Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)

🔒
❌ À propos de FreshRSS
Il y a de nouveaux articles disponibles, cliquez pour rafraîchir la page.
À partir d’avant-hierAnalyses, perspectives

Vladimir Putin on Russia’s Path Ahead

Par : AHH

On the Cusp of Reelection and SMO Victory, Putin’s Interview with Rossiya Segodnya’s General Director Dmitry Kiselev

with thanks to Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.

With snippets all over Russian media as well as the 1:45 long video, the job fell to Dmitry Kiselev, the director general of Rossiya Segodnya, Sputnik’s parent media group. We get to read the translated transcript where all emphasis is mine:

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr Putin, in your Address to the [Federal Assembly], you have, figuratively speaking, taken trillion after trillion out of your sleeve. Thus, we have proposed an absolutely amazing plan for the country’s development – absolutely amazing. This is a different Russia, with a different infrastructure, a different social system – just a dream country.

I just want to ask you, ask your favorite question from Vysotsky: “Where is the money, Zin?”

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

What’s more, first of all, it’s all made up as a result of the painstaking work of the expert community, government specialists, and the Administration. Everything fully fits into the budget rules and, in fact, is quite conservative in nature, because some experts believe that there should be and will be more revenues. This means that it would be necessary to plan for more spending, because this should directly affect the prospects for economic development.

In general, it is correct, but we also planned to spend an additional $ 8 trillion on the development of the economy and social sphere in 2018, and then we increased these expenditures. I think that it is quite likely that if everything turns out as the optimists from this expert community, which I mentioned, say, then we can – and should, and will be able-to increase these costs in various areas.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So we are talking about a six-year period?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly so. We are talking about a six-year period. We are currently drawing up a budget for the “three-year” – a three-year, as we say, planning period. But, of course, when we were preparing for the Message – I say, “we were preparing for the Message”, because the whole team is working-we assumed that we would calculate our income and expenses in those areas that we consider key, priority areas for six years.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But still, there are literally stunning projects. For example, the Sochi-Dzhubga highway: 130 kilometers, of which 90 kilometers are tunnels, and the rest is probably bridges, judging by the landscape. One and a half billion in the first three years only, and the track should ideally be ready in 2030. How necessary is this and will it be enough to win?

Vladimir Putin: People need this route. After all, families with children can’t get to Sochi by car. Everyone stops somewhere in the area of Gelendzhik, Novorossiysk, because the track is very heavy – serpentine.

There are several construction options available. We will be discussing this in the next few days: either do it to Dzhubga, or first do it from Dzhubga to Sochi. Some members of the Government suggest doing this in stages. Others believe that you need to do everything at once, because otherwise there will be a narrow neck from Dzhubga to Sochi.

The first part, if you look from Novorossiysk, is more or less decent, and the coverage is not bad, but very narrow. If we do it before Sochi, as the first part, then there may be traffic jams in this small space, which is still enough there.

In general, we will determine this with our specialists – how, in what stages, but you need to do it. It is necessary to determine, of course, the final cost of the project, to ensure that everyone remains within the framework of financial plans.

First of all-the interests of people, but also the economy. The development of territories in the south of the country is very important.

Dmitry Kiselyov: If we can afford such large-scale investments, it means that the country is rapidly getting richer, especially in the conditions of free trade, in the conditions of almost 15 thousand sanctions-absolutely wild. Moreover, we also set ourselves the task of reducing poverty, including in large families. Isn’t that a little cheeky?

Vladimir Putin: No. See if you go back to this road. When I discussed it with members of the Government, as you know, the Finance Ministry is always such a miser, in a good way, and it is always very conservative about spending, even the Finance Minister [Anton Siluanov] he told me-almost verbatim: “The construction of this road is opposed by those who have never driven on it today.”

Dmitry Kiselyov: In other words, the entire Government should be moved.

Vladimir Putin: And he is right, because this is especially important for families with children.

As for whether we get rich or not. The economy is growing – this is a fact, and a fact that is recorded not by us, but by international economic and financial organizations. We have indeed overtaken the Federal Republic of Germany in terms of purchasing power parity, taking its place – the fifth place – among the world’s largest economies.

The German economy contracted, in my opinion, by 0.3 percent last year, while we grew by 3.6 percent. Japan grew by a small percentage. But if everything develops at the same pace as today, then we have every chance to take the place of Japan and become the fourth economy in the world, and in the near future.

But? – here we must be honest and objective – there is a difference between the quality of our economies. In terms of purchasing power parity, that is, in terms of volume, we are indeed now fifth, and there is every chance to take the place of Japan. But the structure of these countries ‘ economies, of course, differs favorably from ours.

We still have a lot to do to ensure that we have a decent position not only in terms of purchasing power parity, but also [in terms of GDP] per capita – the first. And the second thing is to change the structure itself, to make it much more efficient, more modern, and more innovative. That’s what we’ll be working on.

As for income, purchasing power parity is a very important indicator. This is the volume, the size of the economy. This means that the state receives funds for solving strategic tasks through the tax system at all levels. This gives us the opportunity to develop in the way we consider necessary for our country.

Dmitry Kiselyov:By the way, you are talking about the structure and the need for structural changes in our economy. After all, this is exactly what your Message said, and this is how the task is set: to ensure that innovative industries grow faster than the average economy.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course.

I have already said this: the structure is what we need to work on. The future of our economy, the future of our workforce, efficiency and productivity depend on this.

One of the main tasks today is to increase labor productivity. Because in the face of a shortage of workers and labor resources, we have only one way to develop effectively – to increase labor productivity. This, in turn, means that we must increase the innovative start of the economy, for example, increase the density of robotization. Today we have ten robots, in my opinion, for 10 thousand working people, but we need at least a thousand robots for 10 thousand working people. This is the case in Japan, in my opinion.

And in order for people to work on such new equipment – not only to use robotics, but also other modern means of production-they need to be trained. Another problem arises – training of personnel.

For this purpose, we have designated entire areas, including engineering training. You probably noticed that we have already launched 30 modern engineering schools across the country. This year we are launching 20 more-there will be 50. And we plan to add 50 more in the coming years.

Therefore, these areas are the future of our country. We will move forward and develop in these areas.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In order to “finish” the sanctions. Many people express the idea of creating a special body that would deal with sanctions, their reflection, in general, defense against sanctions. Is something like this supposed to happen, or does it make no sense?

Vladimir Putin: There is no need simply. We analyze-the Government, the Central Bank, the Security Council-everything that our enemies do. A lot of things are being done not even for political or military reasons, although they are argued for this, but simply for reasons of competition…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Unscrupulous and unfair competition.

Vladimir Putin: Unfair competition – under the guise of some political or military considerations. This was the case in the aircraft industry, and it is happening in so many other industries.

Well, we live in the world that exists, and we have adapted to it. We understand who we are dealing with. And so far, as can be seen from the results of our work, we are acting quite effectively.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the West’s treachery is not limited to sanctions. Here is a quote from your address [to the Federal Assembly]: “The West is trying to drag us into a new arms race in order to exhaust and repeat the trick that they managed in the 80s with the USSR.” How big is our safety margin here in the face of an arms race, in fact?

Vladimir Putin: We need to get the maximum return on every ruble invested in the defense industry. Indeed, during the Soviet era, no one considered these costs, and no one, unfortunately, chased after efficiency in our country. Defense spending accounted for about 13 percent of the country’s GDP – the Soviet Union.

I will not refer to our statistics – we will refer to the Stockholm Institute: last year our defense spending was four percent, and this year-6.8, that is, we have grown by 2.8 percent. In principle, this is a noticeable increase, but absolutely uncritical. In the Soviet Union, it was 13 percent, and now we have 6.8 percent.

I must say that defense spending accelerates the economy, it makes it more energetic. But, of course, there are some limitations here, and we understand that. The age-old question: which is more profitable – guns or oil? We have this in mind.

Although, I repeat, the modern defense industry in our country is good because it not only indirectly affects civilian industries, but also uses the innovations needed for defense and uses these innovations to produce civilian products. This is an extremely important thing.

Our expenses, of course, are not comparable. How many in the United States are they? 800…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Under 900 already.

Vladimir Putin: Under 900 – 860 or 870 billion [dollars]. They are absolutely not comparable to our expenses.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It seems to me that they are sawing there, because they have no hypersound, nothing… What’s it?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll explain what’s going on. The fact is that they spend a lot of money on maintenance – and not only on salaries, but also on maintaining bases around the world. And there, as in a black hole, everything goes away – nothing can be counted. This is where the main cut is made. Although in the production of weapons of destruction, weapons in general are also spent such money that it is difficult to estimate.

If you calculate how much they cost, say, a missile defense system, and one of the main components of overcoming missile defense on our part-the Avangard, an intercontinental missile, and an intercontinental-range planning unit-then these are simply incomparable values. And we, in fact, nullified everything that they did, everything that they invested in this missile defense system. This is how you need to act.

And of course, without any doubt, the very economy of our Armed Forces must meet today’s requirements.

Dmitry Kiselyov: The word “justice” [справедливость] is a magic word for the Russian language. You use it very carefully, but still, one day you uttered this word in your Message – and it sounded like lightning. You said that the distribution of the tax burden should become more equitable in Russia, and suggested that the Government think about it. In what direction do you think?

Vladimir Putin: You know, indeed, the distribution of the tax burden should be fair in the sense that corporations, legal entities and individuals who earn more, in simple terms, should allocate more to the general treasury for solving national problems, primarily for solving problems related to combating poverty.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A progressive tax?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, in fact, a progressive tax.

I don’t want to go into details right now, but we need to work on it. And in this way, we need to build this system so that it really gives a great return on solving, first of all, social issues and tasks facing the state in this area.

We plan to reduce the tax burden, for example, for large families, and take a number of other steps in this direction. It seems to me that society will accept this absolutely normally. First.

Second. What does business itself ask of us? It asks us to decide on the tax system, but not to touch it again, so that it is stable. This is the most important request and requirement on the part of the business.

The Government should address this issue in the very near future and submit proposals together with the deputies of the State Duma.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A progressive tax – we won’t scare anyone off? We used to be always afraid of scaring someone off with this progressive tax.

Vladimir Putin: No, I don’t think so. In principle, we have established this system. Even those who were ardent supporters of the flat scale, the authors of the flat scale, now believe that in general we are ripe for acting much more selectively.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In the course of your address, you thanked your “colleagues from the Government” – this was the wording. Does this mean that Mishustin’s government – in the event of your victory-will be preserved?

Vladimir Putin: We still need to talk about this after the elections, after the votes are counted. It seems to me that this is simply incorrect right now. But in general, the Government is working – as we can see, the results are obvious, these are objective data-and it is working quite satisfactorily.

Dmitry Kiselyov: You mentioned reducing the tax burden for large families. Children and demographics – these topics were very extensive in your message. Indeed, the issue is quite painful, because demographically Russia is melting. Last year was an anti-record birth rate.

Vladimir Putin: I think the birth rate is 1.31 or 1.39…

Dmitry Kiselyov: 1.39 children per woman capable of giving birth.

Vladimir Putin: Childbearing age.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Ideally, we would probably need to double it to three. Because it is literally a disaster for society.

You have proposed a fairly large-scale program of maternity support and demographic incentives. Are you confident that these measures will reverse the downward-to-upward trajectory?

Vladimir Putin: In general, if we take into account all the measures to support families with children, we plan to spend up to 14 trillion rubles through various channels over the next six years. That’s a lot of money.

There are a lot of areas of support for families with children: starting from general social ones – construction or renovation of kindergartens, construction of new schools, repair of old schools, putting them in order in accordance with the requirements of today-to support women from pregnancy to the age of 18. After all, we have almost 400 thousand women now receiving benefits. This is almost every third woman who is expecting a child. And more than ten million children receive benefits. This is a serious thing.

We have continued the system of providing maternity capital. We have continued payments – these decisions are currently being made – in the amount of 450 thousand rubles per family, if there is a third child, to pay off the mortgage loan. We have retained mortgage benefits for families with children. In general, a whole set in very different areas in order to support families.

Of course, as you have already mentioned, this is also the fight against poverty, because, of course, it is much more difficult for families with children than for those with no children. This is understandable, the costs are high. Nevertheless, we have managed to do a lot in this area.

Look, 20 years ago we had, in my opinion, 29 percent of the population below the poverty line – that’s 42 million people. Now 9.3 percent, according to the latest data, but this is also 13 and a half million people. Of course, a lot. Of course, we need to do everything possible to reduce it to at least seven percent. And for large families-there is a more modest figure, but it should also be increased.

What do we assume when we talk about problems with the birth rate? I have already said it many times, and experts say it, these are objective things, namely: we had two very large declines in the birth rate. During the Great Patriotic War-1943-1944. A comparable decline occurred immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just one to one, the same decline in the birth rate.

It is clear why: the social support system has collapsed. No matter how weak it was in the USSR, if you can talk about it, but still it was, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it disappeared almost completely, and poverty began to be complete. There’s no need to say anything right now. In any case, the family planning horizon declined during these years, and the birth rate fell before the war years. Then we had a climb. And now we have quite a large number of children, young people who will enter adulthood and childbearing age in a few years, and we assume that our indicators will also increase.

What you said is a global trend. There are only a few countries with developed economies that show positive demographic dynamics, while in all other countries everything goes into negative territory. This is a complex problem related to the economy and women’s life priorities. Now it is better not to go there, but let the demographers try, tell us and suggest a solution.

But do you know what sets you up for a positive mood? The mood in society. In our country, 70% of men and 72% of women want to have two or more children, and the state should support them. This is a whole large set of support measures that we are planning – We will definitely implement them, and we will do it.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But we are still not sure that these measures will turn the tide.

In the late 90’s-this is a well-known story, you told us about it yourself-you saved your children from a fire: you entered a burning house, on the second floor. And then they remembered that there was still money somewhere. Money in the fire and burned. This indicates your priorities: first-children, then-money.

Maybe now it’s the same across the country? Not 14 [trillions], but directly on everything, and create such a program to guarantee a reversal of this situation?

Vladimir Putin: You know, you need to watch this in the course of events, as they say. In the early 2000s, we took a number of steps in the field of demography, including the introduction of maternity capital and a number of other measures that gave an obvious positive result. This means that we can achieve the goals we need.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So there is such an experience?

Vladimir Putin: There is experience, of course, there is experience. And, using this experience and other modern developments, we should still count on achieving the goals that we set for ourselves. And as events unfold, we will adjust those measures or add something else to the measures that we will apply.

For example, we have just announced the Year of the Family. We have a new national project – “Family”. There are some elements that we have never used before. For example, 75 billion [rubles] will be allocated to those regions where the birth rate is lower than the national average. These are mainly the central regions of Russia and the North-West. 75 billion is a decent amount of money. You just need to use them correctly.

There is also such a component as caring for the elderly. There are other support measures. We need to raise the birth rate and increase life expectancy – then we will stabilize the country’s population. This is the most important integral indicator of our success or, perhaps, work that requires additional attention from all administrative levels and authorities.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes, but everywhere in the world there is also a third tool for solving demographic problems – immigration. What figures can we talk about in this six-year period, and what does consistency mean in this work?

Vladimir Putin: If we talk about migrant workers, we don’t have so many immigrants compared to other countries – they make up 3.7 percent of the total number of employees. But they are concentrated in those regions where economic life is most active, and there, of course, they are much more numerous. These are the Moscow region, Moscow, the North-Western region and some regions of the North where the level of wages is decent. But, without any doubt, this is an issue that requires special attention from the authorities-both local, regional, and federal.

What would you like to say here? A very important thing. After all, when they attract labor migrants, they always talk about the need to do this due to a shortage of workers. Our entrepreneurs should understand that the situation for them in terms of the availability of workers will not change for the better in the coming years – they will face a shortage of labor.

This means that in order to solve this problem radically – and now I will return to what we have already said – we need to increase labor productivity and reduce the number of employees in those areas where it is possible to do this, achieving even better results by introducing modern equipment. To do this, we need to invest in this area and train personnel – we have also already discussed this. This is the most important thing we need to think about.

In general, of course, migration policy is an important tool in the economy. Here it is not a sin to look at the experience of other countries. First of all, of course, we need to talk about the repatriation of our compatriots. What is repatriation and what is compatriots-we have already reflected in the regulatory framework, there is no need to repeat here.

We need to talk about attracting people who may not be going to move to the Russian Federation, but because of their qualifications, because of their talents in various fields, they can make a significant contribution to the development of our state, to the development of Russia. We will also be happy to attract such people.

As for traditional labor migrants, we also need to think about how to prepare them for coming to Russia, including with our partners in the countries where they live. This is the study of the Russian language, our traditions, culture, and so on. We need them to be taken care of and treated like a human being. So that they integrate naturally into our society. All this together should give a corresponding, I hope, positive effect.

Yes, and, of course, everyone should observe our traditions and the laws of the Russian Federation. And of course, compliance with sanitary standards and so on is very much in demand. Ensuring the safety of citizens of the Russian Federation should be the first priority.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Russians are probably the biggest divided nation in the world. You had a conversation with the “Leaders of Russia”, and one of your interlocutors said that in the Zaporozhye region we found that they are as Russian as we are. And for them-there was such an impression – it sounded like a revelation. In general, this is true, and we are now growing with new regions, and Odessa is a Russian city. Probably, there is great hope here, in this direction, too?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. The population density in these regions has always been quite high, and the climate is wonderful.

As for the Donbass, it is an industrially developed region-back in the days of the Soviet Union. How much the Soviet Union has invested in this region, in its coal mining industry, in the metallurgical industry! Yes, of course, investments are required to ensure that all production is modern, and that people’s living and working conditions are completely different from what they were a couple of decades ago.

As for Novorossiya, it is a region with a pronounced developed agriculture. Here we will do everything possible to support both traditional areas of activity and new ones that fit seamlessly into these regions and people’s desire to develop them. And there, you know, people are very talented.

Moreover, as I have already said, even taxes go to the federal budget from there. Yes, they need to be helped, supported, and brought to the national and federal Russian level at this stage. They will work, and very quickly.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Historically, it is quite obvious that the Nazi regimes themselves do not dissolve, but disappear as a result of military defeat. So it was in Germany, in Italy, in Japan. The same thing will obviously happen with Bandera’s Nazi regime. We are now moving along the entire front line, according to reports from both the Ministry of Defense and our war correspondents.

Still, did we manage to find a way to fight when our losses are less in the offensive than in the defense? This task is quite non-trivial for the art of war, but it always holds back the offensive. This is a frugality that is absolutely justified in relation to our hero warriors. But this question arises: how to move forward with minimal losses?

Vladimir Putin: The question is clear and fair. But the answer is also simple: we need to increase the means of destruction – the number and power of means of destruction, and increase the effectiveness of the forces and means used. Aviation – both tactical, and army, and the same strategic. I mean, of course, in those components that are acceptable for armed conflicts of this kind. These are ground-based weapons, including high-precision weapons. These are artillery and armored vehicles. We are developing, without any exaggeration, by leaps and bounds.

Dmitry Kiselyov: In this direction?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it does. This is the answer to your question: the more powerful and more weapons-the less losses.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the question still arises, what price are we willing to pay – perhaps the word “project” is not appropriate – for all this challenge that we have been forced to face historically?

Vladimir Putin: Look, every human life is priceless. And the loss of a loved one for a family, for any family, is a huge grief.

But the question is what? The question is to determine the very fact of what we are doing. What are we doing? We met today, and you have just noticed that one of the participants in the conversation said: we were surprised to find that there were Russians just like us. We came to the aid of these people. This is basically the answer to your question.

If we abandon these people today, then tomorrow our losses may increase many times, and our children will have no future, because we will feel insecure, we will be a third-or fourth-class country, no one will take us into account if we cannot protect ourselves. And the consequences can be disastrous for Russian statehood. That’s the answer.

Dmitry Kiselyov: The Americans seem to be talking about negotiations and strategic stability, but at the same time they are saying that it is necessary to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Our position sounds like: “We are open to negotiations, but the time for good gestures has passed, they are over.” So, there will be no negotiations?

Vladimir Putin: We have never refused to negotiate.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But how does it mean that without good gestures, there is no compromise? How then?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll try to explain. When we were negotiating in Turkey, in Istanbul (I have already said this many times, I must repeat it again, I will do it again), with the negotiators from that side, we came up with a thick folio, a document, in fact, a contract, a draft contract. An excerpt from this agreement is available, it was initialed by the head of the negotiation group from Ukraine, Mr. Arakhamiya. He did it, there is his signature (we have it in the Administration). But then, as you know, Mr. Arakhamia himself told the world publicly, also at a meeting, in my opinion, with journalists, with foreign partners: the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Johnson, came and dissuaded them from finally signing and, accordingly, fulfilling this agreement. And the topic that you have just mentioned is that Russia needs to be defeated on the battlefield.

Are we ready to negotiate? Yes, we are ready. But only we are ready for negotiations that are not based on some “wishlist” after the use of psychotropic drugs, but based on the realities that have developed, as they say in such cases, on earth. This is the first one.

Second. After all, we have already been promised many things many times. They promised not to expand NATO to the East, and then we see them at our borders. They promised, if we don’t go deep into history, that the internal conflict in Ukraine will be resolved by peaceful means, by political means. As we recall, three foreign ministers arrived in Kiev, Poland, Germany and France, promised that they would be the guarantors of these agreements, and a day later a coup d’etat took place. They promised to fulfill the Minsk agreements, and then publicly stated that they were not going to fulfill these promises, but only took a pause to arm the Bandera regime in Ukraine. We were promised a lot of things, so promises alone are not enough here.

Right now, to negotiate just because they are running out of ammunition is somehow ridiculous on our part. Nevertheless, we are ready for a serious conversation, and we want to resolve all conflicts, and especially this conflict, by peaceful means. But we must clearly understand for ourselves that this is not a pause that the enemy wants to take for rearmament, but a serious conversation with the security guarantees of the Russian Federation.

We know the various options in question, we know the “carrots” that are going to be shown to us in order to convince us that the moment has come. We want, I repeat once again, to resolve all disputes and this dispute, this conflict, by peaceful means. And we are ready for it, we want it. But this should be a serious conversation with ensuring security for the opposing side, and in this case we are primarily interested in the security of the Russian Federation. We will proceed from this.

Dmitry Kiselyov:Mr President, I think we look a little too noble. Can’t we conclude something with them, and they will once again deceive us, and we will console ourselves with the fact that we are honest, and they deceived us? Is it our fate, after all, to remain a fool all the time?

Americans minted their own medals in the 1990s for winning the Cold War, and since then, all those decades have been decades of big lies. How can we even hope that they will go and finally conclude a fair contract with us, which they will fulfill, and even with guarantees for us? I do not know what to do with them at all? Do you really believe this is possible?

Vladimir Putin: ****I hate to say this, but I don’t believe anyone.****

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: But we need guarantees. Guarantees must be written down, they must be such that we would be satisfied, in which we will believe. That’s what we’re talking about.

Now, it is probably premature to publicly talk about what it could have been. But we certainly won’t buy into any empty promises.

Dmitry Kiselyov: I am afraid that you will be quoted in an extended way. Do you not trust anyone at all, or do you mean your Western partners in this case when you say that you don’t trust anyone?

Vladimir Putin: I prefer to be guided by facts, rather than good wishes and talk about trusting everyone. After all, you know, when decisions are made at this level, the degree of responsibility for the consequences of the decisions made is very high. Therefore, we will not do anything that does not meet the interests of our country.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr President, what happened to Macron? Has he lost his mind at all? He is going to send the French troops to fight with our army, he looks like a Gallic fighting rooster, thereby scaring all the Europeans. Still, how to respond to this?

Vladimir Putin: The fact is that the military of Western countries has been present in Ukraine for a long time, even before the coup, they were present, and after the coup, their number increased many times. Now they are also present directly in the form of advisers, they are present in the form of foreign mercenaries and suffer losses. But if we are talking about official military contingents of foreign countries, I am sure that this will not change the situation on the battlefield – this is the most important thing, just as the supply of weapons does not change anything.

Second, it can lead to serious geopolitical consequences. Because if, say, Polish troops enter the territory of Ukraine, as it sounds, to cover the Ukrainian-Belarusian border, for example, or in some other places, to free up Ukrainian military contingents to participate in combat operations on the contact line, then I think that Polish troops will never leave there again. I think so. They sleep and see, they want to return those lands that they consider historically their own and that were taken from them by the “father of nations” Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin and transferred to Ukraine. They want them back, of course. And if official Polish units enter there, they are unlikely to leave.

But then their example can be followed by other countries that lost part of their territories as a result of the Second World War. I think that the geopolitical consequences for Ukraine, even from the point of view of preserving its statehood in its modern form, will certainly stand up in all its glory and in full growth.

Dmitry Kiselyov: If we return to Macron, maybe he decided to take revenge on Russia in this way because we “stepped on his tail” in Africa, and we had to “stand there, be afraid”? He probably didn’t expect us to be so active there.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I think there is some resentment, but when we maintained direct contacts, we spoke quite frankly about this topic.

We didn’t go into Africa and squeeze France out. The problem is different. The well-known Wagner group first carried out a number of economic projects in Syria, then moved to other African countries. The Ministry of Defense provides support, but only on the basis of the fact that this is a Russian group, nothing more. We didn’t squeeze anyone out. It’s just that the African leaders of some countries agreed with Russian economic operators, wanted to work with them, and did not want to work with the French in any way. It wasn’t even our initiative, it was an initiative on the part of our African friends.

If an independent state wants to develop relations with its partners from other countries, including Russia, and wants to develop relations with Russia, it is not clear why it should take offense at us in this regard. We didn’t touch them, the former French colonialists, in these countries. I even say this without irony, because in many countries where France has historically been a metropolis, they don’t really want to deal with them. We have nothing to do with it. It’s probably more convenient to take offense at someone without seeing your own problems. Perhaps such a sharp, rather emotional reaction on the part of the French President is also related to what is happening in some African states.

Although I know other countries in Africa, where they are calm about the French stay and say that ” yes, we are satisfied, we are ready to work with them.” But in some countries they don’t want to. We have nothing to do with it. We don’t incite anyone there, we don’t incite anyone against France.

We do not set ourselves such tasks. To be honest, we do not have such nationwide tasks at the level of the Russian state. We’re just friends with them, that’s all. They want to develop relations with us – for God’s sake, and we meet them halfway. There’s nothing to be offended about.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But now they are saying in France that there are no “red lines” left in relation to Russia, and nothing is impossible, and everything is possible. In general, they want to somehow talk to us on the basis of a balance of power. What we just do not hear from France, from the West, and from Lithuania. In general, some such choir is not harmonious, but hostile.

Maybe we should also make unconventional decisions and at some point turn to the two-million-strong North Korean army for help? For example, in exchange for our “nuclear umbrella” over half of the Korean Peninsula? Why not then?

Vladimir Putin: First, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has its own “nuclear umbrella”. They didn’t ask us for anything. This is the first one.

Second. In principle, as we can see today from the results of what is happening on the battlefield, we are coping with the tasks that we set for ourselves.

As for those states that say that they have no “red lines” in relation to Russia, they should understand that there will be no “red lines”in relation to these states in Russia either.

As for the small states of Europe, first of all, we treat everyone with respect, no matter what. Secondly, when they, these small states, call for a tougher policy towards Russia and take some extreme measures, including, for example, to send troops and so on, these are still those states, and they understand this, that will not feel the consequences of their provocative statements. And those who can feel it, they behave much more restrained. And correctly.

Dmitry Kiselyov: And all those German dances with Taurus? Scholz says “we do not supply”, but there are forces that insist on delivering Taurus to Ukraine, the British take their own initiative: let’s, they say, transit through England, we are ready to send. The target is the Crimean Bridge, German generals are already planning operations, as we have heard, not only the Crimean Bridge, but also military bases, as they say, in the depths of Russian territory. Some are already saying that these missiles can hit the Kremlin. Don’t they really bury themselves in their dreams?

Vladimir Putin: They fantasize, encourage themselves, first of all. Secondly, they are trying to intimidate us.

As for Germany, there are also constitutional problems there. They are right to say that if the Taurus gets into that part of the Crimean Bridge, which, of course, even according to their concepts is Russian territory, this is a violation of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The fact is that the opposition in Germany is behaving even more aggressively. Let’s see what they agree on. We are following this closely. They use the same British, American missiles. It doesn’t change the situation on the battlefield. Yes, they are causing us, of course, damage, this is obvious. But, in fact, this does not change the course of hostilities and the consequences that inevitably come for the opposite side.

We now hear that in the same Germany, both your channels, and foreign channels, German channels show how much they have, how much is in a faulty state, how much needs to be improved, upgraded, and so on. Let them work. As you correctly said, there are some things they need to think about. Who is smarter, he thinks.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But the new members of NATO – Finland and Sweden, in general, what did they exchange for? Swedish Foreign Minister Tobias Billstrom suddenly told the Turks that Sweden is against having NATO bases on Swedish territory. What, they didn’t understand where they were going at all? What happened to them?

Vladimir Putin: You should ask them, I do not know. We have had quite good relations, stable relations with these countries, and I think that they have benefited more from the fact that they are neutral, because this gives certain advantages, at least as a negotiating platform to reduce tensions in Europe.

In general, we had perfect relations with Finland, just perfect. We did not have a single claim to each other, especially territorial, not to mention other areas. We didn’t even have any troops, we removed all the troops from there, from the Russian-Finnish border. Why did they do this? Based, in my opinion, on purely political considerations. I probably really wanted to be members of a Western club, under some kind of “umbrella”. Frankly, I don’t understand why they need it. This is an absolutely senseless step from the point of view of ensuring our own national interests. Nevertheless, it is up to them to decide, they have decided so.

We didn’t have any troops there, now we will. There were no defense systems there, now they will appear. What for? Our economic relations were very good. They used our market, and we bought a lot from them. What’s wrong with that? But now the situation will change. With their many products in other markets, they are not really needed, and ours do not receive enough. I don’t understand.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Meanwhile, in the United States, the war is raging.…

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is a household item, but nevertheless. In recent years, both Helsinki and the border regions of Finland have accepted Russian rubles. Including in Helsinki, in large supermarkets, you could buy whatever goods you wanted for rubles. There are all the ads around in Russian.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Now the border region is simply going bankrupt.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. What am I talking about? On the other hand, from the point of view of the economy, it is very good – real estate prices were kept at a fairly good level. From the point of view of the economy, it is good, but there were, apparently, forces that were completely right-wing conservative, nationalist, who did not really like it – such a rapprochement with Russia. Some even considered it redundant: “What are Russian houses and apartments being bought for? Everything here is in Russian…”

I don’t even think so, I know that such Russophobia has started to grow up at the everyday level. Maybe some political forces inside the country decided to take advantage of this domestic roll, maybe. The whole combination of these factors led to this decision. I think so, but I can’t be 100 percent sure. In any case, this certainly does not improve the security situation in any way – both in bilateral relations and in Europe as a whole.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But in the meantime, the United States is actively running for president. It can’t do without you. You invisibly participate in it, because you are mentioned by each of the candidates from the Republican and Democratic parties in their speeches and arguments. In general, it seems that you do not leave the pages of newspapers and TV news headlines there and are an argument in the election campaign of everyone. And you’re adding fuel to the fire.

Vladimir Putin: How is that?

Dmitry Kiselyov: Saying that one of the candidates is preferable for us. But if a foreign president generally says that one of the candidates in another country is preferable, then this is a classic interference in the election. In general, to what extent do you interfere in the American elections in this way, saying that Biden is preferable to us? And in general, how much is it so? Is this trolling or even what is it?

Vladimir Putin: No, you know, I will tell you one thing that will show you that nothing changes in my preferences here. First.

Second. We do not interfere in any elections and, as I have said many times, we will work with any leader who has the confidence of the American people, the American electorate.

But here’s what’s interesting. Even in the last year of his term as President, Mr. Trump, today’s presidential candidate, reproached me just because I sympathize with Biden. That was more than four years ago. He told me so in one of the conversations. Excuse me, I’ll say it like him, it’s just a direct speech: “You want sleeping Joe to win.

He told me so when he was still President. And then, to my surprise, he was harassed for allegedly supporting him as a candidate. Well, some complete nonsense.

As for the current pre-election situation, it is becoming increasingly uncivilized. I don’t want to make any comments on that.

But I think it is obvious to everyone that the American political system cannot claim to be democratic in every sense of the word.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Actually, to be honest, your preference for Biden sounds rather strange to me personally. After all, Biden came to Moscow in 2011 and tried to persuade you not to run for president.

Do you remember this story? Then he told about it, meeting with the Russian opposition in Spaso House. And Garry Kasparov wrote about this, that Biden told this story, that he came to the Russian White House to Prime Minister Putin and tried in every possible way to dissuade him from running for President and began to build an “Arab spring” in our country. So Biden didn’t seem to like you very much back then. You have such a historic duel with him. Or did it just go away?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I didn’t pay much attention to this.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It’s over, isn’t it? You didn’t even pay much attention to it.

Vladimir Putin: Some kind of duel…

Dmitry Kiselyov: So it was serious for him, but not for you.

Vladimir Putin: This is just a sign of interference…

Dmitry Kiselyov: Yes, this is a 100 percent outright intervention.

Vladimir Putin: … in our domestic political processes. We have already spoken many times, and I have spoken many times: “We will not allow anyone to do this.”

Dmitry Kiselyov: All right.

If we avoid interference, pre-election battles, in fact, the escalation continues. It seems that both superpowers-Russia and the United States – are playing what in America is called the chicken game: this is when chickens jump on each other, and there it is a game when guys in cars fly into each other’s heads, and who will turn first. It seems that no one is going to turn off first. So, a collision is inevitable?

Vladimir Putin: Why not? Here in the United States, they announced that they are not going to send troops. We know what American troops are like on Russian territory. These are the interventionists. We will treat it this way, even if they appear on the territory of Ukraine, they understand this. I said that Biden is a representative of the traditional political school, and this is confirmed. But in addition to Biden and others, there are enough specialists in the field of Russian-American relations and in the field of strategic deterrence.

So I don’t think it’s all so head-on here. But we are ready for this. I have said many times that this is a matter of life and death for us, but for them it is a matter of improving their tactical position in general in the situation in the world, but also in Europe in particular, preserving their status among their allies. This is also important, but not as important as it is for us.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Interestingly, you said that we are ready for this. The philosopher Alexander Dugin, a specialist in geopolitics, calls directly and practically to prepare for a nuclear war. “And the better we are prepared for it, the less likely such a war is,” says Alexander Dugin. How can you even be prepared for this? Are we really ready for nuclear war?

Vladimir Putin: From a military-technical point of view, we are certainly ready. They [the troops] are constantly in a state of combat readiness. This is the first one.

Second. This is also a generally accepted thing – our nuclear triad is more modern than any other triad, and only we and the Americans really have such a triad.

We have made much more progress here. We have it more modern, all the nuclear component. In general, we have approximate parity in terms of carriers and charges, but we have a more modern one.

Everyone knows this, all the experts know it. But this does not mean that we should measure the number of carriers and warheads, but we need to know about this. And I repeat, those who need it – experts, specialists, and the military-are well aware of this.

They are now setting a task to increase this modernity, novelty, and they have corresponding plans. We know that too. They develop all their components, and so do we. But this does not mean that, in my opinion, they are ready to unleash this nuclear war tomorrow. If they want to, what should I do? We are ready.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Perhaps we should conduct nuclear tests at some point to be more convincing. After all, we have no international restrictions for this.

Vladimir Putin: There is a treaty banning such tests, but unfortunately the United States has not ratified it. Therefore, in order to maintain parity, we have withdrawn this ratification. Since the treaty has not been ratified by the United States, and it has not entered into final force, because it has not received the necessary number of ratifications, nevertheless, we adhere to these agreements.

We know that the United States is considering conducting such tests. This is due to the fact that when new warheads appear, as some experts believe, it is not enough to test them only on a computer, which means that they need to be tested in their natural form. Such ideas are floating around in certain circles in the United States, they have a place to be, we know about it.

And we’re watching, too. If they conduct such tests, I don’t rule it out, not necessarily, we need it or not, we still need to think about it, but it is possible that we can do the same.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But are we technically ready for this?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we are always ready. I want to make it clear that these are not ordinary types of weapons, this is the type, branch of the armed forces that is in constant combat readiness.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr President, did you ever think about tactical nuclear weapons during the difficult times of last year, I do not know, at the front in connection with Kharkiv or Kherson?

Vladimir Putin: And why? It was also at the suggestion of the then command of the group that we decided to withdraw our troops from Kherson. But this did not mean that the front was falling apart there. Nothing like this has ever happened before. It was simply done in order not to incur unnecessary losses among the personnel. That’s all. This was the most important motive, because in the conditions of combat operations, when it was impossible to fully supply the group located on the right bank, we would simply suffer unjustified losses of personnel. Because of this, it was decided to relocate to the left bank.

The correctness of this choice was confirmed by what the Ukrainian command tried to do in certain areas of the left bank, in the same village of Krynki: just like in a meat grinder, they threw their people there, and that’s all. They’ve been running around barefoot lately, in the truest sense of the word. They tried to throw ammunition to them there by high-speed boats and drones. What is it? Just to be slaughtered, sent to be slaughtered.

I once asked the Chief of the General Staff, there is nothing secret here, I said: “Listen, who do you think makes such decisions from the other side? After all, the one who makes the decision understands that he sends people to their deaths?” He says, ” They understand.” I say, ” Who makes the decision, why do they do it? It’s pointless.” “Meaningless from a military point of view.” I say, ” Which one?” “I don’t know,” he says, ” probably the top political leadership, based on political considerations, that they have some chance to break through our defenses, there is some chance to get additional money, referring to the fact that they have some kind of foothold on the left bank, there is some kind of base, this is a chance to present your position beautifully at international meetings.” The command has passed, all lower-level bosses automatically issue further instructions.

But, by the way, the prisoners who were captured there surrendered, they show that they did not even know what situation they were in. Let’s say that new units are being deployed there and they say: “There is a stable defense there, come on, continue, help.” They couldn’t even get to the left bank anymore.

Dmitry Kiselyov: A tragedy.

Vladimir Putin: It’s natural. From a human point of view, absolutely.

So why do we need to use weapons of mass destruction? There has never been such a need.

Dmitry Kiselyov: So this idea never occurred to you?

Vladimir Putin: No. And why? Weapons exist to be used. We have our own principles, what are they talking about? That we are ready to use weapons, including any weapon, including the one you mentioned, if we are talking about the existence of the Russian state, about harming our sovereignty and independence. We have everything spelled out in our Strategy. We didn’t change it.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Mr Putin, when outgoing President Yeltsin suggested that you run for president, your first reaction was: “I’m not ready.”

Vladimir Putin: That’s right, it’s a direct speech.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Of course, you have evolved a lot since then. If you had to write a telegram to yourself at that time, what text would it contain?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it’s like “Yankees at King Arthur’s Court” or something like that. It is impossible to answer this question, because the question was asked at that time, in the context of the historical and economic situation in which the country was located, in the internal political situation from the point of view of internal security. And all of this together led me to the answer I gave: “I’m not ready for this.” Not because I was afraid of something, but because the scale of the tasks was huge, and the number of problems increased every day like a snowball. So I said it sincerely and not because, I repeat, I was afraid of something, but because I thought that I was not ready to solve all these problems, God forbid, I would do something even worse. That’s what it was all about. So I said it absolutely sincerely, and if I came back, I would repeat the same thing.

Dmitry Kiselyov: What was the decisive factor then? You went after all.

Vladimir Putin: I think I’ve had some conversations with Boris Nikolayevich.

Most importantly, in the end, what did he say to me back then: “Okay, okay, I understand, we’ll get to that later.” And we’ve come back to this several times.

In the end, he said that I was an experienced person, I knew what I was doing, what I was offering, and he said some other things to me. Probably, it is inconvenient to praise yourself, but I said such positive words. Later, he confirmed this again, this time in a completely positive way, I will not talk about it now.

And when the work started, everything was completely different there. You know, when you work, you think: this, this, this is what you need right now, this is now, this is tomorrow – and it went, and it went. When you get involved in a job, it’s a completely different story.

Dmitry Kiselyov: There is no time to be afraid already.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it’s not about fears, but about understanding, about being able to solve these problems. Remember for yourself what the year 1999 is like in the economy, security, finance, and everything else.

Dmitry Kiselyov: You once said that preparing for admission to Leningrad University was a turning point for you. It was a situation where you had to go all-in, knowing: either I will do it now and I will manage, and then I will carry out the plans that I want (and you were already going to work in the KGB), or I lost, and then everything is different and there are no chances. Is Russia now also in a position where it is necessary to play all-in?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I didn’t have such a position then. Yes, I wanted to work in the state security agencies.

Dmitry Kiselyov: It was the admission, it was such a turning point, it’s a feeling, isn’t it? Either this or that?

Vladimir Putin: Not quite. I just came to the waiting room and said: “I would like to work. What is needed for this?”

The alternative was simple: I was told that I either need to get a higher education, and preferably a law degree, or serve in the army, or have at least three years of work experience, but it is better to serve in the army. If I hadn’t gone to university, I would have joined the army.

Yes, it might have been a longer way to reach the goal that I set for myself, but it was still there. There is always an alternative.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But you did it with tension.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course, because I was still studying at a school with a chemical and mathematical bias, and here I had to take humanities subjects. I had to leave one thing and do another.

Yes, of course, there was tension. It was necessary to learn a foreign language independently, German in this case, it was necessary to study history, literature, and so on.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Russia is also at a crossroads right now: either it turns out, or…

Vladimir Putin: ***Russia is not at a crossroads. It is on the strategic path of its development and will not deviate from its path.***

Dmitry Kiselyov: To what extent do you feel the support of the Russian society in this new capacity? After all, a new quality of Russian society has emerged.

Vladimir Putin: It was there, it just showed up. And it is very good that we have given this deep Russian society an opportunity to express itself. I have a feeling that people have been waiting for this for a long time, that an ordinary person will be in demand by the country and the state, and the fate of the country depends on him. It is this sense of inner connection with the Motherland, with the Fatherland, its importance in solving key tasks, in this case in the field of security, that has brought to the surface the strength of the Russian and other peoples of Russia.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Do you feed off of it?

Vladimir Putin: Always. The point is not even that someone feeds, the point is that I see the requests of society. This is the most important thing – to meet the needs of society.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But it is time to recognize that you play a key role not only in Russia, but also in the world, because billions of people associate you with the hope for international justice, for the protection of human dignity, and for the protection of traditional values. How does it feel to feel so much responsibility?

Vladimir Putin: To tell you the truth, I don’t feel it at all. I just work in the interests of Russia, in the interests of our people. Yes, I understand what you are talking about now, and I am ready to comment on it. But so that I feel like some kind of arbiter of the world’s destinies, there is no such thing. Believe me, not even close. I’m just doing my duty to Russia and to our people, who consider Russia their homeland.

As for other countries of the world, this is very closely related to how we are treated around the world. That’s interesting. It’s a phenomenon, that’s for sure.

What I would like to draw your attention to. Here you are absolutely right, many people in the world look at us, at what is happening in our country and in our struggle for our interests.

That, in my opinion, is what is important. And why is this happening? Not because we are formally members of BRICS or have any traditional relations with Africa. This is also important, but the point, in my opinion, is completely different. It lies in the fact that this so-called golden billion for centuries, 500 years, practically parasitized other peoples. They tore apart the unfortunate peoples of Africa, they exploited Latin America, they exploited the countries of Asia, and of course no one has forgotten it. I have a feeling that it is not even a matter of the leadership of these countries, although this is very important, and ordinary citizens of these countries feel in their hearts what is happening.

They associate our struggle for our independence and true sovereignty with their aspirations for their own sovereignty and independent development. But this is compounded by the fact that there is a very strong desire among Western elites to freeze the existing unfair state of affairs in international affairs. They have been used to stuffing their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money for centuries. But they must understand that the vampire ball is ending.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Are you alluding to their, as you put it in your address, colonial ways? You’re talking about it.

Vladimir Putin: That’s what happens.

Dmitry Kiselyov: But now you have drawn a completely fair picture when people see some hope in Russia. How did it happen that Western propaganda, with all its power, its enormous resources and tools, could not pupate Russia, isolate it and create a false image of it, even though it was trying in the minds of billions of people? How did this happen?

Vladimir Putin: Because what I just said is more important to people. People all over the world feel this in their hearts. They don’t even need any pragmatic explanations for what is happening.

Dmitry Kiselyov: That is, despite the amount of dirt?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. In their own countries, they also fool people, and this has an effect. They – in many countries-believe that this is in their interests, because they do not want to have such a huge country as Russia on their borders. The largest in the world in terms of territory, the largest in Europe in terms of population – not such a large population in the global dimension, not comparable to either China or India, but the largest in Europe – and now the fifth largest economy in the world. Why do we need such a competitor? They think: no, it is better, as some American experts suggested, to divide it into three, four, or five parts – this will be better for everyone. They proceed from this.

And some, at least, of the Western elites, blinded by their Russophobia, were happy when they brought us to the line after which our attempts to end the war unleashed by the West in Ukraine in 2014 by force began, when we moved to conduct a special military operation. They were even happy, I think. Because they thought that now they would finish us off, and now under this barrage of sanctions, practically a sanctions war declared on us, with the help of Western weapons and a war by the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, they would finish Russia off. Hence the slogan: “Inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield.”

But later came the realization that this was unlikely, and even later that it was impossible. And the realization came that instead of strategic defeat, they were facing impotence, and impotence, despite the fact that they relied on the power of the all-powerful United States. They are faced with impotence before the unity of the Russian people, before the fundamental foundations of the Russian financial and economic system, its stability, and before the growing capabilities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

And that’s when they started thinking – those who are smarter, began to think – that it would be necessary to change some kind of strategy in relation to the Russian Federation. Then there was the idea of resuming the negotiation process, finding some ways to end this conflict, and finding out where Russia’s real interests are here. These are dangerous people, by the way, because it is easier to fight people who are guided by such base principles.

Do you remember what they used to say in Russia? What was the happiness of some people at the household level? Full, drunk, and snuffed out. Yes? Here with such people it is easier when you are full, drunk, that is, full, drunk. Nose in tobacco, because snuff was used. Now the nose is covered in cocaine. It doesn’t matter if it’s easier with such people, but it’s more difficult with smart ones – they are more dangerous, because they affect the consciousness of society, including ours, and they will throw out all sorts of their “wishlist” under the guise of “carrots” for us.

You already noticed this when you asked about the possibility of a negotiation process. But still. Hence the contradictions within the Western community. This is an obvious thing, we can see it.

We are not going to engage in splits there – they will do it brilliantly themselves. But we will certainly seek to protect our interests.

Dmitry Kiselyov: I can’t help but ask. These attacks on the Belgorod and Kursk regions are military actions that are taking place in our regions. They behave more brazenly – do they feel something? What causes this?

Vladimir Putin: The explanation is very simple. All this is happening against the backdrop of failures on the contact line, on the front line. They didn’t achieve any of the goals they set for themselves last year. Moreover, the initiative has now completely passed to our Armed Forces. Everyone knows this, everyone recognizes it. I don’t think I’ll say anything new here. Against the background of those failures, they need at least something to show, and, mainly, attention should be focused on the information side of the matter.

On the state border line, the enemy tried to attack primarily with sabotage groups. The latest report of the General Staff: somewhere up to 300 people, including with the participation of foreign mercenaries. The enemy’s losses amounted to more than 200 people – about 230. Of the eight tanks used, the enemy lost seven, of the nine armored vehicles-nine, of which seven were American-made, Bradley. Other armored vehicles were also used, but mainly for transporting personnel: they pick you up, drop you off, and leave right away. This is on the Belgorod section of the border. A little further south, in my opinion, in one place-there are much smaller forces. Nevertheless, the main goal, I have no doubt, is to prevent, if not disrupt the presidential elections in Russia, then at least somehow interfere with the normal process of expressing the will of citizens. First.

Second. This is an informational effect, which I have already mentioned.

The third. If at least something happens, get some chance, some argument, some trump card in the possible future negotiation process: we’ll give it back to you, and you’ll give it back to us.

But as I said, with people who are guided by principles: well-fed, drunk, and interested in well-known material-it’s easier to talk to them, because you can calculate what they’re going to do. They will also try in some other areas, but we can see that.

Dmitry Kiselyov: We mentioned the episode when you saved your children from a fire, but you already have grandchildren. What country would you like to leave to your grandchildren?

Vladimir Putin: You know, at the first stage, we need to fulfill everything that was stated in the Message to the Federal Assembly a few days ago. We have big plans. They are quite specific in the sphere of economic development, social sphere, support for motherhood, childhood, families with children, support for pensioners. We haven’t talked much about this lately, or haven’t talked much about it, but we also have the appropriate resources laid down here. This applies to the indexation of pensions, various benefits, and long-term care for people who need it.

I would like to say that the people of the older generation are the ones who make us have a fairly strong and stable statehood and economy today. Because, despite all the twists and turns and the most difficult tests for the economy in the 90s, it survived thanks to their heroic work after the Great Patriotic War and during the economic recovery. Therefore, we should never forget about this-about the merits of the older generation. We should always keep this in mind, ensuring their proper well-being. The future belongs to children, so I have already talked about programs in the field of motherhood and childhood.

All this is done only on the basis of the economy. I hope that it will be more technologically advanced, more modern, and based on modern achievements in science and technology, information technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, genetics, and so on. How our agriculture is developing! And modern technologies are also needed there. They are actively used and will continue to be used.

Of course, the country will be self-sufficient in ensuring its security and defense. All this together we will have to multiply many times – and the future will be assured.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Thank you, Mr President. Your confidence is contagious. I wish you success in your noble deeds.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Dmitry Kiselyov: Thank you.

Several segments were super-emphasized: First regarding the trustworthiness of those from the Empire of Lies—”I hate to say this, but I don’t believe anyone.” And second and most importantly regarding its development, “Russia is not at a crossroads. It is on the strategic path of its development and will not deviate from its path.” Readers may have more than those, and there’re passages I’ve emphasized when they were first produced during previous events that I chose to leave alone. Putin reminds me of numerous US Presidents from the first 80 years of the 19th Century who deemed it unbecoming for them to promote themselves during their Presidential campaigns. Putin was also gracious and correct to note that Russia’s development plans and their implementation is a team effort spanning Russia. Putin’s observation that today’s Russian society isn’t new, that it’s always been there and is experiencing a resurrection, was very important as it connects past efforts and great deeds with the present. Putin’s pause to talk about pensions and pensioners—points that haven’t got much illumination recently—was also important as it emphasized that healthier demographics includes lengthening lifespan and reassuring his peers that their security will also continue and improve. The approach to the migrant workers issue was also well thought as was his directness about the lack of labor lasting a decade or more. I expect robots to appear in Russia’s retail sector very soon and in the transport sector freeing people to advance well beyond being a clerk or driver.

In the opening, there was the discussion about the construction of a very difficult Sochi-Dzhubga highway traversing geography very similar to that of the Northern California Coastline that Highway 1 snakes through but has no real shoreline since it’s the leading edge of the North American Plate and thus nothing to develop. The map that’s below is the best I could find depicting the region, although there are many that do a very good job of showing the immediate Sochi region;

The terrain along the coast continues another 40 K to the North—a significant engineering challenge. That challenge can serve as a metaphor for the trials Russia will face in its development over the next 6 years. There’s plenty of work to be done, and then as Putin continually says, there’ll be more work to be done.

❌