Russian President Vladimir Putin took questions on a range of global flashpoints — including Iran and Israel, NATO, and the war in Ukraine — during a meeting with senior editors from major international news agencies.
Below is the full text transcript in English of his speech independently translated from the original speech in Russian (Russia refers to the Russia-Ukraine War as a special military operation):
Mikhail Gusman: Dear Mr Putin! Dear colleagues!
First and foremost, it is a great honor for me: I have been entrusted, as a representative of the host side—TASS agency—to moderate this meeting. And my first words of gratitude are to you, Mr Putin, for responding to our request. Incidentally, this is already your ninth meeting in this format.
And I must say, the interest in this meeting grows with each passing year. I remember that after your meeting last year, colleagues from Reuters told me they couldn’t recall another political event in recent years that generated so many breaking news.
You can imagine the level of interest in this meeting. Because in this year that seems to have flown by so quickly, so much has happened, and all our colleagues were eager to attend—not everyone could make it. Here with us today are representatives of 14 of the world’s leading agencies.
So, if you allow, let’s move directly to questions and answers, since we know you’ve had a very busy day today.
Shall we begin?
Vladimir Putin: Allow me just a couple of words.
Mikhail Gusman: Yes, of course, Mr Putin.
Vladimir Putin: I’d like to welcome all of you. Thank you very much for your interest.
We’ve just listened to, in my opinion, a short but very good concert—high quality. It’s already late, and we’re in a good mood—let’s not torment one another: let’s allow each of us to “hit the second octave,” as professionals say (which is a good sign for tenors)—let’s let everyone perform well, and then go rest. You’ll have plenty of work tomorrow and the day after.
Please.
Mikhail Gusman: I’d like to first invite to the microphone our colleague from Vietnam, the General Director of the Vietnam News Agency, Vu Viet Trang. She is an outstanding journalist. It’s enough to say that in the 75 years of the Vietnam News Agency, she is the first woman to lead the organization. She holds great authority in Vietnam as a highly experienced and top-class professional journalist.
So, Madame Vu, the floor is yours. Please.
Vu Viet Trang (as translated to Russian): Thank you very much.
In your welcoming address to the XVIII St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, I’d like to know: what is the agenda of initiatives capable of making the world a better place? Could you elaborate on the initiatives and vision that Russia is promoting to build a peaceful and sustainably developing world? And what role does cooperation between Russia and Asia in general, and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam, in particular, play in this agenda?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Officially, we have a stated agenda, which is well known to everyone. I probably don’t need to repeat it. But we don’t set ourselves such ambitious goals as influencing the global agenda and changing things during this work. No. This forum has been held for a long time, since the 1990s. Gradually, it started to grow and gain more and more popularity.
And precisely due to what Mr. Gusman mentioned—namely, that more and more of our partners come here—the very fact of interaction, the very fact of signing a significant number of agreements, contracts, protocols, and so on—that is, in fact, the main goal: to create connections in today’s, let’s be honest, difficult conditions.
There’s probably no need to list why they are so difficult today: armed conflicts, trade wars, and so on. All of this complicates global trade development. There is every reason to believe that the forecasts predicting a slowdown in global trade are well-founded.
So, if we abstract from the formally stated agenda, the real goal is to jointly look for ways to overcome these challenges, and in this way—indirectly—affect the situation in the global economy.
And considering that the forum brings together colleagues from many countries that hold leading positions in the global economy—especially in terms of economic volume and influence on global economic processes—we expect this to have a positive impact.
It’s probably also unnecessary to delve into the fact that we advocate for a fair world order and for the rules of the World Trade Organization to be respected and not changed based on monthly political fluctuations. We oppose all forms of trade wars, restrictions, and so on.
As for our cooperation with Southeast Asia, it is developing steadily year after year. Trade turnover is increasing. I won’t cite absolute figures now to avoid error, but these are verified facts—growth is continuous. And this applies to all countries in the region, including Vietnam.
Regarding the region as a whole—I’ll speak separately about Vietnam—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 see them as very promising partners.
As for Vietnam, we have a special relationship with Vietnam—everyone knows this—dating back to the 1950s and 60s, particularly during Vietnam’s struggle for independence. Much water has passed under the bridge since then, the world has changed, and our countries have changed, but our relationship of friendship and cooperation remains.
We have many good projects—not to mention the well-known Tropical Center and the energy sector, where we are working both in Vietnam and in the Russian Federation—and we are ready to expand this cooperation, including offering our Vietnamese friends opportunities to work in the hydrocarbon sector in Russia.
But not only that—we also work in agriculture. It may seem surprising to some, but Vietnamese business structures are investing considerable sums—measured in billions of dollars—into Russian agriculture and have been operating successfully for several years. Our colleague surely knows what I’m talking about—those investments.
We will continue to create all the necessary conditions so that Vietnamese entrepreneurs feel confident. We have a strong foundation in the humanitarian sphere, especially in education and training.
Today, several thousand Vietnamese students are studying in Russia across various fields—both in higher education and vocational training. We will continue supporting this, as it benefits both sides. For us, it builds a strong human foundation for cooperation in all areas.
When I was last in Vietnam—if you noticed—I met, and my Russian delegation met, with graduates of Russian universities. It felt like we were back home—in Moscow or St. Petersburg. A very warm, friendly atmosphere, strong interest among those people, a willingness to work together, and, most importantly, growing opportunities.
The recent visit of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam [To Lam] to Russia only confirmed that all our plans with our Vietnamese friends are absolutely realistic and achievable. I’m confident we will accomplish our goals.
Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr Putin.
Let’s stay in the Asian region a bit longer. I must say, with special feeling, I want to give the floor to our great friend, the General Director of China’s Xinhua agency—seated right next to you—Comrade Fu Hua.
In addition to journalism, he’s a member of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and a legal scholar. Last year, he participated in our BRICS media summit. We have long and strong ties with Xinhua.
Comrade Fu Hua, please.
Fu Hua (as translated): Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. You have long been a good friend of the Chinese people. Last time, you allowed Xinhua journalists to ask questions, and that gave us a great opportunity—we are very grateful. Now, we would like to ask you this:
In recent years, the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between Russia and China has shown stable development and yielded significant results in strengthening political trust. In your opinion, what new areas of cooperation could deepen Russian-Chinese interaction?
Last year, in an interview with Xinhua, you mentioned that your relatives are interested in learning the Chinese language. Could you clarify what role, in your view, people-to-people diplomacy and grassroots interaction play in strengthening the foundation of Russia-China relations?
Vladimir Putin: You know, when I mentioned that some of my close relatives are studying Chinese, I was talking about my granddaughter—her nanny is from Beijing, and she speaks Chinese fluently with her, fluently.
But my daughter began studying Chinese voluntarily back in the early 2000s—before any significant or widely known political events—simply because she wanted to. She hired a tutor and studied.
Using that as a starting point, I can say that interest in the Chinese language is growing in Russia. There’s nothing surprising about that, and it doesn’t make our relations with China unique—this happens with any country when contact and economic activity increase.
As soon as economic activity grows, there is a need for specialists—at one time in English, then German. In the 19th century, it was French—it’s still considered the language of diplomacy. But where is French now, unfortunately? English has replaced it.
The growing number of contacts in all spheres, as I mentioned, drives the need to study the language. Today, we continue our student exchange programs: we have 51,000 Chinese students in Russia, and about 25,000 Russian students in China. Our universities have direct partnerships—especially Moscow universities with Chinese ones.
We have many cultural and humanitarian exchanges. We regularly hold themed years—“China in Russia” and “Russia in China.” If I remember correctly, those themed years began with the Year of the Chinese Language in Russia and the Year of the Russian Language in China—not by chance. I think it was a very wise move that sparked mutual interest.
Listen, $240 billion in trade turnover—that’s substantial. Yes, China has more trade with Europe and the U.S., but Russia is becoming a very significant economic partner for China. We have over $200 billion worth of joint investment projects planned on both sides—they’re all realistic, and I have no doubt they’ll be implemented.
Of course, we need language specialists on both sides—Russian and Chinese. That’s just a given. Considering that China is the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity, and Russia is now in fourth place, this trend will only grow.
And let me repeat—just like I said last year—this is not about some kind of “pivot” to Asia. No, it’s a natural direction of cooperation. Why? Because economic volume is growing, that’s all. We noticed this trend back in the early 2000s, if not the late 1990s, and began building ties with China—not yesterday. That’s the point.
It’s not driven by temporary conditions—this is happening largely due to the growth in both volume and quality of the Chinese economy, and hopefully of the Russian economy as well. Maybe we’ll talk more about that.
Where do we see our priorities? First, the financial sector. We need to ensure reliable financial flows to support our growing trade turnover—$240 billion is no small sum.
We also need to focus more on high-tech sectors. I hope our Chinese friends will find things to be interested in here. For instance, we’re moving toward launching a heavy-lift helicopter project. Russia is the world leader—no one else makes heavy helicopters. The UN uses ours—they carry around 20 tons. China became interested, especially after tragic natural disasters.
There are also other areas—space, aviation.
But I’ll tell you honestly, what surprised and impressed us was the breakthrough China made in artificial intelligence—ten times cheaper and ten times more efficient than competitors. Remarkable achievements from our Chinese friends. And genetics and biology? These are vital fields—both for medicine and for the economy.
Lastly, we’re also developing military and military-technical cooperation. It’s extremely important for global stability. We have a full cooperation plan in this field—our defense ministries have their own interaction plans. We regularly conduct joint exercises and will continue to do so this year.
In the military-technical field, too, we collaborate. We understand our Chinese friends’ preferences—they’re not just interested in buying and selling; they want tech exchange. We’re ready for that and will work across all those areas.
Mikhail Gusman: Thank you very much, Mr Putin.
Now we’ll smoothly transition to Europe. I’d like to give the floor to the representative of a country you know very well—Germany.
Here with us is the head of the news service of DPA. The news service is the heart of any agency. Our friend Martin Romanczyk is here for the second time—he was at last year’s meeting. He has held many roles: head of sports, economics, and international desks—and now leads the entire news division.
Martin, the floor is yours.
Vladimir Putin:
And when you were involved in sports, which sport did you focus on the most?
Martin Romanczyk (as translated):
Primarily football.
Good evening, Mr. President! Thank you very much for the invitation and for the opportunity to be here.
The new Federal Chancellor [of Germany], Friedrich Merz, recently said that he could envision the possibility of a phone conversation with you.
Do you think such contact would be useful? Would you like to have contact with the new Federal Chancellor? And do you believe that Friedrich Merz could be a more successful mediator between Russia and Ukraine than Donald Trump?
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin:
If the Federal Chancellor wants to call and speak, as I’ve said many times, we do not refuse any contacts—we’re always open to that. A year and a half or two years ago, such conversations with Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz and other European leaders were held on a regular basis. But at some point, when our European partners decided to inflict a strategic defeat on us on the battlefield, they themselves cut off those contacts. They stopped them—fine, let them resume them. We’re open; I’ve said this many times.
Can Germany contribute more than the United States as a mediator in our negotiations with Ukraine? I doubt it. A mediator must be neutral. But when we see German Leopard tanks on the battlefield, and now we’re looking at the possibility that the Federal Republic is considering supplying Taurus missiles for strikes on Russian territory—not just the equipment itself, but with Bundeswehr officers involved—of course, serious questions arise. Everyone understands well that if this happens, it won’t change the course of military operations—this is out of the question—but it will certainly damage our relations badly.
Therefore, we currently view the Federal Republic, like many other European countries, not as a neutral state but as a party that supports Ukraine, and in some cases, possibly even as a co-participant in these hostilities.
Nevertheless, if there’s a desire to discuss this topic and present some ideas, I repeat once again: we’re always ready and open—go ahead.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
We’ll stay in Europe. Reuters doesn’t need a special introduction. Reuters representatives have taken part in nearly all the meetings you’ve held.
Today, with us is Simon Robinson, an executive editor at Reuters. He was born in Australia, but he has worked around the world: in the Middle East, the United States, and Africa. It’s his first time at our meeting, but he has a few questions for you.
Simon Robinson (as translated):
Thank you, Mr. President.
I have a question regarding Iran. Prime Minister [of Israel, Benjamin] Netanyahu stated that an Israeli attack on Iran could lead to regime change. Donald Trump has called for Iran’s unconditional surrender.
Do you agree with the Prime Minister [of Israel] and with the President [of the U.S.]?
Vladimir Putin:
I don’t quite understand your question. Agree with what? What exactly are you asking whether I agree with or not? You quoted their statements and then asked, “Do you agree?” Agree with what?
Simon Robinson (as translated):
Do you agree with their assessments that this could lead to regime change and that Iran should prepare for unconditional surrender?
Vladimir Putin:
As you know, Russia—and I personally—have been in contact both with the Prime Minister of Israel and, on this topic, with President Trump. It’s always important to ask whether the objective can actually be achieved when embarking on any action.
We can see that today, despite the complexity of internal political processes in Iran—we’re aware of them, and I think there’s no need to go into detail—there is, nonetheless, a consolidation of society around the country’s political leadership. That’s almost always the case everywhere, and Iran is no exception. That’s the first point.
Second, and this is important—everyone says it, I’ll just repeat what we all know and hear: these underground facilities, they exist, and nothing has happened to them. In this regard, I believe it would be better for everyone to work together to find ways to end hostilities and find solutions through dialogue among all parties involved in the conflict—solutions that would guarantee both Iran’s interests regarding its nuclear activities, including peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and Israel’s security as a Jewish state. This is a delicate issue and must be approached with great care. But in my view, such a solution is possible.
As you know, we once took over a project in Iran that had been started by German companies, and we completed the Bushehr nuclear power plant. The German companies left, and the Iranians asked us to continue. It was a challenge because what the German specialists had built was their own design, and Rosatom had to make significant efforts to adapt everything to the Russian design.
Nevertheless, we did it, and the unit is operating—successfully. We’ve signed a contract to build two more units. Work is underway, and our specialists—more than 200 people—are on site. We coordinated with the Israeli leadership to ensure their safety.
In general, I believe that given Iran’s plans to further develop peaceful nuclear technologies—including in agriculture, medicine, and beyond, not just nuclear energy—we could work together with Iran. Why do I think so? Because the level of trust between our countries is quite high. We have a very good relationship with Iran. We could continue this cooperation and help secure their interests in that field.
I won’t go into all the details now—there are many, and we’ve discussed them with both the Israeli and American sides. We’ve also signaled these ideas to our Iranian friends. Overall, it is possible to ensure Iran’s interests in peaceful nuclear energy while also addressing Israel’s security concerns.
I believe such options exist. We’ve communicated them, I repeat, to all our partners—the U.S., Israel, and Iran. We’re not imposing anything—we’re simply sharing how we see a possible way out of the situation. But the decision, of course, lies with the political leadership of these countries—primarily Iran and Israel.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
This year, as you know, marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Russia and Indonesia. The President of Indonesia has arrived in St. Petersburg to participate in the economic forum. I understand you’ll be meeting with him tomorrow or the day after.
But the Director General of the Indonesian news agency has beaten his president to it and already has the opportunity to meet with you today. So, let’s give him the floor.
Please.
Akhmad Munir (as translated):
Today, we are very proud to witness President Prabowo’s visit to Russia. We also want to make a significant contribution to the work of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum.
We see that our President Prabowo has a special closeness to Russia. Even before his official appointment, he had already met with you, Mr. President. We view this as a very important official occasion for our countries.
I have another question: What priority does Mr Putin place on Indonesia at a time when our relations with Russia are celebrating their 75th anniversary?
We are already investing. We have cooperation in tourism, military affairs, and trade. Indonesia is now working to attract investment, especially from large countries, and we have special programs focused on nickel extraction and manufacturing—where Indonesia is the source.
Secondly, we would like to know what role Russia can play in improving the situation regarding the current economic uncertainty in the world. Right now, we see different global “axes”—one centered around China, another around the U.S., and others in major global powers.
I believe that in the future, Asia will need more certainty in the economic sphere—including for Indonesia, which has great potential in terms of population, labor force, and its geopolitical position on the international stage.
Vladimir Putin:
You’ve absolutely correctly characterized the relationship between Russia and Indonesia and our personal rapport with the President of Indonesia. Indeed, after the elections—but even before the inauguration—he considered it important to come to Moscow on a visit, and we greatly appreciated that. It’s a very strong signal that Indonesia, under its current President, is committed to comprehensive development of our relations.
What can I say? Indonesia is developing at a very rapid pace. It is becoming one of the world’s largest countries. What’s the population now—almost 300 million?
Akhmad Munir (as translated):
280 million people.
Vladimir Putin:
Imagine that—280 million people! Many European countries—even we in Russia—consider ourselves great powers. But think about this: Indonesia has 280 million and continues to grow.
Do you see what’s happening? The world is changing drastically—fundamentally. And it’s not just about population size—it’s that the economies of these countries are rapidly transforming: their economic structures are shifting, their total GDPs are rising, growth rates are increasing, education levels are rising.
All of these countries, of course, will strive to reach higher income levels for their populations. That will inevitably trigger a whole range of activities in their economies, science, and education sectors. They’re becoming very serious and powerful players in the world economy.
That’s exactly how we view Indonesia—especially given our very warm, decades-long friendly and trustworthy relationship. Of course, we’ll maintain our traditional areas of cooperation. But we’ll also aim to diversify our ties. I think the current trade volume doesn’t match our potential.
Tomorrow we’ll have an in-depth conversation with the President of Indonesia. We’ll discuss all the areas we consider priorities. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, because he’s already here and we’re meeting tomorrow morning—we’ll spend several hours together and go into detail.
But you mentioned certain issues—the U.S.-China tensions over tariffs and trade. Yes, China does have a surplus in trade. Perhaps it should be balanced—but I agree with our Chinese friends: this should be done calmly, through negotiation. And of course, you can achieve results that way.
I have no doubt that the U.S. will eventually come to the same conclusion. The current administration is raising the stakes, but in the end, everything shifts to negotiations and seeking mutually acceptable solutions. I think that will happen in other areas too.
The Chinese President once proposed the well-known “One Belt, One Road” initiative. It’s about creating conditions for cooperation not only with immediate neighbors but with broader regional partners. And you know—it’s working. It really is.
Indonesia is starting to work with BRICS—confidently. We will fully support Indonesia’s integration into the BRICS family, ensuring it receives dividends from this joint work and feels that BRICS principles positively influence your country’s economic development.
And the BRICS countries, including Russia, of course, are very interested in expanding relations with Indonesia in areas that are priorities for you. Again—above all—this includes high technologies. We have a lot to offer our Indonesian partners, and I’m sure Indonesia can offer us interesting ideas too. Tomorrow, the President and I will discuss all of this in detail.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you.
Mr Putin, you know, for many years we’ve had very close and strong partnership ties with our friends in the Kazakhstani media—we’re in constant communication.
Some time ago, the respected President of Kazakhstan, Kassym-Jomart Kemelevich Tokayev, created a large television and radio complex, which includes the Kazinform news agency and its network.
Our friend and colleague is here with us today—Askar Dzhaldzinov. He used to head Kazinform, and now he’s deputy director of the television and radio complex, while still overseeing information policy.
I’d like to give him the floor.
Askar Dzhaldinov:
Mr Putin, thank you for the invitation.
My question is as follows. Economic cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia continues to show a positive trend. In your opinion, what can our countries do to further stimulate the development of trade and economic ties, especially in the face of global challenges?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, we have a special relationship with Kazakhstan—that’s obvious, and everyone understands it well. We are allies in the most direct sense of the word. Our shared history within a single state and the enormous number of interpersonal and humanitarian ties between our peoples are of great importance.
Kazakhstan is a member of the CSTO—our collective security organization—and also a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. We also cooperate within the SCO and other organizations. All of this is very significant, because it creates a framework for developing cooperation in areas that are strategically important to us.
I must speak about energy: this has always been one of the key areas of our cooperation. You know that we have been supplying energy resources, and we are now considering expanding gas deliveries. In the Soviet Union, gas infrastructure was built in such a way that some energy resources came from Russia to Kazakhstan, and local infrastructure like pipelines was not developed in Kazakhstan. Supplies came traditionally from Russia—within a unified state, that’s how it was done. We have continued this approach.
Currently, we’re discussing with the President of Kazakhstan the possibility of expanding this cooperation in energy. We're also considering how we might jointly enter third-country markets and organize logistics for the export of Kazakh oil.
As you know, the bulk of Kazakhstan’s oil exports pass through the Russian Federation, mainly via the CPC—the Caspian Pipeline Consortium—and other routes as well. Nearly all of Kazakhstan’s oil exports go through Russia. We understand Kazakhstan’s interest in diversification, and we are ready to support that, to help in every possible way. We have worked together in Europe and, so far, continue to do so.
Our space cooperation is ongoing, and it extends beyond the use of the Baikonur Cosmodrome. It also includes satellite development and joint research in space.
Today, almost 95% of our mutual trade is settled in national currencies. That is a very strong indicator. It allows us to avoid slowing down trade due to difficulties in money transfers and cross-border payments for goods and services.
I don’t even need to mention our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, particularly in education. It’s developing very actively. I fully expect this to continue: Kassym-Jomart Kemelevich [Tokayev] deeply understands the importance of Russia-Kazakhstan relations, and we truly value that. We reciprocate, and we will continue to do so.
Finally, in the area of law enforcement, we are working together to counter threats posed by organized crime and terrorism. That’s critically important. As I mentioned, we are both members of the CSTO, and our defense ministries are in regular and effective cooperation.
Let me stress: this cooperation has never been and is not now directed against third countries. It’s about ensuring security in our region, especially considering the number of destabilizing factors we face—for example, the situation in Afghanistan. Kazakhstan doesn’t have a shared border with Afghanistan, but some of our other partners do, and we’re aware of past instances of terrorist groups infiltrating those neighboring countries.
After all, we share the longest land border in the world—the Russia-Kazakhstan border. That’s significant and adds to the importance of our bilateral relations. We will continue to develop our relationship in that context as well. So, once again: Kazakhstan is undoubtedly one of the closest states to us. It is our ally.
I don’t see any obstacles to the further development of our relations—none at all. We will continue to look for new areas of cooperation. As you know, I meet regularly with President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. He visits us, and I’m always glad to visit Kazakhstan. Our governments and foreign ministries are in continuous contact—working together in nonstop consultation.
Askar Dzhaldinov:
Thank you very much.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
To my right sits someone you already know well—our dear colleague and friend from the Spanish news agency EFE, Manuel Sanz Mingote. In Spain, he’s known not only as an excellent journalist but also as a historian, philosopher, and popular lecturer. I’d like to ask him to pose his question—he’s been waiting for this moment.
Please.
Manuel Sanz Mingote (as translated):
First of all, I’d like to join my colleagues in thanking you for the opportunity to be here, where you listen directly to news agencies, and to thank TASS for its hospitality.
As you know, in a few days there will be a NATO summit. One of the topics they’ll discuss is Europe’s plan to rearm and increase military spending.
My question is very straightforward: if you had the opportunity to speak to these NATO members, what would your message be? And do you view NATO’s rearmament as a threat to Russia?
Vladimir Putin:
We do not see NATO’s rearmament as a threat to the Russian Federation because we are fully capable of ensuring our own security, and we are constantly improving our Armed Forces and defense capabilities.
Whatever NATO does—of course it creates certain risks—but we neutralize all threats that may arise. There’s no doubt about that. So this rearmament and increasing military budgets to 5% of NATO countries’ GDP is meaningless. That’s the first point.
Second. You know, for centuries—and unfortunately, I can state this with full confidence—Western elites have periodically raised the specter of a “Russian threat.” It’s been a convenient way to conduct internal politics: fabricate a threat from the East, extract funds from taxpayers, and use it to justify economic failures. If we look through history books together, we’ll find this theme repeated over and over.
The current crisis in Russia–Western Europe relations may seem to have started in 2014. But the real issue isn’t Crimea’s reunification with Russia—it’s that Western countries supported a coup d’état in Ukraine.
You remember how we always heard: “We must follow the rules.” But what rules are those? Three countries—France, Germany, and Poland—came to Kyiv and signed an agreement as guarantors between the opposition and President Yanukovych’s government. Their foreign ministers signed it. I see my colleague from Germany looking at me—Mr. Steinmeier was foreign minister then—he signed it. And then, just days later, the opposition overthrew the government—and no one said a word. As if nothing happened. And then we’re told to “follow the rules”? What rules? The kind you make for others while ignoring yourselves? Who’s going to live by those?
That’s when the crisis began—not because Russia acted from a position of strength. It was our former partners who did. And former Deputy Secretary of State Nuland said outright: “We spent $5 billion. We’re not walking away now.” Five billion dollars spent on regime change. Quite a revelation!
Our Western partners have always acted from a position of strength since the collapse of the USSR. Understandably so—after WWII, the world order was based on a balance between the victors. Then one of the victors—namely, the Soviet Union—disappeared. And the West began rewriting all the rules to suit itself.
After Crimea, events unfolded in southeastern Ukraine. The people there didn’t recognize the coup. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the new authorities used the army against them. We watched, we tried to mediate—for eight years. That’s not five days—eight years of attempts to get Kyiv, whose authority came from a coup, to reach an agreement with Donbas. Ultimately, Ukraine’s current authorities declared that the Minsk Agreements didn’t suit them and would not be implemented.
Meanwhile, people there were suffering—eight years of abuse. Even now, they persecute the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian-speaking citizens. Everyone pretends not to notice.
Eventually, we decided to end this conflict—yes, by using our Armed Forces. Does that mean we plan to attack Eastern Europe? Really?
One of Hitler’s propagandists used to say: “The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.” This idea that Russia wants to attack NATO or Europe—that’s that same big lie. Those spreading it don’t even believe it themselves. Honestly, do any of you really think Russia is preparing to attack NATO? What nonsense!
NATO countries spend $1.4 trillion on defense—more than the rest of the world combined, including Russia and China. NATO has 340 million people; Russia has 145–150 million. Our defense spending isn’t even comparable. And yet we’re the ones supposedly preparing to invade? It’s absurd.
Everyone understands it’s absurd. But it’s useful for extracting more money from budgets—5% GDP on defense—to cover economic and social failures. Germany, the EU’s leading economy, is teetering on recession. I still don’t understand why Germany gave up Russian energy. We supplied gas through Ukraine; Ukraine earned $400 million annually in transit fees. But Germany refused Russian gas. Why? There’s no rational explanation.
Volkswagen is collapsing, Porsche too. The glass industry, fertilizers—whole sectors are dying. For what? Just to spite the conductor, I’ll buy a ticket and not ride the train? Ridiculous.
So if NATO countries want to increase their defense budgets further, that’s their choice. But it won’t help anyone. It only increases risks—but it’s their decision. I believe it’s irrational, meaningless. Russia poses no threat—this is nonsense. As Goebbels said: the more incredible the lie, the easier it is to believe. Maybe some Europeans believe it.
They’d be better off saving their car industry and raising wages.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
Now I’d like to turn to my longtime friend from Turkey. Right now, a lot of attention is focused on Turkey: on one hand, Istanbul is a major international negotiation platform; on the other hand, it’s summer and many Russians—and not just Russians—are heading there for vacation.
Serdar Karagöz represents Anadolu—the leading Turkish news agency. He’s the Chairman of the Board and Director General. One more thing: he’s probably the wisest of our colleagues—he’s the only one who brought his wife to this meeting. So we endorse that initiative, and it’s a message to the rest of you to bring your wives next time.
Serdar, the floor is yours.
Vladimir Putin:
Either he brought his wife, or she didn’t let him go alone—we don’t know.
Mikhail Gusman:
I’ll be honest—we talked about it. Most likely she said, “You’re not going without me.” He can confirm that.
Vladimir Putin:
Still, let’s hope that your wife simply wanted to visit Russia and St. Petersburg. I hope she enjoys it.
Mikhail Gusman:
She even speaks Russian.
Vladimir Putin:
Wonderful.
Serdar Karagöz (as translated):
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
My wife studied in Russia at university. She truly wanted to come, and we enjoyed the wonderful concert—it was magnificent.
Russia has always paid attention to the arts and literature throughout its history. On one hand, cultural events continue in Russia; on the other hand, there is an actual war between Russia and Ukraine. I’d like to talk to you about how this war might end.
Earlier in this war, you and President Erdoğan signed the grain corridor agreement—together, you helped save millions from hunger. Even under such conditions, you found solutions to complex problems.
Last week, President Erdoğan called for a peace summit in Turkey. President Zelensky immediately agreed. President Trump said: “If Putin goes, I’ll go too.” But from the Kremlin we heard that the conditions were not yet ripe.
So I’d like to ask: Do you believe leaders have a crucial role to play in resolving this? And what conditions must be met for leaders to meet and bring an end to this conflict?
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin:
Regarding President Trump’s statement, I heard it a bit differently. Mr. Trump said, "Putin’s not going because I’m not going. What’s the point of him going if I’m not there?" And he’s right. In that sense, he’s absolutely right. That’s the first point.
Second. He has repeatedly stated that if he were president, this war wouldn’t have happened. And I think he’s right there, too. Let me explain why.
In one of my last phone calls with Mr. Biden—I won’t go into the details now (of course, we have recordings of those conversations)—I told him: "Don’t push this toward a hot conflict. Resolve things peacefully. And pressure the current Ukrainian leadership to meet the demands of its own citizens in the southeast—stop the genocide of Russian-speaking people, stop the human rights violations," which the previous U.S. administration used to highlight, by the way.
I told him: "It may seem simple now, but time will pass, and you might realize you shouldn’t have pushed things in this direction." I said this to Biden. And indeed, had Trump been president, perhaps this conflict wouldn’t have broken out. I fully allow for that possibility.
Now, regarding high-level meetings. You know, I personally took part in the Minsk negotiations—we spoke for 17 hours straight, all through the night. Yes, we agreed on principles, but the Western side did not follow through. A former German chancellor even publicly admitted they only needed time to arm Ukraine. She said this of her own accord—no one forced her. The former President of France confirmed the same. They said it themselves, you see? So it became clear that our so-called Western partners never intended to implement anything.
What’s needed is a solution that not only ends today’s conflict but prevents similar crises from recurring in the long term.
At the beginning, we urged the Ukrainian side to reintegrate the breakaway regions under the Minsk agreements—but they refused. That’s what ultimately led to the armed conflict.
Now, what did we do? As I’ve said to Secretary-General Guterres and publicly: people can argue, accuse Russia of aggression—but listen: you don’t need to be a specialist in international law to understand this logic.
Part of a country decided to break away. That’s the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in southeastern Ukraine. Did they have the right? Strictly speaking, under international law and the UN Charter, they did. The relevant article—probably the first—guarantees the right of nations to self-determination.
Second. Did this region need permission from the central government in Kyiv to do so? No. The UN International Court ruled in the Kosovo case that if a part of a country decides to secede, it doesn’t need to seek permission from the central government. That’s it.
So, Donbas seceded. Then, did we have the right to recognize them? We waited eight years—we were patient, tried to negotiate. Eventually, they declared independence. We recognized them—why not?
Having done that, we signed a treaty of mutual assistance with them. Could we do that? Of course. We did. Under that treaty, ratified by our parliament, we were obligated to provide assistance, including military. They officially requested help—so we provided it.
Where was the mistake? At what step? You won’t find it—because there is none. Each step logically followed the previous one.
And when I refer to the Kosovo precedent—I remember what happened. Western European countries and the U.S. pressured the UN court to reach that decision, which states: a seceding part of a country is not required to ask central authorities for consent.
So—done. You created the precedent. And now you’re surprised? You can, but others can’t? That’s not how it works. Rules must be universal to be stable—and stability is a guarantee of security for all, not just for some at the expense of others. That’s the key principle.
Now then—yes, we’re ready to meet. I even said I’m ready to meet with anyone—including Zelensky. That’s not the issue. If the Ukrainian state authorizes someone to negotiate—fine, let it be Zelensky. The issue is: who will sign the final document?
This isn’t about propaganda—it’s about legality. According to the Ukrainian Constitution, the president is elected for five years. There is no mechanism to extend the term—even under martial law. Read carefully: only parliament’s powers are extended. Elections aren’t held—but nowhere does it say the president’s powers are prolonged. That’s it.
Ukraine is a presidential-parliamentary republic. That means all branches of power are formed by the president: all military leaders, ministers, governors—they’re all appointed, not elected. So, if the president is illegitimate, the whole government structure becomes illegitimate.
Why do I say this? Because we don’t care who negotiates—even if it’s the current head of the regime. I’m ready to meet. But if it’s a final agreement, it must be signed by a legitimate authority. Otherwise, someone new could come along and throw it in the trash. That’s not acceptable—we’re talking about serious matters. So I don’t rule it out—but serious groundwork must be done first.
And finally—maybe not the main point, but an important one: long before the conflict, we pleaded with Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreements. They refused. Then the special military operation began. Immediately, we said: “Withdraw your troops from Donetsk and Luhansk”—the territories we had recognized as independent—and everything will end tomorrow. They refused: “No, we’ll fight.” So we’re fighting...
Later, a Western colleague asked me: “Would you consider withdrawing from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? You were fighting for Donetsk and Luhansk, not those.” I replied: “That was the logic of military operations.” He asked: “Would you consider some form of Ukrainian sovereignty?” I said: “Maybe—but only with a land corridor to Crimea—unimpeded passage.”
Why? Because they constantly threaten to blow up the Crimean Bridge. It’s simple. He asked: “Can I bring this up in Kyiv?” I said: “Sure.” He did. And they called him a Kremlin agent—this was a top official from a well-known country. Utter nonsense. They simply refused.
So we responded to requests from citizens in those territories, held a referendum, and now those regions are part of the Russian Federation. And I warned that things would get worse for them—now it’s not just about Donetsk and Luhansk, but two additional Russian regions, plus Crimea. Let’s discuss it.
By the way, in the Istanbul negotiations in 2022—thanks again to President Erdoğan—we actually reached an agreement. It may sound strange, but we did. The draft included denazification and territorial matters.
We found language that both sides could accept. But then came those who want to hike defense budgets—in Europe and overseas—and they said: “No, let’s defeat Russia on the battlefield.” And everything we’d agreed on was thrown out. All in pursuit of that brilliant goal.
Now, things have changed. They say: “Let’s negotiate.” Fine—let’s reopen those documents and start talks. But not endless talks for a whole year. We’re ready to continue those negotiations.
On the humanitarian front, there is already meaningful progress. We’ve agreed to exchange 1,200 prisoners. We’ve returned 500, and received 400 in return. I believe we’ll get all those we’re entitled to.
It’s tragic to say, but we’ve returned over 6,000 bodies of Ukrainian soldiers—and received only 57 in return. We’re ready to return about 3,000 more. Again, these are grim statistics.
Still, this is a humanitarian issue, and a positive result of the Istanbul talks. Thank you for providing that platform—and thank you to President Erdoğan.
And we are ready to engage in substantive negotiations on principles for settlement. But the Ukrainian side must be ready too. And their Western sponsors and so-called allies must stop pushing them to fight to the last Ukrainian—and instead point to today’s realities and push them toward agreement, not continued war. That’s it.
Our negotiating teams are in contact. I just asked Mr. Medinsky—he said he spoke with his counterpart from Kyiv today. They’re tentatively discussing a meeting after June 22.
And I must say frankly: Mr. Fidan—and of course President Erdoğan—are doing a great deal to help resolve this conflict. I’ll say it openly—so is U.S. President Trump. I believe he sincerely wants a resolution.
Of course, we’ll also rely on the positions of our friends in China, India, and other BRICS countries. We’re in constant contact with them about this. They are deeply concerned. When I meet with their leaders, most of our conversations begin with this topic—and I explain everything to them.
We’re grateful that they care, that they’re exploring ways to resolve this conflict. Believe me—we want it to end, and as soon as possible. Preferably peacefully, if we can agree.
That’s all.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
You know Irina Borisovna well—she heads, without exaggeration, our brotherly Belarusian agency. I understand it’s not easy for her, because when the head of state is such a demanding, strict, and respected person as Alexander Lukashenko, it’s not easy to lead a state news agency. But she’s doing a great job. It’s an excellent agency, and we have very close ties.
I'd like to give her the floor. Please.
Irina Borisovna:
Thank you for such an assessment.
Mr Putin, at the very beginning of your speech, you said that you are against wars and restrictions. And your position against war and economic restrictions—trade wars and economic blockades—is well known. The Belarusian leader holds the same view.
Nonetheless, we are where we are: Western sanctions against Russia and Belarus have forced both countries to reconsider many of their economic ties. Yet, because of that, many interesting and promising projects have emerged in both Russia and Belarus.
Does the Union State of Russia and Belarus have a “Plan B” in case sanction pressure intensifies—which, most likely, it will?
And within the EAEU framework, the Eurasian Economic Forum will be held in Minsk in just ten days. I’d like to hear your opinion on this organization. Is there a chance it will expand?
Vladimir Putin:
Let’s start with the so-called “Plan B.” First of all, we have a “Plan A”—and it outlines what we should do to develop our relationship and economies. Then “Plan B” says: if something doesn’t work, refer to Plan A. Everything will work out for us—there’s no doubt about that.
Because the trade turnover between Russia and Belarus has reached $50 billion—that’s a serious number. And it's still growing, including through industrial cooperation. We are seeking opportunities to deepen our relationship in various areas, even those we may not have collaborated in before, or where cooperation had remained at the Soviet-era level—like microelectronics.
President Lukashenko was often criticized or mocked for preserving certain elements of a planned Soviet-style system. But first of all, it’s not exactly so, and second—he preserved some industries that are now, under tough sanctions, in high demand. That includes enterprises in the field of microelectronics.
Of course, we need to scale up production. Much still needs to be done, and other countries have taken decades to develop in these areas. But we have the opportunity to make a strong, fast, and significant joint leap.
We can also cooperate in aviation. In some cases, Belarus may manufacture smaller aircraft on its own—with our cooperation. In others, Belarus can be deeply involved in larger joint aircraft projects, where final assembly happens in Russia.
In agricultural machinery—no need to even elaborate—it’s well known. The degree of Belarusian participation in equipment assembled in Russia is already well beyond 50%, if I recall correctly. I won’t list all the other areas—there are many.
On logistics: Belarus is one of the world’s major fertilizer suppliers, and practically the entire export volume now goes through Russia’s ports.
Of course, we have issues we debate over—and those discussions happen non-stop, constantly. I won’t go into details now, but we always find solutions. We genuinely seek them, and so we find them. I’m sure that will continue.
As for the EAEU—yes, it is the most deeply integrated association on the territory of the former Soviet Union. And it’s integrated not in words, but in deeds. Kazakhstan originally proposed creating the EAEU, and we’re grateful to our friends for that. The organization is developing.
Yes, it’s not without difficulties. Yes, we may not yet be fully ready for completely unified markets in certain energy sectors—but we’re moving in that direction. We will get there—no doubt. It’s just a matter of time and pace.
You’re probably aware of our constant discussions on energy supply matters. We find solutions—even some quite original ones (which I won’t detail here, as it's better not to make them public). But we find them, and I’m confident we’ll continue to.
I remain very optimistic about cooperation within the EAEU and in our bilateral relations, including the building of the Union State. We’ve achieved a great deal in recent years. I don’t remember the exact percentages, but we've completed nearly all of our integration roadmap.
We’ve done very important work in the areas of customs and tax statistics. And taxes and customs are fundamental for creating the conditions for further economic cooperation.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
Let me introduce another familiar face from last year’s meeting—the head of European news for Agence France-Presse, Karim Talbi. He is a master of news journalism, enjoys unquestionable authority at AFP, and also speaks Russian—I noticed he barely used his earpiece while listening to your responses.
Karim, please go ahead.
Karim Talbi:
Good evening!
May I return to the topic of Iran and Israel?
Vladimir Putin:
Please.
Karim Talbi:
If tomorrow Israel—whether with U.S. support or without—were to assassinate [Iran’s Supreme Leader] Khamenei, what would your reaction be? What would Russia’s reaction be? What would be your first steps? That’s the first part of my question.
Vladimir Putin:
Mr. Talbi, if I may—this is the most appropriate answer I can give: I don’t even want to discuss such a possibility. I refuse to.
Karim Talbi:
But they are openly discussing it themselves—Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu.
Vladimir Putin:
I’ve heard it all. But I don’t want to even talk about it.
Karim Talbi:
The second part of my question also concerns Iran. There is a strategic partnership treaty between Russia and Iran. It doesn’t provide for Russia to defend Iran, but there is the matter of weapons.
Given the current escalation, are you ready to supply Iran with new types of weapons so that it can defend itself against Israeli strikes?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, we once proposed cooperation with our Iranian friends in the field of air defense systems. At the time, our partners showed little interest—and that was the end of it.
As for the strategic partnership treaty you mentioned—indeed, it contains no provisions related to defense. That’s the second point.
Third: our Iranian friends have not asked us for anything of the sort. So there’s practically nothing to discuss.
Karim Talbi:
May I clarify one thing?
Vladimir Putin:
Yes, of course.
Karim Talbi (AFP):
You did, after all, deliver the S-300 and a modified version of the S-200 to Iran—so in terms of air defense, Russia is playing a role in protecting Iran.
Vladimir Putin:
You know, that’s not quite the same thing. What we proposed was something different: not just delivering individual units, but working together to create systems—a full air defense architecture. We discussed this in the past, but our Iranian partners didn’t show much interest, and the idea eventually faded away.
As for individual deliveries—yes, of course, we did provide those systems at one time. But that has nothing to do with today’s crisis. It was standard military-technical cooperation, conducted strictly within the bounds of international law.
Iran never requested anything from us that would violate international norms—and Russia never did anything outside the framework of the legal international regulatory base. We’ve always adhered to that.
Karim Talbi:
Just one more question—
Mikhail Gusman:
Let’s save it for the next round.
Mr Putin, I’d like to introduce someone else you know—Abdusaid Kuchimov, the Director General of Uzbekistan’s national news agency, UzA. In addition to being an outstanding journalist and longtime agency head, he’s also the author of nearly 20 books of poetry. Honestly, I suspect he wanted to read you a poem more than ask a question. But I told him: "Save the poems for next time—today, ask your question." And that’s what we agreed.
Go ahead, Said.
Vladimir Putin:
Will the poetry be in Uzbek?
Mikhail Gusman:
Yes, in Uzbek. He writes beautifully.
Abdusaid Kuchimov:
Dear Mr Putin,
You know that there is a very high level of interest in Uzbekistan in everything that happens in Russia and around Russia. This is primarily due to our historical, traditionally friendly ties, and the close mental and cultural affinity of our peoples.
Secondly, our society greatly appreciates and supports the tremendous work you are doing together with our President, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, to strengthen our cooperation.
Today, relations between Uzbekistan and Russia are at an unprecedentedly high level. Of course, there are still some issues—some rough edges, particularly in the area of migration—but we see that efforts are underway to address them.
In this regard, I have both a question and a suggestion, if I may. I believe the guarantee for the long-term development of our relations lies in how our youth will engage with one another and how they perceive each other.
Much is already being done in this area—our youth organizations are actively cooperating and participating in various events.
But I believe there is a real need for a comprehensive, long-term youth exchange program, with clear projects and directions. Such a program would bring young people closer together, strengthen a positive and friendly perception of one another for years to come—based on traditional societal values, our shared history, and, of course, it would help smooth over the issues I mentioned earlier.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on this, Mr Putin.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
First of all, I want to confirm that relations between our countries are developing very successfully and steadily. When I responded to your colleague from Kazakhstan, I mentioned that we have many possible trilateral projects—including very significant ones in nuclear energy, both in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. We're actively working on them and are at a promising stage of development.
By the way, at the start of our meeting, when we spoke about Indonesia, I mentioned how quickly the world is changing: nearly 300 million people in Indonesia now. It’s the same with Uzbekistan. Thirty years ago, there were maybe 15 or 18 million people. Today—38 million. And every year, another million is added. Every year! That’s how rapidly things are changing.
Naturally, we understand that there are many social and labor market-related issues. We’re aware of that. And Shavkat Mirziyoyev and I agreed that we will address these migration issues together. Why? Because we know the state of the labor market—there’s pressure on your side.
But we agreed on what needs to be done: to prepare people who want to work in Russia in advance. That means studying the Russian language, learning Russian culture, and so on. There’s already a solid plan in place, and I hope we will implement it successfully.
In that context, work with young people is extremely important and valuable. I fully agree with you. As far as I know, President Mirziyoyev’s aide—Saida Shavkatovna—was recently in Moscow and met with many of my colleagues in the government and in the Presidential Administration. She’s personally overseeing the development of youth contacts and this whole area of cooperation on behalf of the President.
There are specific proposals in this area, and we will definitely work together on them. Youth cooperation is one of the most important areas—absolutely, I agree with you.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
Now I’d like to give the floor to someone joining us for the second time—James Jordan, the Executive Editor for news at the Associated Press.
By the way, I want to note that despite the various ups and downs in relations between Russia and the United States, our agency, TASS, and the Associated Press have maintained steady cooperation in many forms. And AP has taken part in nearly all of these meetings—this is their ninth time.
James Jordan, please.
James Jordan (translated):
Thank you very much, Mr. Gusman, for the introduction. Thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address these questions to you directly. I greatly appreciate it.
Regarding the confrontation between Iran and Israel—on June 13, Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned Israeli strikes on Iran. It was stated that the attacks were unprovoked, that they were military strikes against a sovereign UN member, against its citizens, peaceful cities, and critical infrastructure. The ministry called them “absolutely unacceptable.”
Here’s a simple question: how does this stance align with Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine? Just yesterday, 28 civilians were killed in Kyiv. Our journalists witnessed a Russian missile destroy an entire city block. How can these two positions be reconciled?
And a follow-up: are there any plans for a meeting or perhaps a phone call with President Trump?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
As for our actions in Ukraine, I just spoke about this in detail when answering your Turkish colleague, so repeating it seems unnecessary.
We believe we did not initiate military action in Ukraine—we are trying to end it.
The current Ukrainian leadership started the war on its own territory after the coup in Kyiv. They used the armed forces—including heavy weapons and aviation—against the civilian population in the southeast of Ukraine at that time, against Donbas, against Luhansk and Donetsk.
They struck residential neighborhoods directly. For some reason, no one wants to remember that today, but it was that policy that led to the current armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
Secondly, if your journalists saw entire residential blocks destroyed by our missiles, then they likely wouldn’t have survived to report on it. If they saw something, it was from a distance. And our strikes were not on residential areas, but on facilities of the defense-industrial complex—factories producing military equipment. That is what we target—and we do not hide that.
One of the goals of the special military operation is the demilitarization of Ukraine, meaning depriving it of the ability to maintain armed forces that pose a threat to us. We either have to agree on this—something we did during the Istanbul talks in 2022, where we reached agreements on the size of Ukraine’s military, its armament, and troop numbers—or we must enforce it militarily.
But those agreements were scrapped—thrown out, as I’ve said—due to pressure from Ukraine’s Western allies, who decided to fight Russia “to the last Ukrainian” and seek full strategic victory.
This isn’t happening. Therefore, in the absence of peaceful agreements, we are forced to achieve this goal—demilitarization—through military means. We will not allow Ukraine to have armed forces that can threaten Russia or its people in the future.
Those are the strikes your journalists witnessed. And if we cannot come to terms peacefully, we will achieve our aims through military action. There’s nothing unusual in that. I hope this part answers your question.
As for the statement by the Foreign Ministry—it is, in my view, quite clear and transparent, and grounded in international law.
Regarding the legality of our actions in Ukraine under international law, I’ve already explained the logic—from one step to the next. We believe our actions fully comply with the UN Charter.
As for the Foreign Ministry’s position—you can judge for yourself what seems objective and what might be exaggerated. I didn’t see anything exaggerated in it. I hope I’ve addressed that part of your question.
On a possible meeting with President Trump - such a meeting would, without doubt, be extremely useful. I agree with the President of the United States—it should be well prepared and yield positive results.
It’s a good path. President Trump and I spoke several times by phone. We respect his intention to restore relations with Russia in many areas—security, the economy, and more.
Look at the numbers: our imports from the U.S. have decreased tenfold, and U.S. imports into Russia have dropped more than fourfold. Granted, the original numbers weren’t very high—around $27 billion—but now they’ve shrunk to just a few. However, last year, our trade volume with the U.S. actually increased. With many European countries, it’s falling; with the U.S., it grew.
So, I have hope that Mr. Trump is not only a politician entrusted by the American people with their country’s fate, but also a businessman. And that’s a big plus—he calculates everything. And clearly, since he’s become wealthy, he must be good at it. He weighs what certain steps toward Russia will cost taxpayers, what the economic impact will be on the U.S.—whether such actions will yield gains or losses.
We now see interest from American businesses in re-establishing ties with Russia. There are already contacts between large companies aiming to return to our market and work together. That gives us a certain cautious optimism. And I hope that the President of the United States and his team will see and hear this and, together with business representatives, take steps to restore U.S.-Russia relations.
We also have contacts with Mr. Rubio—Secretary of State—and with Vice President Mr. Vance. Overall, conditions for restoring relations are gradually forming. We hope this trend continues. We’re ready for it.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you, Mr Putin.
Let me now give the floor to the Chairman of the Board of Azerbaijan’s state agency AZERTAC—Vugar Aliyev. I must admit, as someone born in Baku myself, I asked Vugar to conclude this round of questions so no one accuses me of favoring a fellow native. So, he’ll have the last word in this round.
Vugar Aliyev:
Good day, Mr. President!
First, I’d like to thank you for this meeting.
My question concerns the issue of the Caspian Sea’s shallowing. While in Baku, you discussed this matter with President Ilham Aliyev and then gave instructions to the appropriate Russian agencies.
Preliminary studies show that the drop in water level is continuing. It’s important to note that over 80% of the water in the Caspian comes from the Volga River—but the Volga’s flow is also sharply declining.
What measures is the Russian side taking in this regard?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, President Ilham Aliyev raised this issue, and I responded immediately. It had somehow passed me by, even though it is unquestionably a major—if not global—problem. We know the tragic case of the Aral Sea and so on. Here, we need coordinated and timely action.
The Russian government has been tasked accordingly, and I know they’re working with the Azerbaijani government to explore options.
What’s important is to act persistently, steadily—not in fits and starts. I don’t know how feasible it is to resist natural forces. Beyond human activity in the Volga Delta, there may also be global causes at play. As far as I know, historically the Caspian’s water level has always fluctuated—rising and falling.
We need to investigate these causes and do everything within our power to prevent irreversible consequences. We’re working with our colleagues on this. I can’t yet name specific measures, but I know the work is underway.
And overall, speaking of Azerbaijan—last year, our trade turnover increased by 7%, which is a good indicator. We have a promising “North–South” project and several other good areas of cooperation—in logistics, in manufacturing, including shipbuilding. We’re ready to supply orders to the Baku shipyard. There’s plenty to work on, and these projects are well grounded.
I hope we’ll carry them all out.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you very much, Mr Putin.
Mikhail Gusman:
Mr Putin, thank you very much.
You know, my colleagues at the TASS agency wouldn’t understand if I didn’t ask a question on behalf of TASS. But frankly, this isn’t even a question—it's more of a cry from the heart, something that truly pains us.
If you exclude military professions, it turns out that being a journalist has become one of the most dangerous professions in recent years. Our colleagues are being killed in conflict zones all over the world. We—Russian journalists—have lost a number of our own. This is our grief, our sorrow: colleagues from VGTRK, from Izvestia. But really, this affects journalists worldwide. It’s a shared pain.
In your view, what could and should international organizations like the United Nations, or UNESCO, be doing? There used to be a saying: “Don’t shoot the pianist—he plays the best he can.” One mustn’t shoot journalists. These are honest people, unarmed, who carry out their professional duties with honor.
What actions can be taken to stop the killing of journalists? Just over the past year, the number of journalists killed has risen by 10%, and now, halfway through this year, it has already surpassed last year’s total.
Vladimir Putin:
That’s a question I’m not sure I can fully answer. It depends on the level of the opposing sides, oddly enough—it depends on their general cultural level, and their attitude toward humanitarian issues. Unfortunately, when active hostilities are underway, losses among journalists are probably inevitable.
But that’s not even the main point. The key issue is when this is done deliberately. When someone in your profession suffers by chance—it’s still a tragedy, of course, if a person is wounded or killed. But if it’s done deliberately—that is unquestionably a crime.
And in that case, there should be—without question—a discussion on how the international community should respond.
But what’s really happening today? When a journalist is killed by one side in a conflict, their allies try to pretend nothing happened. The other side makes noise, but that gets ignored. Then the situation reverses—same story. And to be honest, journalistic solidarity doesn’t always work either.
Certainly, some decisions need to be made at the international level—at the UN, for example. This is not an idle issue; it needs serious attention.
And I want to offer my condolences to the families of all journalists who have died in the line of duty—regardless of which side they were on or who they were reporting for.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you very much, Mr Putin. Your words of support mean a great deal to all of us.
I must say, we’ve been working with you now for two days—starting yesterday and continuing into today. Honestly, I can tell our colleagues are just warming up. But that depends on your energy. If you’re still willing…
Vladimir Putin:
Please, go ahead.
Mikhail Gusman:
In that case, let’s not go in a circle—whoever has a burning question, raise your hand, and we’ll ask the President. But please, keep it short.
Serder Karagöz (translated):
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
The head of the Iranian news agency was supposed to be with us today, but due to the war he couldn’t come. You know—as a follow-up to the previous question—there was a targeted strike on the state broadcasting headquarters in Tehran. A large number of journalists have also been killed in Gaza by Israeli strikes.
I believe our Iranian colleagues would have asked: Will Putin, will Russia, support Iran? On their behalf, I’d like to ask that question.
Vladimir Putin:
Listen—your colleague just mentioned the statement made by the Russian Foreign Ministry regarding the events between Israel and Iran. That lays out our position. I have nothing to add.
We’re in constant contact with our Iranian partners—there were contacts today, and I’m sure there will be more tomorrow, the day after, and beyond. Our relations are ongoing. That’s the first point.
Second, as I’ve already mentioned: our specialists are working at the Bushehr nuclear power plant—250 people, plus additional staff, with total numbers reaching up to 600. We’re not going anywhere. Is that not support? Iran hasn’t asked us for anything else—and we’ve already stated our position.
Mikhail Gusman:
Martin was one of the first to speak—he’d like to ask another question.
Vladimir Putin:
Please, Martin.
Martin Romanczyk (translated):
Mr. President, I’d like to return to my earlier question, because this is a very actively debated issue in German society. Olaf Scholz previously engaged in debates about delivering Taurus missiles while he was Chancellor. The current Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has not publicly clarified what would happen if Germany does send the Taurus. How would Russia respond?
Vladimir Putin:
I already addressed this, though perhaps I didn’t articulate it clearly—my apologies.
We know the history of our relations. We know what happened in the 1940s, during World War II. We also know how much effort both sides—the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany—put into healing the wounds of the past. And we largely succeeded.
This applies to both East Germany (GDR) and West Germany (FRG). Remember what Willy Brandt and his party did, and how much Helmut Kohl contributed.
The Soviet Union opposed the division of Germany—it wasn’t our initiative. And no one can deny that in 1990, it was Russia—the Soviet Union and then Russia—that played a decisive role in German reunification and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I hope no one in Germany has forgotten that.
I want to emphasize: the Speaker of our Parliament [Vyacheslav Volodin] wrote to his German counterpart, saying that throughout modern history, Russia has not taken a single step—I repeat, not one—against the interests of the German people or the Federal Republic of Germany.
But now the situation has changed. I won’t evaluate the current German position—it’s part of a broader Western response to Ukraine. That’s a political issue. But when we see German tanks in Ukraine—or even in Kursk, on Russian territory, not disputed even by Germany—that’s a different story.
And what is the Taurus? It’s a precision-guided weapon that Ukrainian troops cannot operate independently. Everyone knows this. It requires satellite reconnaissance—that’s only possible for Western nations. It also requires direct operation by German officers.
What does that mean? It means Bundeswehr personnel would be striking Russian territory with German weapons. What else can we call this, if not Germany being drawn directly into a military conflict with the Russian Federation?
That’s not our choice. We don’t want that outcome. But if the German leadership makes that decision—fine, we’ll proceed accordingly.
I won’t go into detail now, but this would seriously damage our relations—and that’s putting it very mildly. But it will have no effect on the course of hostilities. The Russian Armed Forces hold a strategic advantage on all fronts, everywhere. No matter what is said, our forces are advancing along the entire contact line—every day.
Even if Taurus missiles are supplied, our advance will continue. So you’ll ruin relations with Russia—and achieve nothing on the battlefield.
But it’s ultimately a decision for Germany’s leadership—if they have the people’s mandate to make it.
You probably know what’s happening at the front. Maybe you can’t report it all for political reasons, but I hope your team sees it.
Ukrainian forces are at 47% staffing levels in core units—assault units even less. What then? Western weapons matter, of course—but if staffing is below 50%, such units are considered combat ineffective.
There’s forced mass mobilization. You must know this. They decided to draft 18-year-olds—wanted 1,500, but got 1,000, and 500 of those deserted. Desertion rates are climbing fast. Losses now exceed mobilization numbers. So what next?
That’s why we say: Let’s negotiate. We offered terms in Istanbul in 2022—much softer than now. But we’re still open to those principles. If they won’t negotiate, the situation may get worse for them. No point in waiting—better to talk now.
Believe me, I’m not making any of this up. The 47% figure is real. Taurus or no Taurus—irrelevant. So think carefully: do you really want to supply Taurus missiles just to bury German-Russian relations for good?
Simon Robinson (translated):
Thank you very much, Mr. President, for agreeing to take a second question.
Earlier, you said that Europe and others made mistakes regarding Russia. By the end of this year, you will have held the office of President or Prime Minister for over 25 years. Looking back, do you believe you have made any mistakes?
Vladimir Putin:
Let the one who is without sin among you cast the first stone at me.
Let’s leave it at that.
Mikhail Gusman:
Thank you very much, Mr Putin.
