Vladimir Putin in Minsk answered questions from Russian journalists

Photo: Kremlin.ru

Following the EAEU summit in Minsk, President of Russia Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists.

June 27, 2025
Minsk

Question: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

Mr President, could you please summarise the outcomes of today’s proceedings? What took place behind closed doors, particularly during the restricted-format meeting with your EAEU counterparts? Were there any bilateral meetings, perhaps ones we are not yet aware of? The term “sanctions” was repeatedly mentioned during the discussions. To what extent do sanctions impact the operations of the Eurasian Economic Union? Thank you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Regarding bilateral meetings, I have just concluded one – a working session without media presence – with the President of Uzbekistan [Shavkat Mirziyoyev]. We discussed our current affairs, prospects for the near future, and aligned our positions on potential major joint investment projects. In my view, as well as in President Mirziyoyev’s assessment, these are entirely feasible undertakings. The focus was on energy, including potential cooperation in nuclear energy, infrastructure projects, and the metallurgical industry. In short, there are substantial initiatives that our governments have been deliberating for some time, and we are gradually moving towards their implementation.

The second meeting was with the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates. We also reviewed our current bilateral relations and look forward to hosting the President of the United Arab Emirates on an upcoming visit to Russia.

Naturally, in both instances, we touched upon the situation concerning Ukraine and developments in the Middle East.

As for the outcomes of today’s EAEU summit, we are satisfied with the results and have drawn certain conclusions.

The President of Belarus has already noted that our development strategy, which was designed to run until this year, is nearing completion. We are considering how to structure our joint efforts moving forward. However, overall, the results of our work cannot but satisfy us. They satisfy all of us. Why? Because the key aggregate indicator of economic performance is the growth rate.

In the EAEU, it exceeds the global average. As is known, global growth stands at 3.3 percent. The EAEU’s growth is over 4 percent – significantly higher. In some countries, it is substantially greater, reaching 5 percent or even approaching 6 percent, in my view. This is, among other things, a direct result of our joint efforts, as the very purpose of our work is to eliminate trade and other economic barriers to cooperation. Without exaggeration, this multiplies the potential for economic growth.

One of the social indicators of economic development is the unemployment rate, along with the growth of real wages – and these trends are broadly similar across various countries. As for Russia, our unemployment rate stands at 2.3 percent. This is, undoubtedly, one of the principal indicators of economic health globally, and we see comparable figures in other our nations as well.

Another crucial indicator is the level of investment, which continues to grow. In Russia, despite the well-known challenges we face, this process remains ongoing.

Naturally, while we are certainly satisfied with the overall progress, there always are areas that require closer attention. In a restricted format, we discussed the removal of barriers within the services sector. Certain aspects here still warrant further analysis.

Of particular importance is the matter of electronic signatures. This is far from being a mere formality; if introduced at the international level, it could create favourable conditions for broader cooperation. Today, we discussed related issues, such as the verification of authenticity and how sanctions might be regulated in case of violations. The goal is to ensure that economic operators do not shift arbitrarily between jurisdictions, but instead operate within a unified economic space.

There is nothing in this area that would present any political complications. On the contrary, we all recognise this as the right direction. These are primarily legal and technical matters, and they need to be addressed and formalised at the governmental level. We have agreed to take these steps in the coming months.

Our next meeting, though informal by tradition, will, as always, include a substantial business agenda. It is scheduled to take place, as per tradition, on the eve of the New Year in St Petersburg.

As for sanctions, yes, they were mentioned as a mere formality – but truthfully, no one engaged in any detailed discussion of this topic.

Question: Good afternoon, RIA Novosti. I have an important question on a different topic. You mentioned earlier that Ukraine was discussed during recent bilateral contacts.

How is the Ukraine settlement progressing? Specifically, when will the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks take place? Two rounds have been held in Istanbul so far. We know that the sides have exchanged draft memorandums on the settlement. What is your assessment of Kiev’s draft memorandum? Has there been any reaction from Kiev to Russia’s draft memorandum?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the memorandums, as expected, there were no surprises. I will not tell you anything surprising, either. These are two absolutely opposing memorandums, but that is precisely why talks are set up and held – to find ways to bring positions closer. The fact that they were diametrically opposed does not seem surprising to me, either. I would not like to go into details, as I believe it would be counterproductive – even harmful – to get ahead of the talks.

With regard to what has been achieved so far following the talks, I think you can see it for yourself. Today, if I am not mistaken, another exchange took place… or was it yesterday? Today, right? And this is important. The humanitarian aspect matters because, as diplomats say, it creates conditions for substantive discussions on core issues. We agreed that after completing these exchanges and the humanitarian operation which we proposed – specifically, the transfer of the servicemen’s bodies – we would press ahead with more contacts. We have already handed over more than 6,000 bodies and are ready to transfer nearly 3,000 more, but it is now up to the Ukrainian side to agree to accept the remains of their fallen soldiers.

We agreed that after this phase is completed, we would hold the third round of talks. We are ready for it overall. The venue and the time need to be agreed upon. I expect President Erdogan to keep unchanged his supportive stance with regard to this process. We are very grateful to him for that. We stand ready to hold this meeting in Istanbul. As for the exact timeframe, the heads of the negotiating teams from both sides – who remain in constant, direct contact and regularly get on the phone with each other (which, I believe, is a good sign) – are discussing the date for the next meeting. The agenda? In my opinion, the discussion should focus on the memoranda from both sides.

Please go ahead.

Question: Good afternoon. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV channel.

You and your colleagues have just concluded the Eurasian Union summit. Meanwhile, our former partners recently held a NATO summit, where a decision was made to increase defence spending to 5 percent of GDP. Europe is engulfed in a flurry of voices calling for militarisation, and such an aggressive stance from Europe is something unprecedented in modern history. How do you assess what is happening?

Vladimir Putin: First, the so-called Western community – the collective West, if one can even refer to it as collective at this point – is turning everything upside down. Why? Because both the increase in military spending and the militaristic fervour you mentioned are based on a single premise: the alleged aggressiveness of Russia. But in reality, the exact opposite is true.

The year 2022 – the start of the special military operation – is now being used as the cut-off point for all these discussions. Yet no one says a word about how we, how all of us, arrived at this special military operation. How did it begin? It began with them deceiving us, blatantly lying to us, or as our people say, simply “conned” us regarding NATO’s non-expansion eastward. After all, the whole world knows what was promised to Russia: not one inch eastward would NATO advance. And then came wave after wave of expansion.

What have we always said? That the security of one country or a group of countries cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of another country – a principle enshrined in international documents agreed upon by all. But what happened in practice? Expansion after expansion. Meanwhile, we were constantly told: “You shouldn’t fear this, it poses no threat to you.”

When we responded that we considered it a threat, what did they say? Nothing at all. They simply dismissed our concerns, refusing to acknowledge or even consider our position.

We know better than anyone what threatens us and what does not. It is our right to determine the level of our own security and the threats that may approach us from any direction. Yet no one listened, and they all continued down this path.

Is that not aggressive conduct? It absolutely is – aggressive behaviour that the West refuses to acknowledge.

The same thing happened within our own country when the collective West supported separatism in our country and used terrorism as a tool against Russia. No one wanted to pay attention to groups like ISIS operating in Russia, the explosions in Moscow, or any of the recent attacks. No one cares – as long as it is against Russia. Did we not see this?

They see and understand it perfectly well, yet they speak of something else – of our so-called aggressiveness. They should look at themselves. We have a good saying: they notice the speck in another’s eye but fail to see the log in their own. And what is happening? Against the backdrop of this rhetoric about Russia’s imaginary aggressiveness, they start talking about the need to arm themselves. Let them arm themselves.

Let us look at the structure of these expenses and these armaments. I have said that we consider reference to Russia’s aggressiveness to be totally unsubstantiated. We are not aggressive, it is the collective West that is aggressive.

The same was happening in Ukraine, by the way. Exactly. How can you otherwise call the developments following the coup backed up by the collective West?

First they [European leaders] arrived, signed guarantees between the President and the opposition. A few days later, they helped stage a coup, supported it, paid for it and publicly admitted it. And then they began talking about Russia’s aggressive behaviour. What can that be? Are they idiots, or do they take us for simpletons?

Next, we all know what was happening in Donbass for eight years. Eight years of a bloody war against a civilian population. For eight years, we had been trying to come to terms to resolve the issue peacefully.

We were cheated, and they publicly admitted it. Both the former German Chancellor and ex-president of France publicly said that they were not going to fulfil the Minsk Agreements which they had signed with the sole purpose of pumping up weapons into the Kiev regime. And they were waging that undeclared war for eight years. To stop that war, we ultimately had to use our Armed Forces, having recognised the independence of both republics in strict compliance with the UN Charter. Nobody takes note of that, they only look at things from that moment onward: Why? What happened? What’s their fault? As if they were innocent infants born yesterday. This won’t do.

A lopsided game is over. If they want to increase their military spending, let them. But it also testifies to their aggressiveness. Here is why.

Indeed, we have considerable [military] spending today, 6.3 percent of the GDP. Is it much or little? I believe it is much. This is obviously one of the problems, including for the budget, that we must address, and we are solving it in a worthy manner.

By the way, I don’t want to make political analogies now because the causes of the conflict are totally different, but from the financial and economic point of view, the United States was spending 14 percent of the budget on its war in Korea, and ten percent during the Vietnam war. They were addressing the issue by collecting more taxes from high-income individuals. During the first war, they disregarded macroeconomics, while during the latter war they approached it with more consideration. Meanwhile, we are after a healthy macroeconomy.

And now about the spending proper. Is 6.3 percent much or little? Russia’s 6.3 percent of the GDP on defence equals 13.5 trillion rubles, whereas our total GDP is 223 trillion. Is 13.5 of 223 too much or too little? It is not little. We have paid for it with inflation. But now we are making efforts to counter this inflation. Yes, we are determined to send our economy to a “soft landing” in some areas. Nevertheless, we have a very sound approach to it.

By the way, I have already said that the wage level is rising in all the EAEU countries as well as in Russia. Last year, it went up by 9.7 percent and in this year’s first four or five months, it added four percent in real terms. This is, at least, a satisfactory indicator, by the way.

What is happening in Western countries? They have been burying us all the time. They themselves will die soon enough. Nevertheless, they bury us all the time, never stopping.

Our last year’s economic growth is 4.3 percent, and in the previous year, it was 4.1 percent. This year, it will be much more modest in view of our efforts against inflation. But we are doing it on purpose. As for the Eurozone, its growth is 0.9 percent. The European leading economies and industrial centres, such as West Germany and France, almost all have been balancing on the brink of recession.

As for the Armed Forces, they are speaking constantly about us having problems and about achieving Russia’s strategic defeat very soon. This rhetoric still continues unabated. And at the same time, they keep saying that we are going to attack NATO countries. Where is the logic here? If we have everything on the brink of collapse, then why should we attack NATO? They are talking rubbish, and they don’t believe it themselves, but they try to convince their own population [that Russia is going to attack] in order to squeeze more money out of people, to make them agree to the heavy burden of expenses in the social area.

By the way, we spend those trillions largely on what? On maintaining our defence industry, on us, on the loved ones, on our families. And what will they spend their five percent [of the GDP] on? On arms purchases from the United States and on the support for its defence industry. But this is not our problem, it’s theirs. If they want, let them do it.

Now we are coming to the main thing. We are planning to cut the defence expenses next year and the year after, as well during the next three years. The Defence Ministry, the Finance Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Development have yet to reach the final agreement, still, in general, everybody is thinking along these lines. And Europe is thinking about raising its defence expenses. So, who is getting ready for any aggressive actions, us or them?

Yes, we do want to complete the special military operation with the result we need. Certainly. This is what we take into account when planning our defence expenses, not aggressive aspirations against Europe and NATO countries. And we want to decrease the expenses, while they want to increase them. So, who is more aggressive? This is what the defence and security policy is grounded in.

This is why all their speculations about their intention to increase defence spending – let them do it. But this will not improve their situation in terms of security, and will make it much worse in the economy and social area.

Question: Ksenia Chernyayeva, Interfax.

Mr President, recently the President of France said another package of sanctions must be introduced against Russia. Judging by the statements that European officials make, this package may include such measures as lowering the price ceiling for Russian oil to $45 and secondary sanctions for its buyers.

What do you think about such measures and the President of France’s rhetoric? What consequences can such decisions entail?

Vladimir Putin: I have already answered this question in part. The more sanctions are imposed, the greater the damage to the imposers. This is true for France and for the European economy as a whole. If we examine the statistics, we can see that gas imports have actually increased at the expense of LNG – with Europe now purchasing more.

What are today’s prices – over 400 euro for a thousand cubic metres? Yes, oil prices have dropped somewhat recently – from 75 dollars to 65 or 66 dollars – they now fluctuate a bit.

But what would happen if tensions escalate again in the Middle East? What if our oil exports are blocked, at least partially? Although, to be honest, it is almost impossible today.

Global demand for oil and petroleum products continues to grow, driven by overall economic expansion. This is undeniable. While demand is growing, production is increasing only in accordance with the quotas agreed upon within the OPEC+ framework, which are calibrated to meet this rising demand, especially during the summer. Frankly, I see no upside here for the European economy.

Will this harm Russia? This will depend on how events unfold. But I do not believe there will be any serious impact on us, especially given that we have already faced hundreds, if not thousands, of sanctions – and yet, here we are. Last year, Russia’s economy grew by 4.3 percent, while in the Eurozone, growth was just 0.9 or even 0.8 percent.

Please, Andrei.

Question: Good afternoon. Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Mr President, do you not consider it timely to arrange a personal meeting with Donald Trump? From an external perspective, one might observe a degree of mutual distancing, so to speak. While telephone communication serves its purpose, face-to-face engagement, as the saying goes, carries distinct significance. What are your thoughts?

Vladimir Putin: I hold the incumbent President of the United States in the highest regard. His path to returning to power and to the White House has been exceptionally arduous, complex, and hazardous – a fact of which we are all cognisant, particularly given the assassination attempts he has survived, indeed multiple attempts on his life. He is a courageous man, that much is evident.

Naturally, we highly value both his domestic policies and his endeavours regarding the Middle East situation, as well as his efforts toward resolving the Ukrainian crisis. I have previously articulated this position and wish to reaffirm it publicly: I am convinced that President Trump is genuinely committed to resolving the issue on the Ukrainian track.

Recently, I believe he observed that the matter has proven more intricate than external appearances suggested. That is indeed the case. Such complexity is unsurprising – there exists a substantial difference between distant observation and direct engagement with the issue. The same is true of the Middle East crisis. Although he may have greater experience there, having been more deeply involved in Middle Eastern affairs, complexities persist there as well. Real life is always more complex than any notion of it.

I have consistently maintained openness to dialogue and meetings. I am aware President Trump has similarly referenced potential discussions. Like him, I contend such encounters require meticulous preparation and must yield tangible new milestones in cooperation. Overall, thanks to President Trump, Russian-American relations are demonstrating initial stabilisation, at least to some extent. Not all issues in diplomatic relations have been resolved, but the first steps have been taken, and we are moving forward.

We have established operational contacts between respective agencies – notably between the Department of State and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, alongside coordination between our security services, which is also very important. For example, counterterrorism remains a priority for us in any circumstances, as do interactions along certain other operational collaborations.

We have good prospects for economic cooperation. We are aware that American businesses are demonstrating interest, showing intent, and sending signals about their desire to return to our market. We can only welcome this. However, all such developments require consistent preparation. That said, overall, such a meeting remains entirely possible, and we would be pleased to arrange it.

Thank you very much. All the best.

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