РУССКИЙ
1:59 24.10.2025 •
Answers to journalists’ questions.
Photo: Kremlin.ru
Following a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Geographical Society, Vladimir Putin took questions from media members, Kremlin informs.
The Kremlin, Moscow, October 23, 2025
Question: Yesterday, we heard yet another statement by the US President regarding him either meeting with you or not meeting with you, and the Ukraine crisis, too. Almost at the same time, the United States imposed sanctions on Russian oil companies.
Today, the EU imposed another round of anti-Russia sanctions, this time placing a ban on toilet bowls, motorised toys, puzzles, and tricycles.
What do you think about this?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: The fact that they cancelled imports of our toilet bowls will cost them dearly. I think they will need them if they keep the same policies with regard to the Russian Federation.
What can I say about the US President’s statement? In the most recent telephone conversation, the idea of a meeting and the venue were proposed by the American side. I agreed with the idea and expressed my views in this regard pointing out that, without a doubt, such meetings must be well prepared. It would be a mistake for me and the US President to approach it lightly and come out from this meeting without achieving the anticipated result.
Admittedly, the US President agreed with that completely and said that a number of officials from the current administration would work on preparing this meeting. He named some of them, and I said that once the American side finalises the list of those who will be preparing the meeting, we will also announce who will be involved from the Russian side. But at the initial stage, without a doubt, the first steps towards this end should be taken by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rubio. That is what we decided.
Now I see – I have read the statement – that the US President decided to cancel or rather to postpone this meeting. What can I say? Dialogue is always better than confrontation, disputes, or, even more so, war. Therefore, we have always supported dialogue, and we continue to do so.
Now, regarding the new sanctions. First, there is nothing new about them. Clearly, they will have serious implications for us, but they will not significantly affect our economic well-being.
It is well known that during his first presidential term, President Trump imposed the largest number of sanctions ever imposed on the Russian Federation. Today, they have two aspects, namely, political and economic.
What are we talking about in terms of the political aspect? It implies an attempt to put pressure on Russia. But no self-respecting country and no self-respecting people ever make decisions under pressure. Without a doubt, Russia has the privilege of considering itself among those self-respecting countries and peoples. That is the first point.
The second point is purely economic.
Speaking of the political aspect this, of course, represents an unfriendly step with regard to Russia. That much is clear, and it does not help strengthen Russia-US relations, which have just begun to recover. Of course, actions like this by the US administration harm Russia-US relations.
Regarding the economic aspect, I reiterate once again that there is certainly nothing good or pleasant here. However, if we examine the economic side of these sanctions objectively and professionally, what do we observe?
At present, the United States, in my view, produces approximately 13.5 million barrels per day, ranking first. Saudi Arabia is second with around 10 million barrels, and the Russian Federation is third with roughly 9.5 million barrels per day. However, the United States consumes 20 million barrels. They sell some and purchase even more, primarily from Canada. Thus, they produce 13.5 million but consume 20 million.
Meanwhile, the Russian Federation and Saudi Arabia sell more oil and petroleum products. I may be mistaken in some details, perhaps mixing something up on the spot, but the general order aligns with reality. And what is that reality? Saudi Arabia exports approximately 9 million tonnes of oil and petroleum products to external markets, while the Russian Federation exports 7.5 million. That is to say, our contribution to the global energy balance is very significant, exceedingly so. Currently, this balance serves both consumers’ and producers’ interests. Disrupting this balance is a highly thankless task, including for those attempting to do so. Why?
First, it must be noted that overall production is currently at a plateau. Of course, a portion – though certainly not all, as that would be impossible – of Russian oil and petroleum products could be substituted on the global market. But, first, this requires time. Second, it demands substantial investment.
Recently, for the first time, we heard from the International Energy Agency that it is urging and encouraging economic actors to invest in hydrocarbon energy.
Until now, the opposite had been advocated, including within the framework of the International Energy Agency, with calls to invest in alternative energy sources. Indeed, that is necessary. However, it has become clear that hydrocarbons will remain indispensable for at least the coming years, if not decades. This is evident given rising consumption. The global economy is growing, and energy resource consumption is increasing.
Thus, it is not feasible to sharply increase production in the immediate term. However, if the quantity of our oil and petroleum products on the global market were to decrease abruptly, prices would rise, and I have discussed this with my American counterpart as well. What would this lead to? It would result in a sharp increase in the cost of oil and petroleum products, including at petrol stations – and the United States is no exception. If we consider the domestic political calendar in the United States, it is clear how sensitive certain processes could become in this context. Those advising the current [US] administration on such decisions should consider whom they are actually serving.
However, that is not the main point. What is significant for us is something else – we feel confident and stable, and despite certain losses (which will inevitably occur, as this is tied to many circumstances), our energy sector remains sufficiently confident.
I hope this will not lead to significant changes in the global market, although everyone must now reflect – I concur with the International Energy Agency – on the necessity to invest in traditional energy, in conventional energy sources. We are doing this and intend to continue doing so.
If, in the end, we move away from pressure and instead engage in serious discussions about the future, including in the economic sphere, we have many areas for joint work. We are generally prepared for this, but, as we see, it depends not only on the Russian Federation but also on our partners, in this case, the Americans.
Question: Regarding the use of Western long-range weapons, how do you personally assess the evidently contradictory signals coming from Washington? Recently, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reported that the US has lifted a key restriction on the use of such weapons. Then Trump stated that Tomahawks would not be supplied after all. Just an hour ago, Zelensky once again claimed that Ukraine will receive weapons capable of striking targets up to 3,000 kilometres away.
In your view, is this still an escalation?
Vladimir Putin: This is an attempt at escalation. However, if such weapons are used to strike Russian territory, the response will be very serious, if not overwhelming. Let them think about that.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
