikes weren’t on residential areas, but on defence industry facilities, on plants manufacturing military equipment. That’s exactly what we have been targeting and we are not keeping it a secret.

One of the main goals of the special military operation is the demilitarisation of Ukraine, to ensure it no longer possesses armed forces that pose a threat to Russia. We either need to reach an agreement to that effect – and in fact, we did reach such an agreement during the talks in Istanbul in 2022 – or we have to achieve it by other means.

Back then, we agreed on the permissible size of Ukraine’s armed forces, on types of weapons, on troop numbers, and we reached consensus on everything. But then, under pressure from Ukraine’s Western allies, those agreements were thrown out, as I said before. The decision was made to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, all the way to so-called “strategic victory.”

That hasn't worked. And because peaceful agreements were discarded, we are forced to pursue our objectives militarily. That objective remains: to demilitarise Ukraine. We will not allow Ukraine to maintain armed forces that could, in the long term, threaten the Russian Federation and its people.

Those are the strikes your journalists have witnessed. And yes, if we cannot reach a peaceful solution, we will pursue our goals by military means. There’s nothing unusual about that.

I hope this answers your question.

As for the Foreign Ministry statement, I believe that it is clear and transparent, and it also includes references to international law. Regarding our actions in Ukraine and their compliance with international law, I have just outlined our reasoning. We believe that they are in full compliance with the UN Charter.

As for our Foreign Ministry’s assessments, you should determine for yourself what you regard as objective or far-fetched. I do not regard them as far-fetched at all. I hope you are satisfied with my answer to this part of your question.

Regarding my possible meeting with Mr Trump, such a meeting would be extremely useful, of course. I agree with the US President that it should be thoroughly prepared and should produce positive results.

We have chosen a good track, and we have held several telephone calls with President Trump. We highly respect his intention to restore relations with Russia in many spheres, including security and economic cooperation.

Look, our exports to the United States have been decimated, and our imports from the United States have been reduced by over four times. What was a modest US$27 billion has now been diminished to several billion dollars. However, our trade with the United States increased last year. Our trade with many European countries is decreasing, but it has grown with the United States.

Therefore, I hope that Mr Trump is not only a politician to whom the American people have entrusted the future of their country but also a businessman. I regard this as a significant advantage. He thinks several steps ahead, and since he has increased his own wealth, it means that he can do this well. This means that he considers the implications of different moves towards Russia, what this would cost American taxpayers and the US economy, and whether it would be beneficial or detrimental.

We see that American businesses are interested in developing ties with Russia. Contacts have been established with major US companies that would like to return to our market and to work together with us. Overall, this inspires cautious optimism. I hope that the US President and his team will recognise this and make decisions aimed at restoring Russian-US relations jointly with American businesses.

We also maintain contacts with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance. Overall, our relations will gradually… At the very least, conditions are being created for the restoration of our relations. We hope that this trend will persist. We are ready for this.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you, Mr President.

I would now like to give the floor to Vugar Aliyev, Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency – AZERTAC. As someone born in Baku, I must say that I asked Vugar to be the last to ask a question on this topic so that no one can accuse me of favouring a fellow countryman. This is why he is the last person to ask a question within this block.

Vugar, go ahead, please.

Chairman of the Board of the Azerbaijan State News Agency (AZERTAC) Vugar Aliyev: Good evening, Mr President,

Allow me to join those who have thanked you for this meeting.

I have a question regarding the shallowing of the Caspian Sea. You discussed this issue with President Ilham Aliyev during your visit to Baku, and after that, you instructed the relevant agencies in Russia to work on this matter.

Preliminary studies have demonstrated that water levels continue to recede. One thing to keep in mind here is that the Caspian Sea gets over 80 percent of its water intake from the Volga, but the volume of water coming from this river has been rapidly shrinking as well.

What is Russia doing in this regard?

Vladimir Putin: I can tell you that it was the President of Azerbaijan who raised this issue, and I instantly took it on board. This topic had somehow eluded me before, despite the fact that it is a major challenge that can even be described as a global issue. We know the tragedy of the Aral Sea and similar cases. Taking coordinated action in a timely manner is instrumental when dealing with these issues.

The Government has received the relevant instructions, and I know that the governments of Russia and Azerbaijan have been working together to come up with solutions and explore various options.

It is essential that we avoid any hasty moves or decisions. Instead, we must work in a steady and consistent manner. The extent to which we can counter natural processes is uncertain since, apart from human activity in the Volga’s delta, there are other factors at play here, some of which may be attributable to global processes. As far as I know, this has been a continuous phenomenon with the water level of the Caspian Sea rising and receding over time.

We need to identify these factors and do everything we can to prevent these developments from reaching a point of no return. We are working with our colleagues. I cannot share specific measures we intend to undertake right now, but I do know that our colleagues are hard at work on this agenda.

Overall, and since we mentioned Azerbaijan, our trade increased by seven percent in 2024, which is quite a positive result, I believe. We have the North–South project and several other promising initiatives in logistics and manufacturing, including shipbuilding. We are ready to place our orders with the Baku shipyard. There are things to work on, but all initiatives are constructive and forward-looking.

I hope that we deliver on all of them.

Mikhail Gusman: Mr President, thank you very much.

You know, my colleagues at the agency would not understand if I, representing TASS, did not ask a question. But to be honest, this is not even a question – it is more of a cry from the heart, our shared pain. Let me explain what I mean.

If we exclude military professions, journalism has arguably become one of the most dangerous occupations in recent years. Our colleagues are being killed in conflict zones across the world. We Russians – Russian journalists – have lost many of our peers. This is our grief, our sorrow – colleagues from VGTRK, colleagues from Izvestia. In truth, this concerns journalists worldwide, and it is indeed a shared tragedy.

In your view, what can and should be done by international organisations, such as the United Nations or UNESCO? There was a saying once: “Don’t shoot the pianist – he’s doing his best.” One must not shoot journalists. These are honest people who, unarmed, fulfil their professional duty with honour.

What measures must be taken to stop the killing of journalists? Over the past year alone, the number of journalists killed has risen by ten percent, and in just the first half of this year, the figure has already surpassed last year’s total.

Vladimir Putin: This is a question to which I may not be able to provide a comprehensive answer. It depends on the nature of the opposing sides – strange as it may seem, on their level of general culture and their humanitarian principles. Unfortunately, in times of armed conflict, casualties among journalists are likely inevitable.

However, the issue, of course, is not just that. The issue arises when such killings are deliberate. When people suffer, including those from your profession, due to circumstances – that is one thing. It remains a profound tragedy when someone is injured, maimed, or loses their life. But when it is done intentionally – that is unquestionably a crime. And here, without any doubt, we must all consider how the international community should respond.

After all, what is happening now? If a journalist is killed by one side in a conflict, that side’s allies pretend nothing has happened, while the opposing side raises an outcry – which is deliberately ignored by the former side. And then the same happens in reverse. Moreover, journalistic solidarity does not always prevail.

Certainly, decisions must be taken at the level of international institutions, including the United Nations. This is a serious matter that requires careful consideration.

I would also like to express my condolences to all the families affected – regardless of the side they are on or who was carrying out their professional duty. To all these families, I extend my deepest sympathies.

Mikhail Gusman: Mr President, thank you very much for these words of support; they are very important for all of us.

I must say that we have been working together for two days now: starting yesterday and continuing into today. To be honest, I can tell that our colleagues are just warming up. But that depends on your strength, and if you are still willing…

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please.

Maxim Guzman: In that case, colleagues, let’s not go in circles: whoever has something truly pressing on their mind, raise your hand and we will ask the President. But please, keep it short.

Serdar Karagoz (retranslated): Thank you very much, Mr President.

The head of the Iranian News Agency was supposed to be with us representing Iran today, but because of the war, he could not come. So, as a follow-up to the previous question – there was a deliberate strike that targeted the state broadcasting company headquarters in Tehran. A large number of journalists have also been killed in Gaza by Israeli strikes.

I believe the Iranians would have asked this question: Will Putin, will Russia support Iran? I would like to ask this question on their behalf now.

Vladimir Putin: Look, your colleague has just mentioned the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statement on the events between Israel and Iran. That statement laid out our approach. I have nothing to add.

We continue to interact with our Iranian partners: we had contacts today, and I am sure there will be more tomorrow, the day after, and beyond. Our relations are ongoing. This is my first point.

Secondly, as I said, our specialists are working [at the nuclear power plant] in Bushehr – 250 Russian employees and more rotating staff, the total number close to 600. We are not going anywhere. Is that not support? Iran has not asked us for anything else. We have given our assessments.

Please, who else?

Mikhail Gusman: Martin was one of the first to request a chance to ask a second question.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, Martin.

Martin Romanczyk (retranslated): Mr President, I would like to return to my first question because it is being actively discussed in German society. Olaf Scholz held many debates about sending the Taurus missiles [to Kiev] when he was our chancellor. Today, Chancellor Merz has not yet said publicly what would happen if Germany sent the Taurus missiles. How would the Russian Federation react to that?

Vladimir Putin: I have already spoken about this, but I probably did not express our views clearly enough. Sorry for that.

We all remember the back story of our relations. We know what happened in the 1940s and during the Second World War. We know how much effort both sides – both the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany – put in to heal the wounds of the past. We have largely succeeded. This is true for both East Germany – the German Democratic Republic, and West Germany – the Federal Republic of Germany. Suffice it to recall what Willy Brandt and his party comrades did. And Helmut Kohl has done a great deal as well.

The Soviet Union was against the division of Germany. The division of Germany after WWII was not our initiative. We were against it. Anyway, nobody doubts that it was Russia, the Soviet Union and Russia, that played the decisive role in the reunification of Germany and the fall of the wall in 1990. I hope that nobody in Germany has forgotten that.

I would like to emphasise what the speaker of the Russian parliament [Vyacheslav Volodin] wrote in a letter to his colleague in the Federal Republic of Germany. Throughout modern history, Russia has not taken a single step, I repeat, not a single step, that ran contrary to the interests of the German people and the Federal Republic of Germany.

However, the situation has changed. I would not like to provide my assessment of Germany’s current stance that is based on the view of many Western countries of the situation in Ukraine. That is a matter of political assessment. But it is quite another matter when we see German tanks in Ukraine; moreover, we saw them in the Kursk Region, which is Russian territory, something even Germany does not question.

But what is Taurus? This is a high-precision weapon, but the Ukrainian troops cannot handle it – they simply cannot do this. This much is obvious. You cannot use Taurus without satellite intelligence; only Western countries can do this. You cannot use the Taurus systems without German officers, as only they are trained to operate the Taurus.

What does this mean? This implies that Bundeswehr personnel will use German weapons to carry out strikes targeting Russian territory. What can this mean other than an effort to ensure that Germany is directly involved in the armed conflict with the Russian Federation? There is no other way to frame this issue. This is not our choice, and we do not want events to take this turn. However, if this is the choice of the Federal Republic’s leadership – fine. We will deal with this reality.

I will not delve into details, but it will do serious damage to [Russian-German] relations, to put it mildly, while failing to affect the situation on the battlefield, where the Russian Armed Forces have achieved a strategic advantage on all fronts without exception. No matter what anyone says, our troops have been making daily advances along the entire line of contact, with some units making more progress than others, but they are all advancing their positions every day. They will continue to advance even if the Taurus systems come into play. This is to say that you would destroy your relations with Russia without achieving anything on the battlefield. It is up to senior German officials to decide, if the people of Germany have given them this mandate, of course.

Besides, you know what is going on there – I mean along the line of contact. At least, I hope that you know. Maybe you cannot offer an unbiased take on these developments for political reasons, but everyone knows what is going on. I hope that your staff members who work there can also see it all.

You see, the staffing level for the main forces within the Ukrainian Armed Forces is at 47 percent, while assault units face an even greater shortage of troops. What can they do? What’s next? It is not a matter of whether Western countries supply weapons or not. While this is an important factor, if your troops are understaffed and have less than 50 percent of service personnel they need, it means that these units are simply ineffective and unfit for military action.

There is a massive mobilisation drive underway to forcibly recruit people into the army. You probably know this too. I understand that you must keep this to yourself for political reasons, but I hope you are aware of it. They had this agreement, which effectively amounted to a decision to recruit 18-year-old boys into the army and planned to mobilise 1,500 people. I think that they managed to find only a thousand, and 500 of them simply vanished. More and more people are deserting the army and their numbers are rapidly growing. They lose more personnel on the battlefield than they can recruit into the army. End of story. What lies ahead for them?

This is why we have been saying that we are willing to sit down and start talking – we agree to do this. We suggested a framework for an agreement in Istanbul back in 2022, and these terms were not as strict as they are today. Today, we are in a different environment, which entails corresponding terms and conditions. That said, we are ready to adhere to the Istanbul principles. But if they refuse to come to an agreement, the situation may get even worse for them. So instead of wasting time, they must sit down at the negotiating table and find common ground.

I am not making anything up. This is how things stand right now, objectively. Their staffing level is at 47 percent. Whether they get the Taurus systems or not makes no difference. Think about it: do you need to bury Russian-German relations for the sake of supplying these Taurus units?

Simon Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr President, for taking a second question. You said earlier that Europe and other countries have made mistakes in regards to Russia. At the end of this year, you will have been in office either as President or Prime Minister for a quarter of a century. When you reflect and look back, have you made any mistakes?

Vladimir Putin: He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at me. I suggest we end this meeting on that note.

Thank you.

Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr President.

 

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