3-Million Messages: Putin’s Annual Press Conference and Direct Line to Begin Shortly in Moscow

Now Live

https://sputnikglobe.com/20251219/live-updates-putin-reviews-2025-at-annual-press-conference-1123319116.html

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1LyGBXADpgpxN

https://www.rt.com/russia/629671-putin-nation-press-conference/

Russian President Vladimir Putin will hold his annual year-end press conference in Moscow on Friday, once again combined with the nationwide “Direct Line” question-and-answer session with citizens. The event is scheduled to begin at 12:00 Moscow time (09:00 GMT).

This annual broadcast is traditionally among the year’s most significant political events, serving as a forum for President Putin to address crucial domestic and international topics, covering key social, economic, and political spheres.

Interest in the combined format remains high. According to the Russian TV channel, the number of appeals submitted to the Direct Line exceeded 2.5 million just four hours before the start of the broadcast.

Historically, the Direct Line and the large annual press conference were held as separate events. During the Direct Line, the President responded directly to questions from citizens, including letters, text messages, phone calls and live video links from across the country. The press conference, in turn, focused on dialogue with Russian and foreign journalists.

Since 2001, Russia has hosted 18 separate Direct Line sessions and 16 large-scale presidential press conferences. The two formats were first merged in 2020 due to restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it impractical to hold both events separately. In 2021, the Kremlin briefly returned to the traditional, standalone formats.

However, beginning in 2023, the combined format was adopted on a permanent basis, bringing together public appeals and media questions into a single extended event.

Expanded meeting of the Defence Ministry Board: Putin and Mr Belousov

The President took part in an expanded meeting of the Defence Ministry Board at the National Defence Control Centre of the Russian Federation.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Belousov, Comrades,

Today, at the expanded meeting of the Defence Ministry Board, we will discuss our results over the past period and identify priority tasks for strengthening the Armed Forces and enhancing the country’s defence capability.

I would like to highlight that the past year has been a significant milestone in addressing the objectives of the special military operation. The Russian Army has taken and firmly holds the strategic initiative along the entire frontline.

Our troops are advancing with confidence and grinding down the hostile forces, defeating enemy units, its groups forces and reserves, including so-called elite formations trained in Western centres and equipped with modern foreign weaponry.

To date, over 300 communities have been liberated this year, among them major urban centres that the enemy had transformed into heavily fortified strongholds, extensively featuring permanent defensive structures. Yet, they proved unable to withstand the courage and superior military skill of our personnel.

The positions we have seized, the bridgeheads established in recent months, and the unique tactical and operational experience gained in breaching the enemy’s in-depth defences now enable us to intensify the pace of our advance in key strategic sectors. We take pride in the heroism of our soldiers and officers on the front lines, and of all who stand in defence of Russia and the safety of our citizens.

I would also like to acknowledge our comrades-in-arms from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. By the decision of Comrade Chairman of State Affairs Kim Jong-un, DPRK personnel were deployed to participate in the liberation of the Kursk Region. They fought with valour and courage alongside Russian soldiers against the enemy and took part in the large-scale and exceptionally difficult mission of demining the liberated Kursk soil.

It is our duty to forever honour the memory of all our fallen comrades and to support their families, their children and parents. The state will fulfil all necessary obligations in this regard. I ask you now to observe a moment of silence in memory of those who gave their lives for the Motherland.

(A moment of silence is announced.)

Comrades, members of the board,

We are aware that that the Kiev regime is backed by the potential of the countries comprising the world’s largest military-political bloc, NATO. Large-scale military assistance is being continuously provided, with advisers, instructors, and mercenaries dispatched, and intelligence data shared.

Amidst such challenging conditions, our troops demonstrate high combat readiness and proficiency. The capabilities of the Russian army are being constantly enhanced, and efforts to strengthen the Armed Forces have been unwavering in recent years.

I refer to the improvement of their combat composition, qualitative advancements in the military command system, in operational and combat training, and, naturally, the increased efficiency of the defence industry, which has rapidly reconfigured numerous production and technological processes and is manufacturing essential products in ever-growing volumes.

Owing to the precise work of the defence-industrial complex, the army and navy are promptly equipped with modern weaponry and hardware. The Ground Forces are receiving missile systems and artillery with high-precision capabilities, loitering munitions, a diverse range of unmanned aerial vehicles, and robotic systems.

The Aerospace Forces are being supplied with upgraded missiles and aerial bombs equipped with guided planning and correction modules, capable of operating effectively in complex jamming environments. Many here are aware of the marked improvement in efficacy achieved recently – at times exceeding 80 percent. I wish to express my gratitude to those involved in this work. This constitutes substantive and tangible support.

This year, the Navy has been augmented with new submarines, including the Knyaz Pozharsky strategic missile submarine cruiser, as well as 19 surface combatants and support vessels.

Successful tests have been conducted for the Burevestnik strategic cruise missile with unlimited range and the Poseidon unmanned submersible. Given their nuclear propulsion systems, these platforms will remain unique and unmatched for the foreseeable future, ensuring Russia’s strategic parity, security, and global standing for decades to come. We will continue to develop these systems, enhancing and perfecting them, but they are already in service.

By the end of the year, the medium-range missile system armed with the Oreshnik hypersonic missile will be placed on combat duty. Its first operational deployment was conducted last November.

The high standards of training of our units and formations, and their ability to fulfil the most complicated tasks have been reaffirmed during regular exercises, including with the participation of our foreign allies and partners, with whom we share the experience we have accumulated during the special military operation.

In particular, I would like to mention the good results demonstrated during the Zapad 2025 joint strategic exercise. All objectives involving the protection of the security of the Union State from potential external aggression have been achieved.

Today, we can see that the geopolitical situation remains tense throughout the world, and even critical in some regions. NATO countries are actively building up and modernising their offensive forces, and creating and deploying new types of weapons, including in outer space.

Meanwhile, people in Europe are being indoctrinated with fears of an inevitable confrontation with Russia, with claims that preparations must be made for a major war. Various figures who have held or continue to hold positions of responsibility appear to have simply forgotten what that responsibility entails.

They are whipping up hysteria, guided by momentary, personal or group political interests rather than the interests of their people. I have said many times that this is a lie and an irrational narrative about an imaginary Russian threat to European countries. But they are doing this deliberately.

The truth is that Russia has always, until the last possible moment tried, even in the most complicated circumstances, to find diplomatic solutions to differences and conflicts. Responsibility for the failure to use these chances lies squarely with those who believe that they can use the language of force with us.

We continue to call for developing mutually beneficial and equal cooperation with the United States and European countries, and for creating a joint security system in the Eurasian region. We welcome nascent progress in our dialogue with the new US administration, which cannot be said of the current leaders of the majority of European countries.

At the same time, we realise that our Armed Forces remain the key guarantor of Russia’s sovereignty and independence in any international situation. As I have stated, we must work consistently to strengthen them.

What I would like to emphasise here are the objectives to be set in the area of military development, taking into account the dynamics of the situation along the line of contact, among other factors.

First. The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved. We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means. The task of creating and expanding a security buffer zone will also be carried out consistently.

Second. Work on modernising the Armed Forces must continue at a rapid pace and to a high standard, primarily within the framework of the new State Armament Programme for 2027˗2036, which is currently under development.

As I have repeatedly emphasised, the experience gained during the special military operation, emerging trends in combat tactics, and rapidly developing military technologies must be fully taken into account.

Key areas of the state programme include air and missile defence systems, command and control systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) operating in all environments.

Of course, improving our strategic nuclear forces remains a priority. As before, they will play a decisive role in deterring aggression and maintaining the global balance of power.

Today, Russia marks Strategic Missile Forces Day. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate veterans, service members, and civilian personnel of the Strategic Missile Forces on their professional holiday and to wish them continued success and all the very best.

Third. The Russian army must continue to remain at the forefront of technological progress. This means accelerating the introduction of robotics, information technologies, and new materials into the Armed Forces, as well as expanding the use of artificial intelligence in command and control systems and autonomous combat platforms.

Fourth. It is essential to equip the orbital constellation with next-generation spacecraft. This will provide the troops with high-speed, secure communications, while also significantly improving the quality of intelligence and high-precision navigation data.

Next. In May of this year, the Strategy for the Development of the Navy until 2050 was approved, outlining its prospective configuration. The clear and timely implementation of this strategy will enable the modernisation of the Navy and enhance its effectiveness in carrying out combat tasks across all theatres of military operations.

Furthermore, it is imperative to continue actively developing military and military-technical cooperation with foreign countries – our allies and partners – to strengthen the collective security system and the Union State. Overall, efforts in this direction constitute a significant factor in enhancing regional and international security.

Comrades,

One of the state’s priorities is the expansion of social guarantees for participants of the special military operation and their family members, as well as for all our servicemen.

Over the past year, the Ministry of Defence, in collaboration with the Defenders of the Fatherland State Foundation, has made substantial progress in improving the quality of medical care for wounded servicemen, addressing their rehabilitation and employment needs, ensuring timely payments, and implementing other measures, including additional forms of social support for the families, children, and parents of fallen servicemen.

I must emphasise that there remains work to be done here. Currently, in preparation for the Direct Line, it has become evident that many questions on these topics are being raised. We will undoubtedly revisit this matter with the leadership of the Ministry of Defence.

I would particularly like to commend the heroic efforts of medical officers and personnel, who often perform the impossible to save our fighters and return them to active duty after treatment. Unique experience has been gained in providing medical and psychological support to servicemen with injuries, trauma, and illnesses related to combat operations.

This experience must be incorporated not only into the work of military medical institutions, but also into civilian healthcare, and must be enshrined in legislation.

Undoubtedly, efforts to index servicemen’s monetary allowances must continue, and the pace of providing them with permanent and service housing must not decline. Every Defender of the Motherland must be confident that the state will provide them and their loved ones with all necessary social support.

In conclusion, I would like to once again express my gratitude to the soldiers and officers currently on the front lines, to all participants of the special military operation for their heroism and dedication, and to extend my best wishes to the leadership, all personnel, and civilian staff of the Ministry of Defence for further achievements in service to the Motherland and our people.

I firmly believe that you will continue to steadfastly safeguard the sovereignty and security of Russia.

Thank you for your attention.

The floor is yours, Mr Belousov.

<…>

Vladimir Putin: Comrades,

I would like to thank the Minister for providing a detailed analysis of the status of matters in the Armed Forces and along the line of contact.

As is customary, I will share a few general considerations with you. I will probably not say anything that you do not already know, but I still believe it is important to say it.

I would like to begin with our recent history, with the most recent developments, in order to have a clear idea of where we are now and why we are where we are.

You have heard me say it many times before, yet I think it is worth saying it again. Shortly after the Soviet Union had fallen apart, we thought we would quickly become members of the “civilised” family of European nations and the civilised Western family more broadly. Today, it turns out that civilisation there is nonexistent, and degradation is all there is there, but that is not the point. Back then, we thought it was a good thing and that we would become a full-fledged and equal member of that family. Nothing of the kind happened. You see? Nothing of the kind happened, and we did not become an equal member of that family.

On the contrary, they started going after Russia from all angles, and even ratcheted the pressure up. Almost everything concerning Russia was decided from a position of strength. They would pat us on the shoulder and invite us to attend various events, but the West used force, including military force, to push its Russia-related interests.

Truly so. Supporting separatism and terrorism was clearly demonstrated and carried out by supplying terrorists with weapons and money and providing them with political and media support across the board. Economic restrictions were imposed on us as well, and that, too, is about forceful pressure, and a very serious one at that.

I remember this very well. When we said that we needed to protect our country against terrorism, we were told to do whatever we needed to, but not to do certain things or else we will not be eligible for loans or renewed easy terms.” This was direct forceful pressure and outright restriction in the economic sphere.

Destructive instruments aimed at destabilising Russia from within were also deployed – and this was entirely deliberate. We have seen the same pattern in other countries: mechanisms for undermining domestic political stability were created and put to use.

Of course, by then, the entire post-war security architecture had ceased to function. Everything began to erode rapidly, and the established rules, along with the UN Charter, were cast aside. Consider the events in Yugoslavia. How did that align with the UN Charter? Was that not the use of force? We have spoken of this many times, but the fact remains: they simply did as they saw fit, acting at their own discretion. They would manipulate the situation and force a vote if they could. If not, to hell with it – they applied armed force directly. In the end, they ravaged and dismantled Yugoslavia and fractured the Serbian people, scattering a single nation across different state entities.

I will not dwell now on NATO expansion, though its role is obvious. Even today, we are told we have no right to dictate how others should ensure their security or to deprive them of their choices. We are not depriving anyone of anything. We are not making exceptional demands. We are simply insisting that the promises made to us be honoured. It was publicly stated that NATO would not expand eastward. What followed? They disregarded this entirely, and one wave of expansion followed another. I repeat: we are not asking for anything extraordinary – only that the assurances given to us be fulfilled.

I believe everyone here understands that agreements with the Soviet Union were treated one way, and agreements with modern Russia, after the USSR’s disintegration, quite another. All our interests were simply ignored.

This ultimately led to the coup in Ukraine. What kind of democracy is this, the one we have been lectured about for decades? It was a straightforward armed power grab. Had they gone to the polls – as I have said countless times – they would have won the elections fairly. Nothing stood in their way; victory was assured. But no – they simply demonstrated force, and that was that.

Thereafter, they began violently suppressing the southeast, their southeastern regions, effectively unleashing a war. It was not we who started the war in 2022; it was the destructive forces in Ukraine, backed by the West. In essence, the West itself instigated this conflict. We are only seeking to end it, to stop it. Initially, we pursued peaceful means through the Minsk negotiations, as you will recall. Eventually, we were compelled to introduce a military component once it became clear we were being deceived. That deception has since been laid bare: senior officials have stated unabashedly that they never intended to honour the agreements, but only to buy time to arm and equip Ukrainian forces. They engineered a coup, initiated military operations, and deliberately – I am convinced, deliberately – precipitated a war.

President Trump has said that had he been in office at the time, none of this would have happened. He may well be right. Because the previous administration deliberately brought matters to an armed conflict. And I think the reason is clear: they believed Russia could be swiftly broken up and dismantled. European “swine underlings” immediately joined the efforts of that previous American administration, hoping to profit from our country’s collapse: to reclaim what had been lost in earlier historical periods and to exact a form of revenge. As has now become evident to all, every one of those attempts, every destructive design against Russia, has ended in complete and total failure.

Russia has demonstrated its resilience in the economy, finance, domestic politics, the state of society, and, ultimately, in its defence capability. Yes, there are still many issues and problems in this area.

I can see people here in this hall who came directly from the front, from the frontlines, from the line of combat contact. They are sitting here, I see them. And they know better than anyone that the army still faces many problems; they encounter them every day.

And yet, our Armed Forces have become completely different –fundamentally different. The most important result of the special military operation is that Russia has regained its status as a fully sovereign state. Russia has become sovereign in every sense of the word. We have regained this status to a large extent thanks to your participation, thanks to the contribution of the Armed Forces.

Our army has become totally different. This applies to troop command, tactics, strategy, equipment, and the work and performance of the defence and industrial complex. This also concerns the strategic component: our nuclear shield is more updated than the nuclear component of any officially recognised nuclear power. How much modernised is it, over 80 percent?

Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov: Ninety-two percent.

Vladimir Putin: Our nuclear forces are 92 percent modernised. No other nuclear power in the world has such a level.

We have new armaments and new weapon systems. No one else in the world has these, and no one will for a long time. I have mentioned this before and we know Avangard, Burevestnik, and other systems.

Our ground forces are also growing and strengthening. Yes, I repeat, those who have come from the front know that many problems remain. But these troops are completely different now: they are battle-hardened. There is no other army like this in the world; it simply does not exist.

Yes, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are also going through the ordeal of military action. But, unfortunately for them, just as the Ukrainian state itself is disintegrating – symbolised by the “golden toilets” – their armed forces are also degrading. This is evidenced by the growing number of deserters: more than 100,000 criminal cases for desertion alone have been opened in Ukraine, and the total number of deserters is in the hundreds of thousands. This is a clear sign of degradation.

And our Armed Forces are on the rise. I repeat, much remains to be done, but it will all be done. We have always stated – and I want to reaffirm this – that we remain ready for negotiations and ready to resolve all the problems that have arisen in recent years through peaceful means. The United States administration has demonstrated such readiness, and we are engaged in dialogue with it. I hope the same will eventually occur in Europe. It is unlikely with the current political elites, but it will be inevitable as we continue to strengthen, if not with the present politicians, then with a change of political elites in Europe.

I would like to thank you for your dedicated work in 2025 and express my confidence and hope that all the challenges facing our country will be successfully resolved.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

All the best.

Media statements by the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of India

Following Russian-Indian talks, Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi made statements for the media. The statements were preceded by a ceremony for the exchange of signed documents.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/78657

29 Documents were signed by the parties.  The video, at the link above, lists these – I am sure we will get a list that is not video and can easily be read.

Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi (retranslated): Your Excellency Vladimir Putin, my dear friend,

Representatives of the two countries, and our friends from India, good afternoon.

I am delighted to welcome President Putin to the 23^rd Russia – India Annual Summit.

President Vladimir Putin’s visit to India is taking place at a time marked by several historical dates in our relations. President Putin laid the groundwork for our strategic cooperation 25 years ago, and 15 years ago, in 2010, we upgraded our partnership to the level of a special privileged strategic partnership.

Over the past 25 years, President Putin has been relentless in promoting these relations by demonstrating his wise leadership and vision. Regardless of the circumstances, it is his leadership that has reinforced our mutual relations and enabled us to achieve new heights.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to President Putin for his friendship and for his unwavering commitment to working with India.

Friends,

The world has faced numerous ups and downs over the past 80 years, during which humankind has had to endure many crises and challenges. And throughout this time, the friendship between Russia and India has successfully weathered these storms. These relations are based on mutual respect and deep trust and have invariably stood the test of time.

Today, we discussed our ties and cooperation in all their aspects with a view to creating an even more solid foundation.

We want to reinforce our economic cooperation and elevate it to a new level. This is the objective we share and it is our shared priority. To make this a reality, we have agreed to implement a programme for economic cooperation until 2030. It will provide for diversifying our trade and investment, making them more balanced and sustainable. At the same time, it will help unlock new dimensions in our cooperation.

Today, President Putin and I will be taking part in the Russia – India Business Forum. I am convinced that this platform will also help strengthen our business ties and open new doors for exports, joint manufacture and technical innovation.

Both countries have been proactive in working on a free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and our country.

Our cooperation in agriculture and fertilisers is extremely important for our food security and the prosperity of our farmers.

I am happy that our countries will work together to promote our mutual production of urea.

Friends, promoting connectivity between our countries is another priority for us.

We will redouble our efforts regarding the discussions on the North-South International Transport Corridor and the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor.

I am confident that we will effectively cooperate in the interests of promoting polar trade via local trade routes. We have offered an opportunity to strengthen our cooperation in the Arctic, which will create new jobs for Indian young people.

At the same time, our deep cooperation in shipbuilding will help us boost our joint initiatives. This is yet another important example of our mutually beneficial cooperation, which is increasing the number of jobs and skills while strengthening regional connectivity.

Energy security is another important pillar of partnership between Russia and India. Our cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear energy, which is rooted in our history, has helped us uphold our commitment to providing clean energy, which is extremely important for both countries.

I have no doubt that our mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of critical minerals will also be important for a safe and diversified provision of resources to the world.

We also maintain our cooperation in such areas as clean energy, high technologies and modern industries.

Friends,

Our cultural relations and ties between individual representatives of our countries are of special importance for relations between Russia and India. Over the past decades, our peoples have demonstrated respect and admiration for each other’s cultures, and we have coordinated various measures to further strengthen this cooperation.

The recent opening of two Indian consulates in Russia is a significant step forward, facilitating contacts for all our citizens and bringing our nations even closer together.

This October, hundreds of thousands of pilgrims received blessings at the sacred relics of Buddha Shakyamuni in Kalmykia. I am confident that we will soon implement a 30-day visa-free regime for tourist groups, which will greatly enhance travel between our countries. This measure will not only bring our peoples closer but also invigorate our societies and unlock new opportunities. I am therefore pleased that today we were able to sign two key agreements to advance this initiative.

Our collaboration will also deepen in education and professional development, including through increased student and academic exchanges.

Friends,

Today, we discussed a range of pressing regional and global issues. On Ukraine, India’s position has been consistent from the outset: we stand for peace. We welcome all initiatives and efforts aimed at achieving a peaceful, long-term resolution of this conflict. India has always been ready to support such efforts, and we will continue to do so.

India and Russia have always supported one another and worked shoulder to shoulder in the fight against terrorism. The terrorist attack in Pahalgam and the cowardly atrocity at Crocus City Hall are connected by a common, hateful ideology. India firmly believes that terrorism constitutes a direct assault on universal human values. Our unity within the global community is the only effective way to combat this evil.

We cooperate closely within the UN, the G20, the SCO, BRICS, and other multilateral forums. We will continue this essential dialogue and cooperation across all these platforms.

Your Excellency,

I am confident that our enduring friendship will provide the strength needed to address global challenges. Together, we can help lead the way towards a more prosperous future.

Once again, I thank you and all members of your delegation for your visit to India. Thank you very much.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prime Minister, dear friend,

Ladies and gentlemen,

My sincere thanks to the President of the Republic of India, Droupadi Murmu, to you, Mr Prime Minister, and to all our Indian colleagues for the exceptionally warm and cordial welcome extended to the Russian delegation.

The discussions we have just concluded with our Indian colleagues, along with our highly productive one-on-one conversation last night – for which I thank you again, Mr Modi, for your generous hospitality – were held in a constructive and friendly spirit, reflecting the privileged partnership between Russia and India.

I would note that the Prime Minister and I have established a close working and personal rapport. We have met at the SCO summit in September, we maintain regular contact by telephone and personally oversee the development of our strategic cooperation across all key areas, as well as the progress of major bilateral projects.

Today, with the participation of our delegations, we conducted a thorough and comprehensive review of the entire spectrum of Russian-Indian cooperation. We also exchanged views on current international and regional issues.

The joint statement we have adopted outlines clear priorities for advancing our ties in politics, security, trade, the economy, and cultural and humanitarian affairs. As you have seen, this was complemented by the signing of a substantial package of intergovernmental, interdepartmental, and corporate agreements.

Many of these documents are aimed at expanding our economic partnership. This is only natural, as our nations are important partners in trade, investment, and technology. Last year, our bilateral trade grew by a further 12 percent, reaching a new record. While various estimates differ slightly, the consensus places the figure somewhere between US$64 and US$65 billion. We project trade will stand at a comparable level by year’s end.

That said, we believe there is clear potential to increase this volume to US$100 billion. To realise this ambitious goal, we have now agreed upon a joint Programme for the Development of Russian-Indian Economic Cooperation until 2030. This comprehensive roadmap provides clear guidelines. Our intergovernmental commission and the relevant economic ministries and agencies are tasked with removing barriers to the flows of goods and capital, implementing joint industrial projects, and deepening our collaboration in technology and investment.

Today, His Excellency the Prime Minister shared a comprehensive list of issues with us. It goes without saying that both Russia and India will be extremely diligent and responsive in reviewing them. Make no mistake, we will work on this matter.

Of course, having India create a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union would help boost Russia-India business ties. The effort to draft an agreement to this effect is already in progress.

I must express my satisfaction with the fact that the two countries have been consistent in their commitment to switching to national currencies in mutual transactions. Their share in business deals has already reached 96 percent. Our two countries have developed resilient interbank channels for lending and financial transactions. Russian economic actors have been making wider use of the rupees they generate from export contracts. Major joint projects receive their funding in Russian rubles.

There has been positive momentum in our energy partnership. Russia is a reliable supplier of energy resources and everything India needs for developing its energy sector. We are ready to continue ensuring uninterrupted fuel supplies for the Indian economy to support its rapid expansion.

Of course, our bilateral energy cooperation goes far beyond this horizon. The flagship project to build India’s biggest NPP, Kudankulam, is underway. Two out of six reactors have been connected to the power grid, while the other four are in the engineering and construction stages.

Once this NPP reaches its full capacity, it will make a meaningful contribution to India’s energy mix, helping Indian companies and households access affordable and clean energy. We believe that building small modular reactors and floating NPPs could also be relevant, just as using nuclear technology for non-energy purposes, including in healthcare, agriculture and other sectors.

We are also working with our Indian partners to create new effective international transport logistics routes. This includes a project to create the North-South corridor linking Russia and Belarus to the Indian Ocean. Infrastructure development along the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor, including the Northern Sea Route as its main artery, offers ample opportunities for expanding bilateral trade.

There are many other economic sectors in which Russia and India have built a positive track record. We are working on joint initiatives in manufacturing, machine building, digital technology, space exploration and other research-intensive domains.

For example, a business agreement that was signed as part of the visit provides for building a major Russian-Indian pharmaceutical plant in the Kaluga Region for producing high-quality anticancer medicine using cutting-edge Indian technology. At the same time, Russian companies will start producing their goods as part of the Make in India programme, which is Prime Minister Modi’s flagship project.

Prospects for strengthening interaction between Russian and Indian entrepreneurs and business communities are being discussed in detail at the business forum that is currently underway in New Delhi. Mr Prime Minister and I will attend its plenary session later today.

Russian-Indian humanitarian cooperation is ongoing in many spheres. Our peoples have been sincerely interested in each other’s traditions, history and spiritual values for centuries. Our scientific and educational contacts, as well as youth and public exchanges are actively developing. The regular cross festivals of Russian and Indian films invariably enjoy success. Mutual tourist flows grow every year.

The Russian RT channel will begin broadcasting to India today. This will certainly help the Indian audience learn more about Russia and Russians and acquire objective information about current developments in our country.

Our discussions on key global and regional issues have reaffirmed the similarity of our countries’ positions. Russia and India pursue an independent and sovereign foreign policy.

We are working together with our allies in BRICS, the SCO and other countries of the Global Majority to promote the shaping of a more just and democratic multipolar world order, and to protect the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter. These include the right of every country to its own path of development, the preservation of its own cultural and civilisational identity, respect for sovereignty and a delicate balance of interests of all members of the international community.

Russia and India, as the founding nations of BRICS, have done and continue to do a great deal to enhance the prestige of that organisation. As you know, India will assume the BRICS chairmanship next year. We will provide all-round assistance to our Indian friends in their work on the current BRICS agenda.

Of course, I would also like to say that Russia and India have traditionally worked closely together in the military-technical sphere. Our country has been assisting the modernisation of the Indian army, including the air defence, air force and navy, for over 50 years.

Overall, we are certainly satisfied with the results of our talks. Our plans include a meeting with President of India Droupadi Murmu. However, I can already express my confidence that this visit and the agreements reached will effectively promote the further strengthening of the Russian-Indian strategic partnership for the benefit of the people of India and Russia.

Thank you.

Ahead of his state visit to India, Vladimir Putin answered questions from anchors of Aaj Tak and India Today TV channels.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Dear viewers,

Hello and a very warm welcome. You are watching India Today, and I’m Anjana Om Kashyap and we’re at the Kremlin today and you’re about to witness history: a very historic moment.

It is said that when two old friends meet, they have their private jokes, they have a lot of fun and they have a bond of camaraderie but the others in the room might feel a little uncomfortable. And why do I say this – I say this because as the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, the world will be watching very very closely.

Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly one of the most influential politicians of the world, whose decisions don’t just affect Russia, but numerous nations across the world. He is a very compelling and enigmatic figure on the world stage and it just doesn’t get more exciting than this.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, Anjana.

Hello and welcome, I’m Geeta Mohan. We have with us the man who is known to be one of the world longest serving leaders. He has seen it all – through wars and economic recessions, from disintegration of countries to a changed world order, from Boris Yeltsin to Donald Trump, from Atal Bihari Vajpaee to Manmohan Singh and to Narendra Modi. He’s seen the world change right in front of him and he is taking Russia through very turbulent times and yet has cemented his position as a force to reckon with.

Thank you so much, Mr President, for doing this for us, you are in conversation with India Today and Aaj Tak, and that’s the President of the Russian Federation for you.

Thank you so much for joining us on our network.

How are you doing?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I hope you’ll enjoy your stay in Russia. Hope that you like Moscow and the Kremlin where we are currently collaborating together.

As you see, everything is going on as planned. On the whole, we are satisfied with the current economic situation.

Most importantly, I am delighted to be meeting, as you’ve mentioned, my friend Prime Minister Modi. We have made a specific arrangement to do so in India because there are numerous topics on which we need to talk, and our collaboration with India spans an extensive array – and, of course, the unique nature of our relationship adds another layer of significance.

I also want to highlight that India’s progress over the past 77 years since gaining independence – an extremely brief span in historical terms – has been substantial indeed, and India has truly come a long way in development. I will discuss this further below.

You know, as we go about our daily lives, we often fail to notice the changes happening right before our eyes; we scarcely ever take note of them. Yet if you glance even slightly into the past and reflect on what has occurred in India – it’s almost like a miracle. For example, few people recognise that life expectancy in India has nearly doubled during this period.

Geeta Mohan: We will talk about longevity in some time from now.

Vladimir Putin: We will definitely discuss that. Anyway, our relationship with India is advancing in numerous fields. It’s a pleasure to meet Prime Minister Modi again, with whom we have both a professional and a personal, friendly relationship.

Anjana Om Kashyap: May I ask you a question?

You just talked about the Indian-Russian ties. It all dates back to almost more than seven decades, this dostee, this druzhba in Russian, this friendship dates back to more than seven decades.

My question is, how do you assess the strength of this friendship in today’s time and what would you say about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi whom you call your dost?

Vladimir Putin: About the Prime Minister?

Anjana Om Kashyap: Yes. And to him.

Vladimir Putin: You know, the world is evolving rapidly – and this pace keeps getting faster, which is plainly visible to all. The global configuration is changing, with new centres of power emerging, and the global power landscape is changing too. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure stability among major nations, since this forms the groundwork for gradual progress in both bilateral and international relations.

In this context, our collaborative endeavours with Prime Minister Modi carry significant weight because they transcend our mutual ties. Given its direct relevance to both nations, ensuring stability in key areas of engagement is crucial, as it helps secure the fulfilment of our objectives. Prime Minister Modi sets very challenging tasks for the country – and for himself in the first place, then for the administration, and eventually for the nation.

Take, for example, his famous pitch, “Make in India.” It has a practical dimension, including for our bilateral relations. When we meet, he always says, “Let’s do this, let’s do that, let’s look at this area and that.” I can list them all. Therefore, we have a lot of practical areas of cooperation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Before Geeta takes on to the next question, one little, small very interesting question, because when you met Prime Minister Modi at the SCO there was this picture and video of you and him going in a car. And we are showing it to our viewers right now how you were traveling in a car with him – was it preplanned or how did it go about, how did it happen? And what did you discuss in the car?

Vladimir Putin: We have just gone over the current topics. This wasn’t prearranged; we simply stepped out, and my car was waiting. I asked, ”Would you like to come along?“ That’s all there is to it – a gesture of human solidarity, camaraderie, and friendship. No hidden scheme was involved. We climbed into the car like old friends and talked en route. We always have things to discuss.

What’s more, we continued our conversation and just remained in the car. Eventually, I suggested: ”Let’s go, they are already waiting for us. “ There is nothing special here; it simply indicates that we have matters to discuss and those matters are very important to us.

Geeta Mohan: Thank you, Mr President. The fact that you are going to India. You just said that both leaders are going to cement the guarantees that you give each other. What are the kind of announcements that we can expect? We’ve heard about technology transfer, we’ve heard about trade enhancement. What are the solid announcements during this visit? And I ask you this, because the world – and you know who I mean – would be watching.

Vladimir Putin: The world would be watching our visit – there’s no big deal here. India is an enormous country, home to one-and-a-half billion people, boasting a growing economy with a seven-percent annual growth rate, leading among major global powers. After all, Mr Modi has made this possible. It’s something both the Indian nation and Prime Minister Modi himself can rightfully claim as their achievement. Naturally, there will always be critics who think that improvements could have been more significant. But that’s an achievement.

We’ve laid out an ambitious plan for our collaboration in key domains. The most critical areas are indeed forward-looking. I’m referring specifically to high technology. Our partnership with India encompasses such fields as space exploration, energy (notably nuclear power, exemplified by the prominent Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant project), shipbuilding, and aviation.

There are many interesting areas for cooperation that are looking to the future. Take, for example, artificial intelligence. We’ll likely discuss it further down the line. AI represents a crucial technology shaping the future, rapidly transforming the world, amplifying possibilities exponentially while simultaneously presenting certain challenges.

These are the matters we will discuss, choosing the ones that are the most significant for us, as both Prime Minister Modi and I believe. That’s what we will focus on and what we will work on.

Geeta Mohan: Are there any specific agreements?

Vladimir Putin: Well, of course. However, perhaps we shouldn’t reveal them just yet; we will do that during the visit, when we can unveil everything publicly. Then, our colleagues will first share with us all the documents they have prepared, and it would require our final approval.

Geeta Mohan: I suggest we switch to the energy sector. Just talking about sustainability and trade. There’s immense pressure on India and on Russia when it comes to oil. India has suffered in terms of the kind of pressure that we’re seeing from West. How can both countries handle this Western pressure and sanctions?

Vladimir Putin: The issue here is that the pressure you have referred to typically involves employing political instruments to influence normal competition.

Our energy cooperation with India remains unaffected by current conditions, fleeting political swings, or indeed the tragic events in Ukraine.

Regarding hydrocarbons: well before the Ukrainian situation, our business entities had already built a solid and efficient commercial relationship that is based on mutual trust.

It’s widely known that one of our leading companies acquired an oil refinery in India – this investment represented one of the largest foreign inflows into the Indian economy, totalling more than US$20 billion. Our company has been continuously expanding operations of this refinery, working with its partners, operating successfully year after year. As a result, India has become one of the major refined product suppliers to Europe – not just because it buys our oil with a discount. It took years to achieve and is in no way connected to the current economic environment.

Certain actors clearly dislike India’s growing role in international markets owing to its ties with Russia. Consequently, they’re seeking means to constrain India’s influence for political reasons by imposing artificial obstacles.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Economy is a very important point, but my question to you now would be about defence. India continues to be the biggest defence buyer, roughly 38% of the market from Russia is bought by India.

My question is in view of the sanctions by the US or the load they have laid on India, the arm-twisting methods that are being adopted – and I name, it’s America – how do you plan to circumvent all this? Will you pull back or push harder?

Vladimir Putin: It appears that both India and the world recognise that India cannot continue to be treated the way it was treated 77 years ago. India is a major global player, not a British colony, and everyone must accept this reality.

Furthermore, Prime Minister Modi is not someone who succumbs to pressure easily. The Indian people can certainly take pride in their leader. This is absolutely obvious. His stance is unwavering and straightforward, without being confrontational. Our goal is not to provoke conflict; rather, we aim to protect our lawful rights. India does the same.

What are the obstacles? Obstacles in settlements.

However, over 90% of our transactions are already conducted in national currencies. While some complications arise due to the presence of numerous intermediaries, there are also solutions: we can switch to the existing systems for exchanging electronic messages on financial transactions of the Bank of Russia and of our partners in India.

These efforts are ongoing and advancing. Those who attempt to hinder economic ties with third countries ultimately encounter difficulties and suffer losses. I am confident that once this perspective becomes firmly established, such tactics of applying external pressures will fade away.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Three specific questions, Sir.

Number one: because during Operation Sindoor the weapons we had acquired from Russia have proved to be very crucial in our victory. That is why I would like to ask you specifically about S400, the air defence system, the five S400 that are awaited – by when can we expect that?

The second question is on S500, an even more advanced air defence system.

And the third question is about the fifth generation fighter jet Su-57. How are you going to push for this and what are the updates?

Vladimir Putin: You seem to be an expert on the issue, as if we are engaged in negotiations on military-technical cooperation.

If we delve into the substance, India stands out as one of our reliable and privileged partners in this area. We are not merely selling something to India and India isn’t merely buying something from us in the sphere of defence and security. No. It is a different level, a different quality of relations we have with India, and we value this. We see how India values this relationship too.

Why? Allow me to emphasise again: we are not simply selling technology – we are sharing it, and it is a very rare thing to see in the sphere of military-technical cooperation. It speaks to the level of trust between the two countries and the level of trust between the two peoples, I would put it this way. We have a broad portfolio indeed, including naval construction, rocket and missile engineering, and aircraft engineering.

You just mentioned the Su-57 aircraft. India operates several other Russian-made aircraft too. And there’s the production of armoured vehicles. India is manufacturing our renowned T-90 tanks. Trust me when I tell you that these tanks rank among the best in the world. Moreover, the famous BrahMos missile – a joint venture between Russia and India – is manufactured primarily at Indian facilities.

Therefore, Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” initiative should be implemented in this area as well.

Geeta Mohan: And the Kalashnikovs.

Vladimir Putin: The Kalashnikov is certainly an important weapon. But we have been discussing high, one might even say cutting-edge technologies. Given the combat experience in using certain types of weapons, their value has multiplied manyfold.

Now, Indian military specialists – thanks to their strong ties with our military – understand clearly how and in what circumstances a particular weapon performs best, and where and when it should be deployed. This is an extremely important understanding, which is shared by both the Indian and Russian sides.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, I have to go back to your oil question, because you spoke about strategic autonomy, which is what India has been talking about. Strategic autonomy decides for India’s interests, but has India reduced Russian intake of oil after pressure from the West?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there is a certain decline in overall trade turnover during the first nine months of this year. This is just a minor adjustment. Overall, our trade turnover stands almost at the same level as before.

I can’t give you exact monthly figures right now, but trade in petroleum products and crude oil, as well as the production of petroleum products for consumers of oil, Russian oil, is running smoothly in India. I know the sentiment of Russian partners, of Russian companies: they believe their Indian counterparts are reliable and very serious people.

Geeta Mohan: The other important aspect in terms of cooperation between India and Russia is the nuclear front. Russia has been one of the biggest movers when it comes to nuclear facilities in India. Are we looking at important announcements on the nuclear front? Nuclear today is a sensitive issue for Russia.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course we have some announcements to make.

We are indeed one of the biggest ”movers,“ as you have noted. Speaking seriously, we are not ”movers,“ we are producers of the world’s most advanced and reliable equipment for nuclear power plants. The Russian company Rosatom builds and operates more nuclear reactors for nuclear power plants abroad than any other company in the world – 22 nuclear units. The well‑known facility and our joint project, the Kudankulam plant, is one of the leaders in this regard.

These are large units, they operate efficiently and, I reiterate, have proven to be very useful.

There are some announcements you have just asked about. What is it about? The news is that Russia is probably the only country in the world today capable of building – and actually does build – small nuclear power plants. Such plants are already operational in Russia, and we can make them either floating or ground-based. It’s an excellent option for specific regions where big power stations are not needed or where connecting electricity grids between generators and end-users isn’t feasible. These compact nuclear power modules can thus be deployed in isolated and hard-to-access locations.

Geeta Mohan: That’s a lot of collaboration and cooperation. You’re talking about

”Make in India, Make With Russia.“

How do you think President Trump is going to react to all of this?

Vladimir Putin: You know, neither me nor Prime Minister Modi, despite certain external pressure we face, have ever – and I want to emphasise this, I want you to hear it – approached our collaboration to work against someone.

President Trump has his own agenda, his own goals, whereas we focus on ours – not against anyone, but rather aimed at safeguarding our respective interests, India’s and Russia’s interests. In our dealings, we cause no harm to others, and I believe that leaders from other countries should appreciate this.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With regard to Mr Donald Trump. My second question is also about him, because recently he said that if you are buying oil from Russia, – about India – you are funding the Russian-Ukrainian war.

How would you characterise Mr Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I never give character assessments about my colleagues – neither those I’ve worked with in the past nor current leaders of individual states. These assessments should be made by citizens who vote for their leader during elections.

As for India’s purchases or purchase of energy resources from Russia… Well, I would like to note and have already mentioned this publicly once –

the United States itself still buys nuclear fuel from us for its own nuclear power plants. That is also fuel – uranium for the reactors operating in the United States. If the US has the right to buy our fuel, why shouldn’t India have the same privilege? This question deserves thorough examination, and we stand ready to discuss it, including with President Trump.

Geeta Mohan: You are being very kind, you say you are not characterising Trump, but he certainly does that with regard to you. Having said this, he has weaponised tariffs. And he has weaponised it against India. How do you think the two countries should be handling Donald Trump and the US administration?

Vladimir Putin: You know, he pursues his own policy, and he has advisors – his decisions aren’t made out of thin air. He has advisors who believe that implementing such tariff policies, involving the imposition of additional duties on trade partners, ultimately benefits the US economy. He is acting in good faith, I presume. Our experts believe there are risks involved, but it is the choice of each country and its leadership to decide which economic policy to adopt.

We have never engaged in such practices, do not do so now, and have no intention of doing so in the future. Our economy is open. We hope that, in the end, all violations of World Trade Organisation regulations will be rectified.

Geeta Mohan: Mr President, things have changed a little between the US and Russia. The fact that America is engaging you, we would have loved to be a fly on the wall when you were meeting with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. That was an important meeting. Were there red lines that Russia reiterated? What really happened?

Vladimir Putin: It’s premature to discuss that now. I doubt it would interest you to hear about it, as it lasted five hours. Frankly, even I grew weary of it – five hours is too much. However, it was necessary because…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Five hours! Witkoff and Kushner?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I was alone. Can you imagine it?

But speaking seriously, it was a very productive conversation, as what our American colleagues presented was, in one way or another, based on our prior agreements made before my meeting with President Trump in Alaska. We had discussed these very issues, to some extent, at the meeting in Anchorage. However, what the Americans brought us this time was truly new; we hadn’t seen it before. Therefore, we had to go through practically every point, which is why it took so much time. So it was a meaningful, highly specific, and substantive conversation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Were there certain specific points of disagreement?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, such issues were raised, we discussed them. But this is a complex task and a challenging mission that President Trump took upon himself – fair enough, I say without irony, because achieving consensus among conflicting parties is no easy task. But President Trump, truly, I believe, he sincerely tries to do this.

We went through each point again, let me reiterate this. Sometimes we said, “yes, we can discuss this, but with that one we cannot agree.” That was how the work proceeded. To say now what exactly doesn’t suit us or where we could possibly agree seems premature, since it might disrupt the very mode of operation that President Trump is trying to establish.

But that’s what they do – shuttle diplomacy. They spoke with Ukrainian representatives, then with Europeans, came here, had another meeting with Ukrainians and Europeans. I think we should engage in this effort rather than obstruct it.

Geeta Mohan: You are saying that the 28 points peace proposal is not on the table?

Vladimir Putin: They’re discussing – that’s what they’re discussing right now. They simply broke down those 28 points, then 27, into four packages and proposed discussing these four packages. But essentially, it’s still just the same old 27 points.

Anjana Om Kashyap: We will go back to that and try to understand how it’s going forward.

What happened in Alaska? You met President Trump and it was all about the peace deal, right? What happened? Did you actually have sense of or see a sincere intent?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, there was indeed a sense – no, more than just a sense, I have absolutely no doubt that President Trump had genuine intentions (we won’t discuss here what caused them or why they appeared, but they’re definitely present). Both the United States and President Trump likely have their own understanding of why this needs to be resolved quickly.

Moreover, by the way, on humanitarian grounds too. I truly believe that is one of the motives behind President Trump’s actions regarding this matter because he constantly speaks about his wish to minimise losses, and I’m confident that his sincerity is genuine. He undoubtedly considers these humanitarian concerns when formulating his decisions.

However, other factors also come into play: political considerations and economic interests. Therefore, I believe that the US is actively seeking a solution to this problem.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, he has spoken about intentions, you’re right about. He claimed he would end wars and conflicts – causing consternation in India when he claimed that he had brought peace between India and Pakistan, now he’s looking at Russia and Ukraine. Do you really think he’s a peacemaker?

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the situation in Ukraine – yes, let me repeat once again, I am absolutely certain, with no doubt at all, he sincerely aims for a peaceful resolution.

Let me stress once again: the United States may have various reasons for this – humanitarian ones personally for Trump because he genuinely wants to end hostilities and prevent further loss of life, but there could also be political interests tied to ending the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, or economic motives too. By the way, they can be in the energy area and in other areas. There are numerous areas where restoring economic relations between the US and Russia would benefit both sides.

I showed you some letters – I won’t go into this now – large US companies sent to us. We should remember this.

Comment: Really?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. About their existence. They’re waiting until all problems are solved, and they’re ready to return to us, they want this, asking us not to forget about them. The letters are there.

Comment: It’s surprising.

Vladimir Putin: What’s so surprising about that? Many want to return. So, of course, the Indian government is saying right: “Why should we leave…?”

Geeta Mohan: They arrived with letters from companies – quite astonishingly unexpected indeed.

Vladimir Putin: No, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. We have letters from American companies – letters they have sent us, where they urge us not to forget about their existence. These are our former partners, who did not leave by choice. They express a clear desire to resume cooperation and are waiting, among other things, for a corresponding political signal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: This conversation is becoming very interesting because there are so many highlights of understanding and it is really pleasant to see you, and your sense of humour, and how you are putting things forth.

But now we are going to go into a very serious matter – and that is the Russia-Ukraine war. So what, in your view, would constitute a victory for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war? What are the red lines? Because you have, and I quote you, you have said very clearly that Russia will lay down arms only if Kiev’s troops withdraw from the territories claimed by Russia, which parts would that be?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it’s not about victory, like you have said. The point is that Russia is determined – and will certainly do so – to protect its interests. Protect its people living there, protect our traditional values, Russian language, and so on. Protection, by the way, of religion that has been cultivated on these lands for centuries. Yet you know that the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is almost banned: they seize churches, drive people out of temples, etc. – it is a problem. And I’m not even mentioning the ban on the Russian language, etc. It is all part of a big set of issues.

Let me remind you: we were not the ones to start this war. The West egged Ukraine on and supported the events, orchestrating a coup d’état. That was the point that triggered the events in Crimea, followed by developments in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass.

They don’t even mention it – we’ve tried to resolve these issues peacefully for eight years, signed the Minsk agreements, hoping that they could be resolved through peaceful means. But Western leaders openly admitted later that they never intended to honour those agreements, signing them merely to allow Ukraine to arm itself and continue fighting against us. After eight years of relentless violence against our citizens of Donbass – something the West hasn’t uttered a word about – we were forced to recognise these republics first, and secondly, provide support.

Our special military operation isn’t the start of a war, but rather an attempt to end one that the West ignited using Ukrainian nationalists. That’s what is really happening now. That’s the crux of the problem.

We will finish it when we achieve the goals set at the beginning of the special military operation – when we free these territories. That’s all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: What is the end gain for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: I have said that already. Listen, we didn’t recognise these self-proclaimed republics for eight years. Eight years. They declared independence, while we were trying to establish relations between the rest of Ukraine and those republics. But when we realised this was impossible, that they were simply being destroyed, we had no choice but to recognise them – and not just their existence on part of the territory, but within administrative boundaries established during Soviet times, then later under independent Ukraine after its independence, still within those administrative borders.

And right away we told Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops: ”People don’t want to live with you anymore. They voted in a referendum for independence. Withdraw your troops from there, and there won’t be any military actions.“ No, they chose to fight instead.

Now they have pretty much fought themselves into a corner, all this boils down to one thing: either we take back these territories by force, or eventually Ukrainian troops withdraw and stop killing people there.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Before we move to the other one, just one last question. On March 8, 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, you were addressing the Federation Council and you said, ”Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities.“ What did you mean?

Vladimir Putin: Here I haven’t made up anything – historically this is how it was said. Originally, the Russian state was formed from several centres. The first capital, according to history, was in Novgorod in the northwest. Later the federal status moved to the city of Veliky Novgorod, and then it moved to Kiev. This was Ancient Rus. And since then, Kiev has been known as the ”mother of all Russian cities.“

Later, historical events unfolded in such a way that the ancient Russian state split into two parts. One part began developing with Moscow as its centre, while another part fell under other countries. For instance, the part with Kiev, along with some other lands, these parts first formed a state with Lithuania, subsequently merged with Poland, forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thus, this part of the ancient Russian state ended up in Poland, and by the seventeenth century, it sought to return back to Russia.

Geeta Mohan: The fact that you know, you were mentioning the history and it brings me to what I did when the conflict was underway. I had travelled to Donetsk, I had travelled to Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, and most of the people there are Russian-speaking, they speak Russian language. They were very disappointed that Kiev had banned that language in eastern Ukraine. But they were also a little shocked at how Putin is doing this to us, we are his people. A lot of women I spoke to were in shock. So, what do you have to say to people in eastern Ukraine who actually have families in Russia, who, on a daily basis, move from Ukraine to Russia. What do you have to say to them?

Vladimir Putin: I didn’t understand the question. What exactly shocked them?

Geeta Mohan: They were shocked that there was an operation that happened, and their homes were destroyed, because they lived in eastern Ukraine. And they have love for Russia and the Russian people, and they are Russian-speaking themselves.

Vladimir Putin: The answer is quite straightforward. These individuals presumably resided in those parts of Ukraine – specifically, in the areas of the Lugansk or Donetsk region – that remained under the control of the Kiev authorities at the time. Meanwhile, that part of the Lugansk or Donetsk region outside their control was being subjected to intense military action by the Kiev authorities. We were consequently forced to extend support to those areas that had declared independence. That is the first point.

Secondly, we provided people with an opportunity to express their will in an open referendum. Those who believed it was in their interest to join Russia voted accordingly. Those who did not were free to leave unhindered for other parts of the Ukrainian state. We have never placed any obstacles in the way of that choice.

Geeta Mohan: What do you make of President Zelensky? He was promised NATO, the European Union promised him the EU. But nothing really happened. Was NATO ever on the table for Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: When this gentleman came to power, he declared that he would pursue peace at all costs, using every means possible, without sparing even his career. But now we see things differently. He follows the same pattern as his predecessors – putting the interests of a narrow nationalist group, particularly radical nationalists, ahead of those of the people. Essentially, he is addressing their concerns rather than those of the nation.

This regime’s mindset truly resembles a neo-Nazi regime because extreme nationalism and neo-Nazism are almost indistinguishable concepts. Today, undeniably, military action dominates their approach. However, they haven’t achieved much success here either.

I have already said before that what matters most for them is realising that the best way to resolve the problems is through peaceful negotiations, and we attempted to negotiate with them back in 2022. What exactly they plan to do remains to be asked from them directly.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That would be interesting to see what they have to say on that, and how this peace process goes forward.

But you have always said that the eastward expansion of NATO is your real concern. Ukraine has not got this NATO membership as of now. My question to you – is NATO expansion a real threat or just a pretext for what you think is a part of Ukraine which is probably you want control over? Or you think that injustice is being done, the Russian language is being banned – these are the real issues?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, NATO is another matter altogether. The Russian language, Russian culture, religion, and even territorial issues – these are very important topics, one subject. NATO is something entirely different. We don’t demand anything exclusive for ourselves here.

First of all, there are general agreements that the security of one state cannot be guaranteed by undermining the security of others. This idea might seem somewhat obscure, but I’ll explain it simply. Each country, including Ukraine, has the right to choose its own means of defence and ensure its own safety. Correct? Absolutely correct. Do we deny Ukraine this? No. But it’s not acceptable if done at Russia’s expense. Ukraine believes it would benefit from joining NATO. And we say: that threatens our security, let’s find a way to secure yours without threatening us.

Secondly, we are not asking for anything unusual or unexpected, nothing falling from the sky. We are just insisting on fulfilling the promises already made to us. These weren’t invented yesterday. They were pledged to Russia back in the ’90s: no expansion eastward—this was stated publicly. Since then, several waves of expansion took place, culminating with Ukraine being drawn into NATO. This completely displeases us and poses a serious threat. Let’s remember that NATO is a military-political alliance, and Article Five of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO hasn’t been repealed. It’s a threat to us. Nobody bothers to take us seriously.

Lastly, when Ukraine became independent, few people recall this: what was the first document ratifying independence? It was the Declaration of State Sovereignty, Independence of Ukraine. That forms the foundation of Ukrainian sovereignty and modern statehood. And it clearly states that Ukraine is a neutral state.

Geeta Mohan: Was that also the basis for what happened when you decided to annex Crimea, you only seized the water port, a very important strategic port for Russia? And then Russia was no longer part of the G8. Today, the West claims, or says, that you actions in the recent past are the reason for, and I quote-unquote, the isolation of Russia.

Vladimir Putin: We didn’t need to seize that important port in Crimea because it was ours already – our Navy had been stationed there under the agreement with Ukraine, which is a fact. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our fleet remained there regardless. The matter isn’t about that, though it’s significant, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

And we did not annex Crimea, I want to emphasise this point. We simply came to help people who didn’t want their lives or fate tied to those who staged a coup in Ukraine. They said: “Hey, nationalist extremists took over in Kiev. Did anyone ask us? Ok, we ended up as part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. So be it, history happened like that. Fine, ok, now we’ll live that way. But we believe that we exist in a democratic state. And if coups happen here with unknown consequences, then we won’t accept that, we don’t want to live like that.” There was a threat not just of pressure, but of outright violence against the Crimeans. Russia stepped in to help them. How could we do otherwise? If someone believes differently, thinking that Russia would act differently, they’re deeply mistaken. We’ll always defend our interests and our people.

Geeta Mohan: One brief question before we move on to the other part. Dou you want to go back to being a part of the G8, because there are a lot of reports on that. Is that something Russia is looking at?

Vladimir Putin: No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Interesting answer. You are clear about that?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. The fact of the matter is that I myself, at a certain point – such were the circumstances, I won’t go into details now – I stopped attending those meetings. This is the first point.

The second thing is that as I have said before, it’s not entirely clear why the countries that form the G7, call themselves the ”Big seven“? What’s so big about them? In terms of purchasing power parity, India’s economy is the third largest in the world. And where are the countries like the United Kingdom in terms of purchasing power parity? What is their ranking now, tenth or thereabouts?

Of course, these are all countries with advanced, high-tech economies; a robust foundation exists, it hasn’t gone anywhere, although their share in the global economy is shrinking year after year, like a piece of Shagreen leather. This is an obvious fact, we all see it.

The trend is obvious, and it will keep going like that, as far as can be seen, among other things, due to what I would cautiously call the deeply flawed economic policies pursued by the leadership of many of those countries. A recession in Germany is evident, for the third year in a row; France is in a difficult situation, also on the brink of recession, as are other leading European nations. Nevertheless, it is an important platform; they do work there, they do make decisions, they do discuss matters among themselves, and so may they all be healthy by God’s grace. This is a good story as such.

But I will say it again, at a certain moment I simply stopped going there. And this was not connected to the events in Ukraine, but to some other events; I won’t go into details now. Incidentally, we informed our American partners about this.

Geeta Mohan: You informed them during this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, during this meeting as well.

Anjana Om Kashyap: With Mr Witkoff?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we discussed this topic among others.

Anjana Om Kashyap: That’s a very important aspect…

Vladimir Putin: You think so? I don’t believe it’s that significant. But if you feel that way, okay.

Anjana Om Kashyap: So, coming back to…No, I just wanted to put it in perspective before we go ahead. So, you are just telling us that in your recent meeting with Mr Witkoff it was offered to you that you could make it back to G8 and you categorically said that you are not interested?

Vladimir Putin: No, this topic just came up on its own.

I explained to Mr Witkoff why I stopped attending those events long time ago. It wasn’t a suggestion or even a question, nothing like that. We just mentioned that subject. I recalled when I stopped going there – it was in 2012 after the Russian presidential elections. Then I seemed to come back there, then stopped coming again – and anyway, that’s no longer important now. But the platform still exists, I wish them to continue their job and Lord give them all the best. But other major international alliances are forming now -such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the G20. We’re involved everywhere, and we definitely have a completely non-confrontational approach.

However, there’s another aspect here. Look at the current relationship between Russia and European countries. These relationships are far from being called normal. How do you imagine that I come to the G8 meeting, how would I talk to its members if they don’t want to talk to me? What am I supposed to do there then? Well, if they do want to talk about it, fine – we can come back to this topic later.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You said that countries like India whose gross trade is far exceeding a lot of European countries need to just calm down and understand some things. The other thing you say is that organisations like probably G7 are losing their relevance and what would I do if they don’t want to talk to me.

But the third thing you mentioned was BRICS, and so there is my question to you: is there a new world order falling in place, because you are not going to G7, but you just visited China, and you are about to visit India. Russia, India, China. RIC. BRICS. SCO. Global South. What do you see as a new power centre in the multi-polar world?

Vladimir Putin: You asked whether the world is changing, and a new order is forming? The world changes constantly – everything flows, cuncta fluunt. The pace of change varies, but the world always evolves.

Nowadays, this rate of change is fast, indeed very high. We can see it, we can feel it, I’ve already said that. And primarily, we’re witnessing the global economic processes unfolding. These processes aren’t linked to events in Ukraine or other hotspots – they’re just happening generally. We could talk about this for hours, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but our viewers might grow tired from such discussions.

One fact remains, however: new centres of growth are emerging of rapid, strong growth. These include countries of the Global South, notably South Asia, India, and Indonesia, which has nearly 300 million people and is rising quickly. Of course, it’s not one and a half billion people living there, like in India, but still these are very rapidly developing countries. Let me say it again: Africa is already advancing swiftly and will accelerate even more. With its young population, these countries would be our future. They’ll strive toward higher living standards, which is inevitable. In the future, rates of change in the global economy will continue to accelerate steadily and significantly.

By the way, we often hear that Russia recently recalibrated its relationships with the Global South and Asia. That’s not true, because we’ve been doing so since the early 2000s.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Actually this picture ruffled a lot of feathers across the world. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Three nation heads together. And people were going all over social media and America.

Geeta Mohan: But even if you’d look at that picture, how do you have these alternative blocs and how can they become a real force, if there are fundamental unresolved issues between key member states in that bloc?

Vladimir Putin: You know, conflicts always exist. But tell me what period of history there was no conflict at all? Let’s take a look at the historical development of major world centres or regions – wherever we point our finger in time, we will always find a conflict somewhere.

Though the point is elsewhere: it’s about finding solutions to these conflicts, seeking most effective ways to resolve them. In large alliances like BRICS, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, we share a common understanding that we have common values rooted in our traditional beliefs, which underpin our civilisations such as India’s civilisation for already hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Drawing on this heritage of the past, we work together instead of suppressing opportunities. When efforts are combined, the resulting synergy turns out unexpectedly strong and high.

We never set out to come up with ways to deceive, outsmart, or hinder someone’s development. Nothing like that has ever happened. We always focus only on positive agendas. I believe that’s important.

Geeta Mohan: That’s an important answer.

But are there alternatives? Because the biggest thing when you have these blocs is how do you make it economically viable. Are we looking at alternative payment systems? Is there going to be a BRICS currency? Or are we looking at alternative payments in terms of national currencies, rupee or ruble? Moving towards de-dollarisation basically.

Vladimir Putin: You know, there’s no rush in this, festina lente and you’ll avoid big mistakes.

For instance, we were talking about Europe. They set up the euro system and dragged in there certain countries that weren’t economically ready for one single strong currency. And now they’re dealing with some difficult social matters. There’s more than just playing around with inflation there, right? This question is far more complex than just tinkering with inflation a little bit and calling it done. Their entire economy is tied to just one stable currency, therefor social problems arise and budgetary issues emerge.

Right now we don’t aim at having a single currency within BRICS. In this process, there’s no rush anywhere, and we aren’t rushing either. There is a need to expand the use of national currencies, you’ve mentioned this already. We must make better use of the BRICS New Development Bank’s opportunities.

For example, we propose creating a new investment platform using electronic payments (with an initial capital of 100 billion dollars) to encourage joint investments both in our economies and those of developing nations in the Global South. I believe this could be very appealing option, because these investments would help us, and they would also benefit the recipient countries, since together we would produce high-quality goods at reasonable prices. These products could help the countries of the South to develop further, while also advancing our own growth.

There will be more and more tools like this. Modern payment systems and digital money exist already and they are evolving rapidly. And for us, this is definitely not about working against anyone – we see it more as refining tools that are already widely used worldwide.

Geeta Mohan: Rupee and ruble payment then?

Vladimir Putin: There are no obstacles here. These are purely economic issues. We fully understand and realise that we do have a certain trade imbalance. However, India’s government does not impose restrictions on our mutual trade. Why? Because they need both oil and petroleum products. The Indian government needs to expand its purchases of Russian fertilisers because these are crucial for Indian farmers, and Prime Minister Modi constantly raises this issue: ”Please increase the volume of deliveries.“

The issue is entirely different. It’s not about rupees; it’s about what those rupees can buy respectively for our companies. We’re also thinking about this, not only the Indian government, but we also do. And we agree that this disparity must be addressed, but not through bans, rather by finding areas beneficial for both sides.

Therefore, during my visit and at our initiative, there will be an exhibition showcasing our importers from India. I want to share with you something completely candidly: this was my direct instruction to the Government of Russia, which is to consider what else we could purchase from India. We’re considering this matter together, including from the perspective of the Russian Federation.

Anjana Om Kashyap: My next question before we move to other issues is – how do you balance – I’m going to ask that directly – how do you balance India and China? Because it is very clear that you are keen on good relations with both these countries. How do you balance them, seeing some tensions between us.

Vladimir Putin: We know this very well. India and China are our closest friends – we treasure that relationship deeply, and I do not believe we have the right to interfere in your bilateral relations. But I know that both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping are committed to finding solutions to all issues, even to the most complex interstate problems.

I know about it because both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping see that some specific tension is rising, and they both try to find solutions to these issues, exerting maximum effort – I know this well and can see it clearly. And the key reason why they would succeed would be their wisdom, which we appreciate immensely. At the same time Russia does not feel entitled to intervene, because these are your bilateral affairs.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The next important issue with regard to India is terrorism. We faced two major terrorist attacks, one in Pahalgam and then one in Delhi. My question to you is that we see a dual ideology on terror in the world from different countries. What is the solution in your eyes? Because Russia also faces terrorism, India faces it. What in your eyes is the solution to your terrorist – my – freedom – fighter ideology?

Vladimir Putin: It’s very simple. To achieve freedom, we must use lawful means only. Any actions involving criminal methods or those harming people cannot be supported – this has been decided long ago. As you’ve correctly noted, Russia has repeatedly faced acts of extreme terrorism throughout its recent history. In these matters, India is our full ally, and we completely support India’s fight against terrorism.

Geeta Mohan: But there’s another country in the neighbourhood, very important – important to Russia, important to India: Afghanistan. You are a very rare country to have recognised the Taliban regime. What really made you look at that as a strategic interest – to recognize the Taliban at the time, when the world is still saying “they have not given equal rights to women,” when there are still a lot of issues with Afghanistan actually becoming a country that holds women and men equally. And there are many other human rights issues there.

Vladimir Putin: In every country there are enough problems. And Afghanistan is not an exception, considering that for decades this country has been embroiled in a civil war. It’s just horrible. But the Taliban clearly controls the situation in Afghanistan and this is evident. Here’s what needs to be said first, and you have to accept it because it’s reality.

Secondly, what’s important to note is that the Afghan government takes many actions to combat terrorism and various terrorist organisations, including ISIL and others like them. This we also know very well.

Afghan authorities have significantly reduced opium production in their country and are actively addressing drug threats from within its borders.

There are several other important issues here. The main point is that in order to influence events happening in the country, you must stay in contact with current leadership there – exactly what we’re doing.

Geeta Mohan: Afghanistan’s Taliban minister Muttaqi was in India, and we weren’t allowed – women weren’t allowed to attend the press conference, and we fought back, and then he had to hold a press conference with women as part of that entire violation. Isn’t it interesting? I was just sharing it with you.

Vladimir Putin: There’s truth in what you say, but on the other hand, if he hadn’t come here, you wouldn’t have had any chance to influence these events at all. And now you’ve got both connections and the minister who has arrived. You were able to express your reaction to what happened. How do we measure whether that’s little or much? It seems to me that at least this is part of your influence and your partners’ influence on the situation.

But imagine there were no contacts at all. Then what? Everything remains exactly as before. And nobody, including yourself, would influence anything, or express any opinion about this. In contrast, now such an opportunity is available to you. Contacts are better than no contacts at all.

Anjana Om Kashyap: The other flash point is Gaza. And it is now being known that you, Sir, Vladimir Putin, have a new peace plan for Gaza. Trump also has one. What is your Gaza peace plan? What do you propose, Sir?

Vladimir Putin: We don’t offer any special plan. We’ve always believed that the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is by implementing the solutions adopted and considered by the United Nations over many years. And the most important one is establishing an independent Palestinian state. That’s the key to resolving all issues.

Geeta Mohan: The other important issue when you talk about Israel and Gaza that Anjana just did is the fact that the Arab world when it comes to the issue of Gaza and Palestine did not do as much as your ally, your friend Iran did. How do you look at this entire scenario? Well, this is a changed world order. We never thought that Iran would fight back for Palestinians more than the Arab world.

Vladimir Putin: Each of these countries in its way is concerned about Palestine and the Palestinian people, worrying for them. And each of them tries to contribute in resolving the situation. Some things are obvious, others remain hidden in the shadows. But it doesn’t mean that no one is doing anything. This is a complex issue that no one has managed to resolve over the years. Hence, it can’t be fixed in just a few months by clicking a button. However, we should aim precisely at achieving this goal: establishing a Palestinian state.

What has been done until now was done by President Trump. Naturally, primarily the return of Israeli hostages and Hamas took this step. I think, frankly speaking, this was the most important thing that was done as part of the latest steps for the settlement in Gaza. I believe it would be correct, perhaps, to think about the possibility of organising the governance in such a way as to transfer all authority to the Palestinians. There are such options. They are being discussed both by Arab countries and the neighbours, and beyond it. It’s being discussed in the United States as well, I know it. As part of the United Nations, we have always taken part in this process. We will continue to do that with our friends.

Geeta Mohan:Well. President Putin, we have discussed a lot of geopolitics, we’ve stick to it for a while.

Let’s talk about your journey. You are a man from the intelligence community. How would you rate intelligence agencies today? Which one, do you think, is the best? I am sure you will say Russia but I am still saying, which one is the second best then? And how does the CIA fair?

Vladimir Putin: Well, there are several powerful intelligence services in the world. There is CIA and our, Soviet and Russian intelligence. There is, as it is well-known, a very efficient service Mossad, Israeli intelligence. Many countries of the world have tradition of intelligence services.

You know, I think it is better not to give evaluation to the efficiency of other peoples’ intelligence. I am happy with the quality of work of our intelligence service.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Fair enough. So we would like to because this is a rare opportunity we get to interact with you. We want to understand what shaped Vladimir Putin and as we peep into your early years, we’ve read a little about your KGB days when you were working in Germany and then you moved on to Saint Petersburg and then Moscow, you worked with Mr. Yeltsin.

What actually shaped the man you are today, the leader you are today? Which what it is?

Vladimir Putin:My family, the family that I lived in and that I was born into, my parents, my closest people. I think that everyone is shaped, primarily, by our closest surroundings. Naturally, the social situation around, the colleagues and as you have fairly noted that work in the intelligence service because it has strict discipline, strict ideology that primarily has to do with the defence of the interests of Motherland and that was the entire point of the intelligence service of the Soviet Union and I lived in that system for many years.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I watched in your interview when I think you were interacting with schoolchildren and one of the children asked you, a girl, I think, asked you what has been the most shattering experience of your life has been. And you said the disintegration of USSR. How did that affect you? And what is your vision of Russia?

Vladimir Putin:It had an impact in a sense that we always need to very carefully look at our every step and we need to understand the consequences of that. That’s number one.

Number two. It is very important not only for the former Soviet Union but it applies also to Russia. What was the conclusion that I came to? It is that the Soviet Union at a certain point of time was in such a state that its leadership and possibly even ordinary citizens always believed that it was so big, so great that nothing, ever, under any circumstances would happen to it. And this idea of grandeur is the point when a country starts to make one mistake after another, thinking that everything is alright: yes, we made a mistake here and it was a small failure there but we are so big that it will all pass, we’ll survive. And the number of mistakes grows like a snowball and it is getting harder to manage that. I see the same is happening with some other countries today. Therefore, I am keeping an eye…

Anjana Om Kashyap: Would you name them?

Vladimir Putin:No.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Let’s return to the USSR because you talked about one mistake was rolling into another. Whom to hold responsible for the situation? I mean, you are talking about people also thought that it would probably would never happen with us. They’ll never be in disintegration but I am sure you have seen Gorbachev as you saw Yeltsin went on. Whom to hold responsible? What was the phase in which decisively USSR was disintegrating, breaking up?

Vladimir Putin:I would not want to pin-point the guilty and who is to blame more. In general, it was the system that turned out not to be viable. We need to recognise that and we need to think about it. We should not look for specific culprits but we need to think how to create a system that will not simply protect itself but develop. That’s the point. And if such system is in place, it would be self-sufficient, autonomous and effective.

Geeta Mohan: How are you looking at reintegration then?

Vladimir Putin:Reintegration of what? Of the Soviet Union.

Geeta Mohan: Yes, of the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin:No, of course not, that’s simply not on the table. We do not have such a goal and it won’t make any sense. There is also a question of rationale. It does not make sense in current circumstances because it would critically change the national and religious composition of the Russian Federation. It does not make sense.

Mohan: You should say about it to some Western newspapers constantly writing about how you really want the old Soviet Union back because that’s what they keep doing.

Vladimir Putin:I won’t tell it to them. You know why? Because they still do not want to listen to what I am saying. They want to listen to themselves only or they want to comment on what I am saying the way they like it.

Anjana Om Kashyap: You make a point. As Geeta said, they speak and they type a lot about you, that you are building empire back.

Vladimir Putin:Yes, they do that in order to scare their population. They abuse their monopoly in the global media. It is called manipulation of the public opinion and the goal is to justify their aggressive policy towards Russia. I don’t see another goal.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Then, if you are different, how would you, Vladimir Putin, summarise Vladimir Putin’s life and ideology?

Vladimir Putin: No, I think it is too early for me to summarise my life. I have some work ahead of me.

Geeta Mohan: I like it because we are going to talk about longevity but before there is a very important question. You are going to India. Prime Ministers of India had a huge, huge role to play in strengthening India-Russia ties. Who do you think in you span of being a leader of Russia really made that difference, since you have been in power enhancing India-Russia ties? Which of the prime ministers?

Vladimir Putin:Well, you have already asked me to characterise other leaders of other countries. I do not think it is very polite. You know, now we are working with Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. Indeed, we have very trustworthy and friendly relations. He is a very reliable person. In that sense, I am speaking very sincerely. India got lucky. He lives India. I am talking to him and I know him. I hope he won’t be cross with me – I am just saying what I am seeing and what I am thinking. It is very pleasant to me to talk to such person, a person of integrity, you know. And that’s number one.

Number two, indeed, he is very sincere when it goes about strengthening Indian-Russian ties across the whole range of areas, especially crucial issues of economy and defence and humanitarian cooperation, development of hi-tech. It is very interesting to meet with him. He travelled here and we sat with him at my residence and we drank tea for the whole evening, and we discussed different topics. We simply had an interesting conversation purely like humans.

So I am looking forward to this meeting. I am sure it will be very interesting and useful.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am sure he has this mutual admiration for you as well.

Quick question on the future because AI is the force to reckon with. You have your viewpoint on this. Do you think it is a force for chaos or it’s a force for good and where is Russia in this AI-weapon war?

Vladimir Putin:You know like any other achievement of progress it can be both good and evil. It’s clear that it’s cross-cutting technology that changes the life of an ordinary person and, of course, in the near future it will change the lives of the whole humanity. And those who will be the first to master this technology, use it most effectively would gain a tremendous benefit in the economy, in social sphere, in defence as well as in every sphere, in education, in science, healthcare, everywhere because the effective use of artificial intelligence in each of the spheres will have a multiplier effect for efficiency and productivity.

There are also challenges here and specialists know it fully well. The fact is that it is all based on processing major data sets, big data. Here comes personal data of people as well. That’s number one. And, naturally, we need to take steps to guarantee safety and protection, to ensure human rights in the widest sense of the word.

But here is yet another very important thing. It is that the people who have these databases, in essence, they can use their capacities, the capacities of the developing technologies to shape the world view of people.

Geeta Mohan: We are talking about future. You are talking about health also and you just spoke about health. There was a hot mighty moment between you and President Xi Jinping and it was reported very widely when you spoke about longevity and the stride of medicine by bio hacking. Do you think immortality is achievable?

Vladimir Putin:Everything has an end. Only God is eternal. We can extend longevity of life, one hundred percent, I am sure we can. Seventy seven years ago, average lifespan of a person in India was thirty one years and now it’s about seventy. That’s what healthcare does. In India, infant mortality was cut fourfold. We congratulate you.

These are all the results of the healthcare effort and if you use AI in healthcare and you use it to produce medical drugs, for example using genetic engineering and so on, that means it would have a tremendous effect. Nevertheless, everything comes to an end.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I would not like to mention you age but there have been recently a lot of gen-Z protests across the world.

How do you connect with the young generation? We have a lot of leaders who are looking now younger and younger and younger. How does this happen? And how do you connect with the young people in Russia?

Vladimir Putin:You know, there is nothing new here. In literature and in art, this topic of contradiction of the older generation and the younger generation, of fathers and sons in our classic literature, these images have always existed, fathers and sons. There is nothing new here.

You know what’s new? The technology: those messengers, Telegram and so on. They are used to influence the youth.

The younger generation, this generation is more or less the same. Young people are always more mobile, more radical. The younger people, a young person thinks that they are coming across this injustice and so on and no one saw it before them. And now they saw that and they will tell it to everyone around, and they think that these injustices are very easy to deal with, they can be easily solved.

And when a person becomes more mature, he or she is trying to change something, it turns out that they start to understand that it’s possible to find the solution but it’s not as easy as it seemed at first glance.

Therefore, we need to work with people. We can’t just say that you are just young, you don’t understand anything, you are just sitting there in your homes; it does not work like that. You need to always keep in touch with young people and to use their tools, their devices of obtaining information, to use feedback, social networks and so on. You need to work there.

And I am sure that you partly do that. I’d like to wish you every success.

Geeta Mohan: Mr. President, we would spend hours talking but we are reaching the end of our conversation with you.

You just mentioned religion a while ago and the Orthodox Church, a very important aspect. I have travelled to Moscow a few times now and every time you are coming here around Christmas, it is unbelievably lit, unbelievable to see how beautiful Moscow as a city looks like.

Anjana Om Kashyap: I am for the first time here.

Geeta Mohan: That’s why she was surprised, it was better than any European city.

But religion does play a very important role now. How do you see spirituality when it comes to the morality question and leadership, to the Russian society and for you personally?

Vladimir Putin:Well, that’s the foundation. We always turn to our traditional values as we call them, at least that’s what we have been doing lately.

This does not mean that we use these traditional values to just sit idly, this is simply the foundation that we feel very solid on but we need to look forward, naturally, we need to develop and use all modern means of development. And only with that, using our basic fundamental values and vision of the future, that’s the only way to efficiently achieve the goals that we are setting for ourselves. And that’s the way we have shaped or formulated our goals – the goals of national development.

I would really like our national goals and the goals of India shaped by government of India headed by Prime Minister Modi, I would really hope that they coincide so we could join efforts and achieve maximum result.

Anjana Om Kashyap:Welcome with open heart to India and we look forward to whatever it comes out of the meetings.

But I don’t know how much of Hindi films or songs you’ve ever heard. There is a song that was very popular in Russia “Sar pē lāl ṭōpī Rūsī, phir bhī dil hai Hindustānī”. Actually, it just means there is red cap on the head, you are wearing a red Russian hat but the heart is Indian. It was very popular even in Russia, a lot of people knew about it.

Anything that you wanted to say about India, Indian society and Indian culture? And what is your message to all Indians, who like you a lot and who would want to listen to what Mr. Putin has to say to them.

Vladimir Putin:You’ve just mentioned the Indian culture and the Russian culture. You know I think that we have a lot of citizens in the Russian Federation also having notion of Indian culture as about a fairy tale, a beautiful, bright, colourful fairy tale. From the time of the Soviet Union, people here like Indian movies and Indian music. I would even say that certain known people from Russian society have a cult of the Indian culture and I like that very much because I think that it is, as they say, from heart to heart.

And we’ll be doing everything in our power so that this interest would not lose its spark. I would like people in India to know that.

Anjana Om Kashyap: Mr President, we are very thankful to you for this very open interview that we had with you and the best part, I think, of this entire interview is that we touched everything we talked about. Everything but this is a bond, India-Russia bond, it’s a friendship that is to be cherished forever, there are seasonal friendships but there are friendships that last a lifetime. It means a classic vintage and let’s see what comes out of it.

We are very thankful to you for this interview.

Geeta Mohan: You watched the interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The interview was conducted by Aaj Tak and India Today. We discussed Russia. Russia will not be isolated and it will protect its interests. And it says that it would make part of the developed world but not part of any society like G8.

India and the whole world are looking at you. Thank you, Mr President.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Following the state visit to Kyrgyzstan and the CSTO summit, Vladimir Putin answered questions from Russian journalists.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. I am at your disposal.

First, I would like to express our gratitude to the leadership of Kyrgyzstan for organising this event and for the past year when Kyrgyzstan chaired the CSTO and hosted various events, which has certainly helped strengthen the organisation.

I believe that in the current turbulent situation it is a major factor of stability in our common space. This is important for Russia and very important for many CSTO countries.

We have coordinated everything without much difficulty, that is, all proposals advanced by the Secretariat. Everything we planned to sign has been signed. There were hardly any differences in any of the spheres we discussed. Everyone knows that it is necessary to work more closely together in the current situation. We do not threaten anyone, but we must be ready to respond to any actions that could be aggressive towards our countries.

There are many other spheres we are working in, and we will probably talk about this now. We have done good practical work in all of these vital spheres.

Overall, we can say, first, that we have achieved the desired result. And second, I see good prospects for the further development of our cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.

As you know, Russia has taken over the CSTO chairmanship and will head the organisation for a year. I set out the priorities of our chairmanship during the expanded format meeting. I believe you are aware of this, so there is hardly any need to repeat it all. On the whole, we are very pleased with the results of our joint work.

Thank you. If you have any questions, which I am sure you do, I will do my best to answer them.

Pavel Minakov: Good afternoon, Interfax news agency.

The question concerns our priorities. So we are the chair of the Organisation, our slogan is “Collective Security in a Multipolar World.” Why was this chosen as the guiding principle for our chairmanship? Could you elaborate further on our specific priorities when we hold this position?

The second question also pertains to collective security. Prime Minister [of Armenia Nikol] Pashinyan has once again declined to attend the summit, while at the same time Armenia is conducting joint military exercises with the United States. The question is whether this poses a threat to our unity within the framework of the CSTO’s collective security. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Let me reiterate: I outlined the priorities during the expanded-format meeting. This was done openly – you were likely present there, or at least, many of you have heard it.

There are numerous priorities: enhancing our cooperation, comparing the capabilities of our respective defence industries. As is known, since the time of the Soviet Union, this cooperation has been very extensive. We provide CSTO member states with preferential terms for the procurement of our arms and equipment. All of this is functioning and operating quite effectively.

It is perfectly clear that amid the special military operation, our capabilities for some components are currently not that great. That is to say, they are substantial, but we must meet our own needs. In specific sectors, we are achieving this in full, entirely.

I do not believe that our production capacities are excessive, but we not only meet our own needs but also continue to export our equipment, incidentally. This primarily concerns aviation technology – both aircraft and helicopters. Now we have achieved significant advancements – a revolutionary step for us, one might say – in the field of unmanned technology and unmanned aerial vehicles, drones. We are prepared to share all of this with our partners.

Another area of cooperation is enhancing the operational efficiency of CSTO management bodies. This is somewhat bureaucratic, yet it remains important, given that every country is interested in minimising expenditure and improving coordination.

We will continue, as before, to conduct corresponding joint exercises across all domains. This concerns not only cooperation between armed forces but also the work of security services.

Unfortunately, the threats posed by drugs and organised crime persist. All of this will remain within our focus. We intend to build on the work undertaken by our colleagues from Kyrgyzstan, as I have mentioned. There will be full and complete continuity. I am confident this will be to the benefit of every CSTO member state.

Concerning Armenia’s position, it, too, is well-known. It is as follows, as our Armenian colleagues inform us: “We support all decisions adopted by the CSTO, we consider ourselves members of the CSTO, but at this stage, we are abstaining from participation in the Organisation’s meetings.” That is their choice. If they deem this course of action possible for the time being, then so be it; we agree.

Since they remain members of the Organisation, we – Russia – maintain contact with them. As the country assuming chairmanship of the CSTO, we will, of course, maintain constant engagement with them in their capacity as members. Naturally, the decisions we prepare regarding each priority will be discussed and coordinated with them as well.

Leonid Kitrar: Mr President, Leonid Kitrar, Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre. I have a question about bilateral relations with Kyrgyzstan.

We are pursuing quite a few projects, among them in the energy sector. This year, Rosatom stated it was prepared to build a small nuclear power plant here. Was this discussed? Are there any concrete figures? What are the most promising areas in bilateral relations?

I have another quick question. Not long ago, there were issues with moving cargo between Kazakhstan and Russia. Are there similar issues here?

Vladimir Putin: I will start with bilateral cooperation.

I am grateful to the President of Kyrgyzstan for the invitation to come to Kyrgyzstan on a visit of high diplomatic status and for the hospitality accorded to our entire delegation.

Here is what we said during a press event following the visit. Indeed, our relations are following a very positive track, and our investors are working increasingly actively on the Kyrgyz market. Why has this become possible? I mentioned it briefly earlier, but it is crucial: this is happening in part because the current leadership of Kyrgyzstan has managed to ensure a stable domestic political situation, which is always extremely important for potential investors, because everyone hopes that the commitments undertaken by the recipient country will guarantee the implementation of all agreements. This is one of the most crucial matters. Kyrgyzstan’s leadership has succeeded in doing this. We wish them every success in strengthening domestic political stability and, as an EAEU and CSTO member, we will support and assist them in doing so.

Our relations cover many areas in addition to investment to include the mining sector and energy. As a reminder, Kyrgyzstan receives our resources at the lowest prices and exports are exempt from corresponding customs duties. Naturally, this makes our products highly competitive, to put it mildly, on the Kyrgyz market and provides strong support for the Kyrgyz economy. This includes oil and gas, but we are not limiting ourselves to this; we have plans that may include the construction of small NPPs.

As a reminder, Russia is the only country in the world that carries out such projects. Many are saying they are ready to do it, but so far we are the only ones to do it. If Kyrgyzstan decides to go ahead with this project – our colleagues are in contact with one another – we will implement these projects.

High-tech areas are also developing in the course of bilateral cooperation. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Yandex has been working here more and more actively. Hopefully, it will continue this way, meaning that Yandex is not only engaged in food delivery, transportation and taxi service; Yandex is keenly engaged in developing artificial intelligence. This is an extremely important and promising area for all of us. Yes, Kyrgyzstan is not a large country, but there is an educated part of society here, young people with good education, who have very good prospects. And this is important for us – to create a common space in this extremely promising area. So, naturally, we will work here, too.

Both us and Kyrgyzstan deem it very important to do everything so that Russian migration policy could reliably provide for the interests of native residents of the Russian Federation, our citizens, and our economy, as well as for the citizens of Kyrgyzstan who come to work in Russia. They should be ready for this, including in humanitarian terms; I mean above all their command of the Russian language, starting from an early age, from school age onwards.

In this regard, as you also know, we are assisting the leadership of Kyrgyzstan to promote the study of the Russian language. We will open schools here and work in the field of higher education. In general, there is a great scope for joint work. In Kyrgyzstan, as you know, the Russian language has the official status at the legislative level, which we appreciate very much. And we will go on working in all these areas.

Regarding cargo traffic. Yes, indeed, such a problem did occur. What caused it? I will not conceal the fact that, on my instruction, the Customs Committee – within the framework of the EAEU, our customs authorities are entitled to such actions – began random checks on the roads, so to speak. It turned out that a significant number of goods, a significant number of these lorries, as you said, cross the Russia-Kazakhstan border without any documents at all. Yes, we have a common customs space, a common market, and free movement of capital and goods.

But every such heavyweight, every such heavy lorry must have a certain set of documents agreed on between us – between the states. There aren’t that many of them, but they are a must. There should be a paper, a document about what is inside the lorry, and at least it should be clear who is the consignee of these goods. The first document clearly shows the customs value, what customs duty should be paid by the person who crosses our border with these goods, and who should pay VAT upon receiving the goods. As soon as the roadside checks started, it turned out that there were no documents at all. It is just illegal import, and forgive my manners, it’s just gushing into our customs territory. The Russian Federation is missing out on billions, tens of billions of rubles in our budget. Of course, I informed my colleagues about this situation.

We talked about this matter with President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. He understood everything, and he has no questions or problems with that. We have agreed that we will do everything possible to ensure that this large number of lorries that have accumulated on our border, on the territory of Kazakhstan, move on to the Russian Federation.

Our customs authorities have agreed among themselves that the value of the goods being transported will be declared, and the final recipient will be indicated. And we will gradually let these lorries in. There will be no queue. Yes, it will actually be almost within the framework of the green corridor, at a minimum cost, let them pay at least something, to begin with. And starting next year, our customs officers will require all the necessary documents during random checks. If there are none, then the customs service will not send these goods back. I think that the customs authorities will come to an agreement, up to and including confiscation, probably.

You see, there are all kinds of goods in the lorries, from nails to diamonds and television sets. But let them at least write down shoelaces costing five kopecks, let them start paying something, let them declare the final consignee so that we can receive VAT, even if it is modest. We just need to put things in order.

Thousands of lorries have already passed through. I think the queue will be gone by the end of the year.

Pavel Zarubin: Good afternoon. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.

The principal global topic of recent days has been the Trump peace plan. Naturally, we have many questions for you.

To what extent does the draft initially published unofficially take our position into account? Have we received an amended version of the document following negotiations between the United States and Ukraine? Consequently, when will Russian-American negotiations begin – which, as we understand, have not yet taken place regarding this document? When will Steve Witkoff visit you? What is your current assessment of the prospects for a peaceful settlement? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the draft agreement. There was no draft agreement per se; rather, there was a set of issues proposed for discussion and finalisation. In general, I have spoken about this on numerous occasions. Prior to my visit to the United States, before the trip to Alaska, we discussed this with American negotiators, and subsequently, a list of 28 potential points for an agreement was formulated. As I have already stated publicly, it was conveyed to us through certain channels, and we examined it.

Thereafter, negotiations were held in Geneva between the American and Ukrainian delegations. They, as I understand it, decided among themselves that all these 28 points should be divided into four separate components. All of this was passed on to us.

In general, we agree that this could form the basis for future agreements. However, it would be inappropriate for me to speak now of any final versions, as these do not exist.

Certain matters are of a fundamental nature, and overall, we observe that the American side is, in some respects, taking our position into account – the position that was discussed before Anchorage and after Alaska. There are, unquestionably, areas where we need to sit down and engage in serious discussions on specific points, and all such matters must be framed in proper diplomatic language. Because, generally speaking, one thing is to say that Russia does not intend to attack Europe. To us, that sounds ridiculous, does it not? We never had any such intentions. But if they want to have it formalised, let’s do it, no problem.

It is simply that there are individuals there – I believe they are either not entirely of sound mind or are a certain type of swindler – who seek to gain from this by publicly telling their population, their citizens, that Russia is preparing to attack Europe and that they must urgently strengthen their defence capabilities. Either they are serving the interests of the defence industry and private companies, or they are attempting to bolster their domestic political ratings against the backdrop of the dire state of their economies and social spheres. It is difficult to say what motivates them, but from our point of view, it is complete nonsense – an outright falsehood. Nevertheless, if this narrative has taken root in their public consciousness, if they have frightened their citizens who now wish to hear that we have no plans – no aggressive intentions – towards Europe, then very well, we are ready to formalise that in any manner they see fit.

Perhaps there is even merit in this, considering that we all wish to talk, to discuss, and to articulate matters of pan-European security. Probably so; we ourselves proposed this at one point. If our Western – let us once again call them “partners” – now want this, then very well, we are ready. But we all understand that this requires serious discussion, as every word carries significance.

Or, for example, one of the documents mentions that we should resolve the issue of strategic stability together with our American partners. For heaven’s sake – are we opposed to that? That is precisely what we proposed, having even suggested to the Obama administration that we should agree on certain matters. The response was, “Yes, yes,” and then, a month before the Obama administration left the White House, everything stalled. Now another treaty – New START – is expiring in February. If they do not wish to do anything, so be it.

From these papers, we see that, overall, there is a desire to revisit these issues. However, each of these issues is a separate, very serious area. We are certainly prepared for this serious discussion. Next week, an American delegation is due to arrive in Moscow.

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

As a follow-up on the colleague’s question. Will you please name the main Russian negotiators?

And one more thing. There were reports on talks underway in Abu Dhabi. Does it mean a concurrent process is going on there? Could you tell us who is talking to whom and what is happening there? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Obviously, the negotiator from the Russian side is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When we really sit down at the negotiating table and start discussing each of the proposed items in substance and in detail, the Foreign Ministry – on our part, from the Presidential Executive Office – Vladimir Medinsky, Aide to the President who has been engaged in that from the outset. I also included my Aide, Yury Ushakov, to deal with current issues, to organise all this work, he is in touch with his American counterparts. But he cannot deal with all of this alone – the Foreign Ministry must step in and to some extent, the Presidential Executive Office. This is a big, very extensive set of issues that need to be discussed, formalised, and properly spelled out.

That is the way it should be done, I think. It’s not that I think so, but it is never done any other way.

As for the Abu Dhabi talks, yes, I have heard some information noise on this score. But there was nothing unusual, nothing secret happening there either. Our secret services, Russian and Ukrainian, have always been in contact with each other, even in the hardest times. And they are in contact now. What are they dealing with? They are resolving a number of humanitarian issues, primarily related to the exchange of prisoners of war. The Abu Dhabi platform is actively used for this purpose. We are very grateful to the President of the United Arab Emirates for the opportunities extended to us. Thanks to his efforts, hundreds of our men, our heroes, have returned to their homeland.

At the initiative of the Ukrainian side, one of such regular meetings was scheduled and took place in Abu Dhabi. On our side, one of Russia’s FSB leaders attended it. A representative of the US administration also came to this meeting. It was a bit unexpected for us, but we never give up on contacts. He spoke with the Russian representative and wondered if perhaps we should not wait until next week to continue contacts but rather hold a meeting in Moscow this week.

I only learnt about this when the plane landed in Bishkek, but nevertheless, I said that we were ready, you are welcome, at any time. The issue is so important for everyone and for us that at any time of the day or night – we will arrive tonight, we will return, so we can meet right on Thursday, or Friday, Saturday, Sunday – whenever they want. But we agreed that we would decide, and the administration of the US President would decide who should arrive and when.

The latest information was brought to my attention yesterday that President Trump had decided that, after all, as previously agreed – and there was such an agreement earlier – the meeting is proposed by the American side to be held in Moscow next week. OK, we are always open.

As to who will represent the United States from the American side, this should, of course, be determined by the President of the United States. Therefore, we are expecting them in the first half of the next week.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Mr President, are you going to insist that the territorial issue, above all in Donbass, should be resolved here and now, and for good? Or, will you agree to postpone it, so to speak, until better days? One more question, with your permission: would you agree to return to G7, the Group of Eight, as one of the peace plan versions provides; that is, to all those people?

Vladimir Putin: As for G7 or G8, we have never asked to be there, we were invited there once and we worked there. It was a platform for coordinating certain positions. I must say, you know, please take note, even before the tragic events in Ukraine began, I stopped travelling there. Did you notice?

Remark: Yes, indeed.

Vladimir Putin: This is why, when the developments in Ukraine began, they said: “Well, we are not expecting you there.” And good riddance… I do not remember who it was, I think it was the Prime Minister who went there once. The first time I refused was because really, I do not invent anything, it was when the Government was formed after I was elected President, I think in 2012. However, we never reject contacts, we are always open for interaction. First, nobody invites us there, I have not heard of or received any official proposals. And second, we know how the great majority of that association, called the Big Seven, and I have already said it once that I do not quite understand why it is called the big seven: in terms of territory, population and contribution to the global GDP they are getting smaller and smaller. Well, it does not matter, they are our important partners anyway. In today’s situation I just cannot imagine how we can interact directly. Can you imagine it? Well, we’ve arrived, hello, and now we will be stare at each other, or what?

I believe that this should bring us to some normalisation. Maybe, if we implement all these proposals within the list that we have received from the US administration, maybe some conditions for bilateral or multilateral contacts will emerge, however, it is premature to speak about it.

Andrei Kolesnikov: And there was the second question …

Vladimir Putin: You know, I will tell you now very briefly, I think it will be clear at once what it is all about. We are still receiving proposals about ceasing hostilities there, there and there. When the Ukrainian troops leave the territories they occupy, then the hostilities will cease. If they do not leave, we will achieve it militarily. That’s that.

Yes, please.

Edmund Zhelbunov: Edmund Zhelbunov, NTV television company. A question on the progress of the special military operation.

Mr President, are the positive dynamics on the fronts continuing? If so, in which directions is the most active advance taking place? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The positive dynamics persist in all directions. Moreover, our troops’ advance in each of these directions continues to pick up the pace, and quite noticeably. I would refrain from citing the precise number of kilometres, because I could be mistaken, but month after month, the size of the territory, so to speak, returned by our forces in all key areas is steadily increasing. In other words, the pace of our advance is accelerating.

However, the main problem for the enemy lies elsewhere: the widening gap between their losses and the number of personnel they are able to bring to the line of combat contact. In October, I believe, they suffered over 47,000 casualties, or about 47,500. Through mobilisation, or more precisely – forced mobilisation, they raised roughly 16,500, and an additional 14,500 to 15,000 returned from hospitals. If one calculates this precisely down to a tenth, the net deficit comes to around 15,000. In the previous month, the deficit was 10,000. Thus, the gap is widening.

We must also add those who desert the army. The scale of desertion is significant, and this is evident not only from our media or from Defence Ministry reports, but is also widely covered in Western media, and it is virtually impossible for them to hide this information. Therefore, there is little they can do about it, as they say.

In short, the dynamics remain positive in all directions.

Yes, please.

Yegor Piskunov: Yegor Piskunov, RT television channel. Thank you very much.

Mr President, are you aware of the fact that phone conversations between Yury Ushakov, Steve Witkoff, and Kirill Dmitriev have been leaked to the press? What do you think about it? The West, particularly numerous Western media outlets, has blown it up to a scandal. Witkoff has come under attack. What do you think about this? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, speaking of leaks, that may be a fake claim, or maybe a conversation was actually eavesdropped on. Eavesdropping is a criminal offence. At least in our country, eavesdropping is illegal. You know how the joke goes, “they were instructed to spy, but they ended up eavesdropping.” Let them mind their own business. By the way, spying is a skill, too.

I will explain what I mean. I am not aware of what these wiretaps or leaks are all about. You see, we get up in the morning and work from morning till night. After the events ended, I joined you. Here is what I think the problem is all about. It is not about us. It is about the clash of opinions in the collective West and specifically within the United States regarding what is going on and what needs to be done to stop the war and to halt the hostilities.

I had a meeting with Mr Witkoff before the summit in Anchorage. After that meeting, I went to Alaska to have talks. Overall – I want to emphasise it – at least my impression was that we had an understanding of where we stood and what needed to be done to stop the hostilities.

Then we left because President Trump and I needed to return to our respective capitals, to think things over, to consult with our administrations, ministries, agencies, and allies. After that, we agreed to continue discussions.

[Sergei] Lavrov and [Marco] Rubio met in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and had a conversation. No conflict arose between Russia and the United States on these matters. We remained on the Anchorage platform. Suddenly, the United States imposed sanctions on two of our oil companies. Why? Frankly, I was not sure what was happening.

So, there is no reason for accusing Mr Witkoff of being overly polite with his Russian counterparts. I spoke with him, and then we had that meeting in Alaska, and then – boom – sanctions that undermine our relations were imposed on us. To reiterate, we are unclear what kind of message this is. That is the first point.

Second, Mr Witkoff is apparently travelling to Moscow on President Trump’s instructions to negotiate with us. It would be quite unusual if, in his conversations with [Yury] Ushakov, he had used cuss words to insult us, or said something extremely rude, and then reached out to us in order to improve his negotiating stance. That is nonsense. Not to mention that Mr Witkoff is, apparently, a well-mannered person; he knows he should create a proper environment for interpersonal communication. That much is obvious.

This brings me to the most important point. I have known Mr Witkoff for several months now. He and President Trump go back many years, maybe even decades. He is a US citizen, and he upholds the position of his President and his country. True, our dialogue is quite challenging. We are having a civil conversation. We are not spitting at each other. We are talking like civilised people do, but each one of us is upholding his own position. To reiterate, Mr Witkoff is upholding his position, the position of the United States and the interests of the United States as he sees them and as those who delegate him to negotiate with Russia see them. These people are not just President Trump. I think they also include people from the US military, diplomatic, and administrative spheres in the broad sense of the word.

Please go ahead.

Yelena Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.

Talks about confiscating Russian assets have intensified in Europe. I want to ask how Russia would respond to this. And do you agree with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s remark that the confiscation can lead to legal disputes, multiple lawsuits and the collapse of the euro?

Vladimir Putin: Hungary is an EU member, therefore, the Prime Minister of one of the EU countries knows better how this could affect the European currency. Clearly, this will have negative repercussions for the global financial system because confidence in the Eurozone will sharply decline, will plummet. And amid problems in the economy, where the locomotive of the European economy – the German economy – has been in recession for the third year running, I think this will definitely be quite an ordeal.

On my instruction, the Government of the Russian Federation is working on a package of retaliatory measures in case this happens. It is clear to everyone, and everyone says it bluntly, that it would amount to stealing someone else’s property. In this regard, I naturally have a question: who is teaching whom? Either the thieving elite of Ukraine, which steals the money of its taxpayers and the taxpayers of Western sponsors – we are now well aware of the corruption scandal in Kiev – is learning from the Europeans, or the Europeans are learning from the Ukrainian elite. In any case, both are theft. That is how we feel about it, and we are working on retaliatory measures. However, the Government will make them public later, if that happens.

Anton Vernitsky: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.

After Donald Trump admitted the possibility for the United States to test nuclear weapons, you gave instructions, at the Security Council meeting, to the relevant departments and security services to explore the feasibility of testing Russian nuclear weapons. Has a final decision been made yet? If so, what is it? If not, when can it be made?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I issued instructions to collect additional information about the actions of the American side, analyse it and submit proposals to me on what we should do in this situation. One of the proposals that we have received is to work together on this topic, that’s what we take from what we see. And we are ready to think all the issues concerning strategic stability over together with the US administration.

Anton Vernitsky: Could it be at the next negotiations, in Moscow next week?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, if this issue arises. Actually, even if it does not arise, we will, of course, raise this issue, because both the United States and we are perfectly aware that preparations for real nuclear weapons tests need time. And we certainly cannot let ourselves get into a situation where the United States will have had a test whereas we will be preparing for it for another year and a half. Naturally, we have to think about it. It was not us who said that, but we must be ready for any possible scenario. And I assure you, we will be ready.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Alexander Yunashev, Live.

Right now, during this visit, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not accompanying you…

Vladimir Putin: Do you miss him?

Alexander Yunashev: A little. Although he is not away on vacation, he has not appeared on your international visits for two weeks now. The media claim he has fallen out of favour allegedly due to an unsuccessful conversation with Marco Rubio. What do you say?

Vladimir Putin: This is absolute nonsense. He has not fallen out of favour in any way. He has his own work schedule, he reported to me, informed me of his plans, and he is implementing them. He is preparing for a meeting with our American partners.

Yes, please.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, TASS news agency.

Allow me to return to the peace plan. There is an impression that the Western side, by proposing such swift, rapid meetings and insisting on them, is in some way pressuring Russia and you personally. Naturally, everyone wants to achieve peace as quickly as possible, but it seems such matters bear no haste.

In your opinion, is there a risk that if an agreement is railroaded or hastily assembled, there may arise a temptation later to interpret it rather loosely? You have just said that every word requires discussion. How long, in general, will this take?

Vladimir Putin: I deliberately drew your attention to the fact that every issue listed in the documents handed to us holds immense importance – each one is a key topic, do you understand? Therefore, this requires thorough consideration. Likely, some of our partners are eager to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Why? Colleagues here have asked me about the developments along the line of contact, about the position of American negotiators. Well, what is happening? Take, for instance, Kupyansk – I will return to it shortly. Let us begin with the area of responsibility of our Centre group of forces: where are the main operations taking place? On the Krasnoarmeysk direction and around the city of Dimitrov. Krasnoarmeysk and Dimitrov are entirely encircled – just as Kupyansk was in its time. Seventy percent of Krasnoarmeysk is under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. In the southern part of Dimitrov, the enemy grouping has been cut off, it is being split across the entire city, and our forces are proceeding to systematically eliminate it.

Well, what is next? If you look at the map, shift your gaze further east, northeast – there lies Komsomolsk, and north of Komsomolsk – Kupyansk, Slavyansk, and a little further north, northeast – Seversk. In Komsomolsk, combat is ongoing within the city, and a significant number of buildings have already been liberated by our troops, with further advances underway.

As for Seversk, which, as I said, lies further northeast, our forces have approached this city from the east, south, and north. Fierce combat is taking place in the city – I believe out of 8,000 buildings, 1,700 are under our control. Do you understand, if they have approached from the north, south, and east, where is this all heading? This is a very difficult question for the Ukrainian side, for the Ukrainian armed forces.

If you look north – the city of Seversk: 1,700 buildings out of 8,000, and beyond that, further north (where our North group of forces is operating) – Volchansk is almost entirely in our hands, that is on the Kharkov direction.

Now take a look at the developments in the Zaporozhye Region. There, the enemy has spent the past ten years constructing a fortified area – they began this work back in 2014 and have reinforced it ever since – which is now facing our Dnepr group of forces. It is a heavily fortified area, and our Dnepr forces are actively operating against it. In several important sectors, thanks to the heroism of our soldiers, defences are being broken. But that is not the point. The point is that our East group of forces has broken through the enemy’s defensive lines and is rapidly advancing in the north of the Zaporozhye Region, along the border between the Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk regions. I repeat: they are advancing very rapidly. They are already within 1.5–2 kilometres of Gulyaypole, an important logistics hub. Whether they take the city soon or somewhat later, they will undoubtedly continue their advance.

What does this mean? It means that the East group of forces is effectively enveloping the entire fortified area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the north. On one side, our Dnepr group is confronting them whereas the East group of forces is bypassing them from the north. This may lead to a collapse of the front in this sector.

Here lies the difference between those in the West who seek to achieve peace as quickly as possible, even at the cost of certain mutual concessions, including from the Ukrainian side, and those who prefer a different course. If the developments we witnessed in Kupyansk unfold in the areas I have just mentioned, the collapse of the front will be inevitable.

Some still choose to believe that Kupyansk… Let me remind you: on November 4, the head of the Kiev regime declared that the city would be in Ukrainian hands within five to seven days. We now know that the enemy forces there have been completely eliminated, the city is entirely under our control, and another 15 battalions – around 3,500 personnel – are encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River. According to some of our commanders, Ukrainian soldiers in that area now resemble homeless people. This is not a joke. Imagine trying to supply 3,500 people by drone: food, uniform replacements, ammunition. It is impossible. They have been stuck in these conditions for weeks and are now practically immobilised.

Those in the West who understand the implications of all this are the ones insisting on ceasing the fighting as soon as possible, even if it requires concessions from the Kiev regime. They understand: the front will begin to crumble in several directions, and then the Ukrainian armed forces will completely lose combat capability, including their most battle-ready units, as is currently happening near Krasnoarmeysk. “Enough: save at least the core of the armed forces and your statehood. That is what must be considered,” say those who hold this view.

And then there are others, those who still continue to believe that Kupyansk is somehow back under Ukrainian control and who insist on continuing the fighting until the last Ukrainian is killed. That is the difference in their approaches. The ones attacking Mr Witkoff are precisely those who align with this second point of view, those who want to join the Ukrainian establishment in siphoning off money while prolonging hostilities until the last Ukrainian dies. But I have already said publicly: in fact, we are prepared for this.

Please, go ahead.

Yekaterina Lazareva: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.Ru agency. I have a follow-up question. Back to the peace plans. There is Trump’s peace plan, and there is an alternative plan advanced by Europe. Is there an understanding of who to talk to, to negotiate with, and to sign final documents with on behalf of Ukrainian political leadership, or perhaps, the military leadership now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless. I have mentioned this many times.

I believe the Ukrainian leadership made a fundamental and strategic mistake when it gave in to fear and chose not to hold presidential elections, after which the president lost his legitimacy. Russia is also amidst hostilities with Ukraine, but we held elections, presidential elections and, very recently, elections to municipal and regional bodies of authority. We did all of that, while they, for some reason, did not. As soon as a peace deal is signed, hostilities will stop, and the martial law will need to be immediately lifted. Once the martial law is lifted, elections must be announced immediately.

However, today, the current political leadership of Ukraine can hardly expect to be able to win the election without rigging it. It is almost impossible, I think. That brings to mind Stalin famously saying, “It does not matter who votes for whom; what matters is who counts the votes.” No one cancelled the use of the administrative resource. Still, they are facing a challenging situation.

Next, according to the Constitution, a referendum must be held on all territorial issues, after which the referendum must be confirmed by a Constitutional Court ruling.

What is happening with the Constitutional Court? I mentioned this earlier as well. As a reminder, when the political leadership requested that the Constitutional Court confirm the president’s powers, the Constitutional Court refused to do so and dodged the request. According to the Constitution, there is only one five-year term. That is it. It cannot be extended.

We could go into the legal details and intricacies, but extensions are not provided for even under martial law. Only the Rada can extend its own powers during wartime, not the president. So, as an officeholder, the president cannot sign it. He needs confirmation from the Constitutional Court. But when the Court was asked to confirm the president’s powers, and refused to do so, do you know what happened next? I am not sure I mentioned this before, but a funny thing happened next. The security service stopped letting him into his office. He came to work, and someone knocked on his door telling him to clear out. He ended by fleeing the country.

The Constitutional Court is not operational, and the President of the Supreme Court is doing time for corruption. Those in charge of anti-corruption activities are corruptionists of the first order themselves. The President of the Supreme Court was imprisoned on corruption charges. Meanwhile, the terms of the Constitutional Court members expired, and new members had to be elected. It is quite a lengthy procedure, you see?

So, as soon as martial law is lifted, presidential elections must be held, a referendum must be held, and a new Constitutional Court must be formed. That is a never ending story.

Well, of course, we want to work out a deal with Ukraine, but doing so right now is practically impossible, legally impossible. Whoever from their side can or is willing to talk, let them do so. What we need is for our decisions to be internationally recognised by the main global actors. That is all we need.

This matters, because there is a difference between decisions under which certain territories remain under Russian sovereignty have been recognised. If agreements get violated, it will constitute an attack on the Russian Federation, with all ensuing responses from Russia. Or, will it be interpreted as an attempt to restore law on the territory owned by Ukraine? These are different matters.

Without a doubt, we need recognition, but not from Ukraine as things stand today. I hope that in the future we will be able to work out a deal with Ukraine as well. There are enough right-minded people in Ukraine who are willing to build relations with Russia for the long-term historical perspective.

Kira Latukhina: Good afternoon. My name is Kira Latukhina, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

Hungarian media have reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will arrive in Moscow tomorrow for talks with you. Could you confirm that such a meeting will take place, and what would be the purpose of his visit? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We are in contact with the Hungarian side regarding a possible meeting. And we are always pleased to welcome any of our partners to Russia, including our European colleagues, despite their generally aggressive attitude toward us. Especially Viktor Orban. We know his position well. In my view, it is quite objective. He is one of the few people who assesses the situation based on real circumstances on the ground and formulates his political stance accordingly.

We also have bilateral matters to discuss. Our cooperation in the energy sector is extensive, not to mention the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. There are issues there requiring further clarification and coordination. This includes nuclear fuel supplies. For example, they used American fuel in Ukraine. We have nothing against that in principle, but in practice the fuel assemblies malfunctioned: the rods began to warp, leading to an emergency situation. Therefore, everything in this sphere must be thoroughly calculated; this is a very serious matter. But beyond that, we have many other bilateral issues. If Prime Minister Orban finds it appropriate to accept our invitation, we will be glad to see him.

Valentin Alfimov: May I, Mr President?

Valentin Alfimov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

You have already partially addressed this, but I would like to clarify the legal aspect concerning Crimea and Donbas. In President Trump’s plan, it is stated that they recognise these territories as ours de facto but not de jure. How is that possible? As a lawyer, how do you see this distinction? How can something be recognised de facto but not de jure?

Vladimir Putin: This is precisely one of the issues that should be addressed in our negotiations with the American side.

Thank you for drawing attention to it. You are right, this is one of the key points.

Thank you very much.

All the best.

Reply by President Vladimir Putin on Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan re Ukraine

Reply (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78524)by President Vladimir Putin to a question during the working session with the permanent members of Russia’s Security Council (November 21, 2025)

Question: Donald Trump’s 28-point peace plan on the Ukrainian crisis is now being actively discussed worldwide. May I ask to share your opinion on this plan and explain how it relates to your recent talks with President Trump in Alaska?

President Putin: It’s no secret: President Trump’s peace plan for Ukrainian crisis resolution was discussed even before the meeting in Alaska, and during that preliminary exchange the US Side asked us to make certain compromises – to show what they called “flexibility”.

The main point of the Alaska summit, its main purpose, was that during the talks in Anchorage we confirmed that, despite some difficult issues and complexities, we nevertheless agreed with these proposals and were prepared to demonstrate the requested flexibility.

We provided detailed information to all our friends and partners in the Global South on these matters – including China, India, the DPRK, South Africa, Brazil, many other countries, and, of course, the CSTO states. All our friends and partners, and I want to emphasise this – without exception – supported these potential arrangements.

However, after the negotiations in Alaska, we have seen a certain pause on the part of the US, and we know this is due to Ukraine’s de facto refusal to accept the peace plan proposed by President Trump. I believe this is precisely why a new version has emerged – essentially an updated plan consisting of 28 points.

We have the text. We received it through our existing channels of communication with the US Administration. I believe it too could form the basis of a final peace settlement, but this text is not being discussed with us in substance. And I can suggest why.

The reason, I believe, remains the same: the US Administration still cannot secure Ukraine’s consent – Ukraine rejects it.

Evidently, Ukraine and its European allies remain under illusions and still dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. I think this position is rooted not so much in a lack of competence – I will leave this topic aside for now – but rather in the absence of objective information about the real situation on the ground.

And, all things considered, neither Ukraine nor Europe grasp the consequences of this path. Just one very recent example – Kupyansk. Not long ago, on 4 November – just two weeks ago – officials in Kiev publicly stated that no more than 60 Russian servicemen were present in the city, and that within the next few days, as they claimed, Ukrainian forces would fully unblock it.

But I would like to inform you that already at that moment, on 4 November, the city of Kupyansk was practically entirely secured by the Russian Armed Forces. Our guys were, as they say, simply finishing the job – clearing the remaining streets and neighbourhoods. The fate of the city had already been fully determined.

What does this tell us? Either the Kiev leaders do not have objective information about the situation at the front, or, having it, they are simply unable to assess it objectively.

If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and rejects them, then they – and their European war-instigators – must understand that the situation in Kupyansk will inevitably be repeated on other key sectors of the front.

Perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but the outcome will be inevitably repeated .

And, on the whole, this is acceptable to us, as it leads to achieving the objectives of the special military operation by military means. But, as I have said many times before, we are also ready for peace negotiations and for resolving problems by peaceful means. However, this requires a substantive discussion of all details of the proposed plan. We are ready for that.

Full subbed version of visit of Vladimir Putin to the command post of the West group of forces.

East Calling translated the full video of the meeting with the command of the West Group of forces. Kupyansk is liberated!

https://eastcalling.substack.com

President Putin: Meeting with SCO Heads of Government

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78487

In the Kremlin’s St Catherine Hall, Vladimir Putin held a meeting with the heads of delegation attending the SCO Council of Heads of Government meeting.

Russia’s chairmanship of the SCO Council of Heads of Government ends in 2025. The Council met earlier today in Moscow under the chairmanship of Russia’s Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, friends,

It is a great pleasure to welcome you all to Moscow.

Today, you have successfully concluded a regular meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government, outlining plans for our future joint work. This builds upon the foundations laid by the Tianjin Declaration and the SCO Development Strategy to 2035, which was adopted at September’s SCO Summit in China.

We are united by a common objective: to strengthen the authority and influence of the SCO as one of the leading regional associations, both across the Eurasian continent and globally. In this endeavour, our governments have a vital role to play. Governments always have a special role when it comes to practical work. It is, after all, our governments – the teams under your leadership – who translate our shared ambitions into concrete, practical cooperation and who drive the expansion of the Organisation’s multifaceted partnerships.

Throughout Russia’s chairmanship of the Council this year, we have hosted a substantial programme of events. Nearly 30 ministerial and expert meetings, as well as forums involving business, public, and youth representatives, have been held in Moscow, St Petersburg, and other major Russian cities, and a wide range of mutually beneficial projects and cooperation programmes have been agreed.

Governments traditionally prioritise issues of economic cooperation, promotion and diversification of trade and investment. Coordinated efforts in these areas are already yielding tangible results.

For example, Russia’s trade with SCO member states reached US$409 billion in 2024 and continues to grow. Of course, the largest share of this turnover is accounted for by our cooperation with the People’s Republic of China, however, trade with other SCO member states is also growing.

It is important to note that the share of national currencies in commercial transactions between the Organisation’s members is consistently increasing. For example, in our country’s trade with SCO partners, this figure already exceeds 97 percent.

Stable and uninterrupted payment channels are becoming increasingly vital, particularly in the current volatile economic environment, marked by turbulence in the global markets, unilateral sanctions, tariff restrictions and wars.

At the Russian side’s initiative, and with the support of its partners within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, steps are being taken to expand payment, settlement, and depository infrastructure. The agenda also includes consultations on the creation of a future SCO Development Bank, as well as on the mutual recognition of credit ratings and goods indicator systems.

Other Russian proposals on the establishment of a database of industrial investment projects within the SCO are also being implemented. The creation of such an instrument will expand cooperation in the industrial sector, facilitate joint development of production capacity, support import substitution, and promote the introduction of new technologies and digital innovations, including artificial intelligence. Ultimately, these efforts will contribute to strengthening the technological sovereignty of our countries in the core sectors of the economy.

It would be appropriate to continue our joint efforts to build an extensive and competitive network of logistics routes across the vast expanse of the SCO and Eurasia as a whole.

Russia, situated at the very heart of the continent and at the intersection of key trans-Eurasian transport corridors, is allocating significant funds to modernise its transport infrastructure. The volume of road, rail, and multimodal traffic passing through Russian territory is growing noticeably, with due consideration given to the utilisation of new promising corridors such as North–South and the Northern Sea Route. Today, incidentally, another nuclear-powered icebreaker has just been laid down.

Our country is also making a substantial contribution to maintaining stability in global energy markets. We are doing everything to ensure reliable supplies of energy resources to consumers, despite attempts from outside to negatively influence supply chains, and we count on closer coordination among all SCO partners in the energy sector, in line with the relevant roadmap adopted in Tianjin.

It is evident that the Shanghai Organisation could play a more significant role not only in deepening sectoral cooperation but also, more broadly, in fostering a favourable atmosphere on our shared continent for stable, progressive growth and multifaceted economic interaction. In practical terms, it could also facilitate the alignment of the numerous integration projects being implemented across Eurasia. This is precisely the aim of the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept proposed by Russia. The idea is to harmoniously combine integration processes within the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative put forward by our Chinese friends, and numerous similar projects involving the countries of the Shanghai Organisation.

Naturally, cooperation within the SCO framework is by no means limited to the economy, though this is undoubtedly the primary focus. Our organisation also actively contributes to strengthening peace and stability across Eurasia, countering a wide range of challenges and threats, and shaping a new balanced security architecture in Eurasia.

An equally important component of the SCO’s activities is the development of humanitarian contacts and exchanges in the fields of culture, science, education, healthcare, environmental protection, and, of course, youth policy and sport. As I have said on numerous occasions, Russia is sincerely committed to the closest possible partnership with the SCO member states. I am confident that by acting in a coordinated and united manner, helping one another, we are capable of achieving truly impressive results in developing multifaceted cooperation among our countries.

Thank you for your attention.

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 19 November:  Why Russia Needs to Win Its War

In the hour before this show, the news which I had received from the Indian broadcaster WION early in the morning that Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump’s emissary for the Ukraine war talks, was going to meet with Zelensky in Istanbul later today was superseded by news that the meeting was cancelled by Zelensky. Per WION, Witkoff planned to present America’s latest 20-point peace plan which had been substantially agreed to by Russia and so was likely to be very harsh on Ukraine.  Nonetheless, the dry residue of this news is that there have been highly secret talks between Team Trump and Team Putin to arrive at this peace plan, which was not considered possible by the great many experts in both mainstream and alternative media who despise and underappreciate the constancy of purpose of Donald Trump.  To my mind this secret backchannel finally explains the extraordinary efforts of Putin to ingratiate himself with Trump during his speech and Q&A at the Valdai Discussion Club annual meeting in Sochi two months ago. It also bears on the dispute between Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov and other officials close to Putin when Ryabkov said the time for diplomacy was over and the momentum of the Alaska summit was a spent force.

These and other key questions are, I believe, worth a listen.  I think in particular of the way that drone warfare has been the great equalizer in the Russia-Ukraine war over the past six months so that the kill ratio in favor of Russia during the artillery war phase of the conflict is now no longer relevant, and Russia is bleeding more than anyone says; or the way that regime change may come about in the coming week if Zelensky is offered a ‘golden handshake’ to resign

Trump – Putin meeting in Budapest is now officially canceled by the U.S. side

Trump – Putin meeting in Budapest is now officially canceled by the U.S. side

Many laymen and a good many experts who are well known to the Community from their regular appearances on major interview podcasts will deeply regret the news that Washington has canceled, not postponed the Trump-Putin summit planned for Budapest, per today’s Financial Times and carried by Reuters. I am not among them, because in his present posture of subservience to Trump, it is best if President Putin is not given an opportunity to sacrifice core Russian interests and to overlook the loss of 150,000 Russian soldiers’ lives by accepting the ‘American conceptualization’ of what the end of the war will look like. That last remark on conceptualization was issued by Putin just a few days ago before it was withdrawn by Sergei Lavrov in a lame-looking acknowledgement that the American president has gone back on his words to Putin at their Anchorage summit and now is pressing for a cease-fire without addressing the root causes of the conflict.

I still maintain that Trump has been messaging Putin in various ways that he must end the war as soon as possible and that he, Trump, does not care if this means wreaking total destruction on Kiev here and now. This is what all the delays in applying secondary sections on Russian oil exports were all about. The sanctions themselves will start to bite very soon and that is heavy pressure on Putin to do what is needed. Sooner or later this issue will be resolved at the top in Russia, either by Putin or by his successor if he is pushed aside.

*****

I close this essay by sharing the video link from yesterday’s interview with NewsX World (India), the content of which I partly discussed in an essay yesterday.

https://youtu.be/wWepGQ4GJl0?si=8wlw5VH9TBPDOqBV

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 29 October 2025: Putin’s Next Moves

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 29 October 2025: Putin’s Next Moves

Today’s discussion focused on the contradictions, the flip-flops in the positions of Vladimir Putin and of his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov these past two days over whether they have an understanding with Donald Trump over how the war will end or do not. The latest indications are that they see how Trump has back on his words in Anchorage and no longer is interested in finding a solution to the underlying causes of the war, only to achieving an immediate cease-fire, which Russia officially rejects.

We also considered how the new sanctions on Lukoil and Rosneft are likely to play out. As we know, the Indians have said they will no longer purchase Russian oil, which would indeed be a serious blow to the Russian budget. Russian television (today’s afternoon edition of The Great Game) is saying that the sanctions will be overcome thanks to side deals with India such as delivery of the oil by minor Russian oil producers acting as middlemen for the two sanctioned majors. Perhaps, but not in the next few days and the longer it takes to arrange the workarounds, the more damage will be done to Russian finances. Moreover, note that Lukoil have just announced plans to sell off all of their foreign operations in Europe within the 21 November set by Trump. If done, this surely will be achieved at fire sale prices, meaning a significant economic loss for Russia. Paradoxically I say that the sanctions are a message by Trump to Putin to end the war now by immediate destruction of Kiev because the longer it goes on the worse will be the losses from the sanctions. Finally, I note that the sanctions are a tool by Trump to wreck BRICS, which is one of his prime policy objectives because it drives a wedge between the founding members of BRICS.

(https://www.youtube.com/live/jhLsCsqkw9E?si=rfKchlnY3tQETFBc)

The operative Anglo-American Doctrine of Nuclear Primacy

From the archives: “U.S. game-plan to conquer Russia & China is clarified”

Posted on December 29, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.

America’s Secret Planned Conquest of Russia

The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.

This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.)

This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources).

Neither version of this article mentioned the key reason why nuclear victory is exceedingly dangerous even under the most favorable conditions, which reason is the concept (and the likely reality in the event of nuclear war between the two superpowers) “nuclear winter” — the scientific studies showing that a resulting sudden sharp cooling of the atmosphere after all those enormous explosions would produce a global die-off. America’s aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies controlling the U.S.-allied nations (billionaires, centi-millionaires, and their top agents in both the public and private sectors) are buying and building deep-underground nuclear shelters for themselves, but they wouldn’t be able to stay underground and survive on stored feedstuffs forever. (As for everybody else, those other people are not involved in geostrategic decision-making, and so are being ignored.) However, many of America’s (and associated) elite are paying those bomb-shelter expenses, but none of the West’s elite are condemning the path toward nuclear war that their governments are on. So: buying or building nuclear-war shelters is more acceptable to them than is stopping America’s planned conquest of Russia. The higher priority is to conquer Russia.

A far less influential scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article arguing against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no impact upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it argued that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It presented a moral argument: “U.S. leaders might try to exploit its nuclear superiority … by actually launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack against its nuclear rival in the midst of an intense crisis. The professors discount significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to restrain U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow dire enough, the temptation to try to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike may be too strong to resist, they argue.” The concept of “nuclear winter” wasn’t even so much as just mentioned (much less dealt with) in this article, just as it was ignored in the two that it was arguing against.

The co-authors of (both versions of) the article that had proposed and endorsed nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a response to that critical article. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more impact than did the obscure article it was arguing against.

Thus, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it remains Russian policy). The U.S. government is planning to take over Russia (basically, to install a puppet-regime there). That’s the reality.

Central to the nuclear-primacy concept is that of what’s variously called a “Ballistic Missile Defense” (BMD) or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (ABM) system: a system to disable or knock out Russia’s retaliatory nuclear weapons so that a U.S. blitz nuclear attack won’t be able to be met by any nuclear counter-attack.

As “The End of MAD?” put it: “Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived.”

In other words: America’s aristocracy aren’t necessarily hoping to protect all of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are willing to sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, in order to achieve the intended result: conquest of Russia.

That article then says that a BMD-ABM system wouldn’t necessarily indicate America’s determination to pursue nuclear primacy against Russia, because it could instead be intended purely and authentically defensively, to protect against nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea or some other country. However: “Other U.S. nuclear programs are hard to explain with any mission other than a nuclear first strike on a major power adversary. For example, the decision to upgrade the fuse of many SLBM warheads (the W76s) to permit ground bursts makes sense only if the mission is destroying hundreds of hardened silos. One might argue that ground bursts could be useful for a variety of other missions, such as destroying North Korean WMD bunkers or remote cave complexes housing terrorist leaders. The United States, however, already has a large number of highly accurate, similar-yield warheads that would be ideal for these purposes.” The article even notes that: “Other analysts have noted that the current U.S. nuclear force looks surprisingly like an arsenal designed for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China.” And, “A group of RAND analysts agrees: ‘What the planned force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.’” So: the co-authors here are claiming to be merely giving a name, “nuclear primacy,” to America’s existing strategic military policy — not to be inventing or creating it. They are, above all, saying that this is the reality now in U.S. policy-making circles; that MAD no longer is.

And their article has, indeed, described the guiding strategic-planning objective not only of the George W. Bush Administration, but also of Barack Obama’s — as will now be documented.

U.S. President Obama has always been saying that the reason why America is installing anti-ballistic missiles (“ABM”s, otherwise known as ballistic-missile defense or “BMD”) in Romania, Poland, and other nations that border (or are near to) Russia, is in order to protect Europe against Iranian missiles that might be aimed against Europe. He says that this is purely defensive, not aggressive, and that what it’s defending from is Iran, not Russia — so, Russia has no reason for complaint about it.

But then, Obama reached his nuclear deal with Iran; and this deal ended, for at least ten years, any realistic possibility that Iran would develop any nuclear-weapons capability — Obama himself emphasized that this was the case; he wasn’t denying it.

So: Obama’s claimed reason for installing ABMs in Europe was now, quite simply, gone. (Not that it had been credible anyway, since Iran didn’t have any nuclear weapons. It was merely a pretext, not honestly a reason.)

Here is how Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, stated the matter, at that time, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, on 22 October 2015:

“The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. [But] What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.

Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.

The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one”

He called Obama there a “liar,” and that’s a blatantly truthful characterization of the situation. But Putin missed there saying what’s even more basic for an understanding of what Obama was doing in this matter — and which makes that “lie” from Obama particularly heinous: Putin missed saying that an anti-missile system can be at least as important as an aggressive weapon as it is as a defensive one, because if a first-strike attacker wants to eliminate the defender’s ability to strike back from the attacker’s first-strike attack, then an anti-missile system is the weapon to do that, by eliminating the defender’s missiles before those strike-back missiles can reach their targets. It nullifies the other side’s defense — and to do this is enormously aggressive; it strips the victim’s retaliation. The whole distinction between offensive and defensive can thus be pure propaganda, nothing having to do actually with aggressive and defensive. Whether the use will be defensive, or instead offensive, won’t be known until the system is in actual battlefield use. Only the propaganda is clear; the weapon’s use is not.

So, Putin understated the heinousness, and the danger to Russians, that was actually involved in Obama’s tricks. All that Putin did was to vaguely suggest an aggressive possibility: “It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.” Most people don’t relate to such abstractions as “strategic balance.”

Obama and other agents of the U.S. aristocracy know that their public have been trained for decades, to hate, fear, and despise, Russians, and especially the Russian government, as if it were the Soviet Union, and as if its Warsaw Pact and communism still existed and Russia hadn’t ended its hostility to the U.S. in 1991 (though the U.S. continued its hostility to Russia — that rump remaining country from the former communist empire — and during Obama’s second term the hostility soared). So, for example, at the conservative website Breitbart, when that statement quoted here from Putin was posted as part of an honestly written and presented article titled “Vladimir Putin: U.S. Missile Defense System Threatens Russia”, almost none of the reader-comments indicated any ability or inclination of the readers to sympathize with the plight for Russians that Putin had just expressed. Instead, to the extent that the comments there were relevant, they were generally hostile, such as:

“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he has concerns that the U.S. ballistic missile defense system threatens Russia’s nuclear capability.”

Vlad, its supposed to, its called defense. The only way it could harm your nukes is if they were shot down…………….after you launched them!

and

How can a defense system threaten anything? Like Obama would attack Russia. That is laughable.

Most people’s minds are straightjacketed in bigotries of various sorts, preconceptions such as that a “missile defense” system, and a “Defense” Department, can’t be aggressive — even extremely aggressive and war-mongering. The first thought that comes to mind about anything that’s ‘defensive’ is that something else must be ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’, and that whatever is ‘defensive’ (such as an ABM) is therefore good and even necessary. That’s thinking, and receiving the term “defense,” like thinking just one move ahead in a chess-game, but this is the mental limit for most people, and every propagandist (such as the people who professionally design propaganda or PR slogans and campaigns) do precisely what Obama and the rest of the aristocracy and their agents do in order to deceive their gulls: they phrase things for one-move-ahead-limit thinkers, like that. The cardinal rule in the deception-professions is therefore, first, to find people with the desired prejudices, and then to play them as that, with one-move-ahead-limit sales-pitches, which are directed to precisely those prejudices. This report at the Breitbart site was instead presenting a high-quality news-report, to a low-quality audience, and so the reader-comments it generated were few, and generally hostile.

Obama is a master at deception. Another good example of this was 26 March 2012, during Obama’s campaign for re-election, when he confidentially told Dmitry Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Obama was privately communicating to Putin (through Medvedev) that Obama was pushing the ABM installations only so as not to be politically vulnerable to charges from the knee-jerk Russia-haters, Republicans, and that Obama’s fakery regarding the supposed ABM-target’s being Iran was only in order to appeal to yet another Republican bigotry (against Iran), and so Obama was intending to back away from supporting the ABM system during his second term.

But actually, Obama had had Russia in his gunsights even prior to his coming into office. Two specific objects in focus were Moscow-friendly leaders of nations: Assad of Syria, and Yanukovych of Ukraine. America’s strategy, ever since 24 February 1990, has been to strip Russia of allies and friends — to leave Russia increasingly isolated and surrounded by enemies. When Obama entered the White House on 20 January 2009, there already was a plea in the pipeline from the Syrian government for urgently needed food-aid to address the all-time-record drought there, which had decimated Syrian agriculture. Obama’s Administration never even answered it. Well before the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011, Obama was hoping for turmoil in Syria and the overthrow of Assad — lots of starving Syrians would be just the thing.

Moreover, the planning for the February 2014 coup to overthrow the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, started in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011.

So: when Obama told Medvedev and Putin, on 26 March 2012, not to worry about Obama’s intentions toward Russia, he was lying. He wanted his intended victim to be off-guard, unprepared for what was soon to come.

On Obama’s way out the door, he did two things that significantly advanced America’s ABM-BMD threat against Russia.

On 10 December 2016, ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter stated, burying it in a speech he gave in Bahrain — site of a major U.S. military base — “just this week, we reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses,” and he said nothing more about it, as if this announcement weren’t the bombshell it actually was. Alex Gorka headlined about that at Strategic Culture, “US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines” and he explained that this system “is designed to be used as an early warning system against strategic offensive assets – something Iran does not possess.” Near the start of Carter’s speech, Carter had said that he would be talking about “checking Iranian aggression and malign influence, and helping defend our friends and allies,” including Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Gorka noted, “The announced range of 5,000km (3,100mi) by far exceeds the requirement to counter a missile threat coming from Iran,” and, “There is no other reasonable explanation for the choice, except the fact that the AN/FPS-132 can monitor large chunks of Russian territory,” the objective being “to surround the Russian Federation with BMD sites and neutralize its capability to deliver a retaliatory strike if attacked.”

One of Obama’s last actions as the U.S. President was to sign into law a bill that had been quietly passed in Congress, which included a key change in U.S. law that would enable the government to spend unlimited funds on realizing former President Ronald Reagan’s dream of a space-based ABM system, “Star Wars.” On December 22nd, David Willman of the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race”, and he reported that the eliminated word was “limited.” Willman explained that, “The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or ‘limited,’ attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.” He noted: “The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.” Willman also noted that on an earlier occasion, “the Obama administration criticized the changes in the Senate bill, saying it ‘strongly objects’ to removing ‘limited’ and to placing anti-missile weaponry in space. The statement stopped short of threatening a veto.” But then, the next day, on December 23rd, Willman bannered, “President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race”. Whereas Obama’s public rhetoric portrayed himself as being the type of person who had deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, almost all of his actual decisions in office were the exact opposite — and here was a superb example of that.

Whether Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will continue with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) plan to conquer Russia, or instead finally end the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had ended in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), isn’t yet clear.

This is what happens when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and everything (including the ‘news’ media) serves it, rather than the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.

It fits in with the massive data which indicates that the U.S. government is run by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, instead of run by people who represent the public — a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.

Additional details “Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears” were provided by a superb article from Jonathan Marshall, on December 28th.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Does the Vladimir Solovyov talk show speak for President Putin?

20 October 2025

The question of the value of using Russian state television as a means of divining which way the Kremlin is headed on key foreign policy issues has been highly contentious in the Alternative Media community. Some peers mock the idea, saying that the talking heads are irrelevant and that their own personal contacts with some Russian General or presidential advisor in retirement is the real way to understand what is going on behind the closed doors of Vladimir Putin’s offices. Others think they get in from the source from having a private audience with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Then among the trolls who send in Comments to the Russian-dubbed versions of ‘Judging Freedom’ or the Glenn Diesen channel you see claims that state television no longer is watched by the majority of the population, especially the young, who get their news from social media. That may be noteworthy if the purpose of any given broadcast is to influence the broad public, but it entirely misses the point if the purpose of the broadcast is to send a message to Washington.

To all these dissenters on the proper methodology to be used by Russia watchers, I submit that the proof is in the pudding. Last night’s news in The Financial Times, backed up by coverage in this morning’s BBC provides irrefutable evidence that Mr. Solovyov’s program is backed by the Putin government not only as a safety valve for Opposition criticism but at times as an unofficial channel for setting out the strident nationalist positions that the President himself will not say publicly.

“Trump urged Zelensky to accept Putin’s terms or ‘be destroyed.’ This article in the FT explains in detail how in their closed-door meeting in the White House President Trump raged at Zelensky, insisting that his country’s survival depends on submitting to Vladimir Putin’s terms for peace, beginning with the surrender of all of the Donbas, including the territory not yet overrun by Russian troops.

I call special attention to the words ‘be destroyed.’

I quote from the article: “According to a European official with knowledge of the meeting, Trump told Zelensky that Putin had told him the conflict was a ‘special operation, not even a war, adding that the Ukrainian leader needed to cut a deal or face destruction.”

This is precisely what Solovyov was saying on air in his program of 14 October, three days before the Trump-Zelensky meeting. Per Solovyov, Russia should stop pussy-footing and face the reality that it was at war with Ukraine, that the Ukrainians were doing all in their power to inflict harm on the Russian Federation and Russia should now respond in kind, raising Ukrainian cities to the ground. Humane solicitude for the Ukrainian population could be shown only after Russian military and political victory was completed.

In parallel, we may assume that a similar message was being delivered directly to Team Trump via the backchannels that Russian diplomat to the UN Dmitry Polyansky told Glenn Diesen in an interview a couple of days ago, are working just fine.

Solovyov went on to say that in Kiev and other cities, the population should be warned to evacuate the city ahead of Russia’s bombing them flat. He also extended the same advice to the populations of cities in Western Europe, like Brussels, where there are factories manufacturing weapons and munitions that are being supplied to Ukraine. So far, that additional warning appears not to have been passed to European leaders, though here in Brussels I am told by a Flemish insider journalist that Prime Minister Bart De Wever is shaking in his boots.

The role of the Solovyov show as communicator of Kremlin thinking does not end there, as was evident on last night’s show. In a discussion with a frequent guest panelist on the show, Lt. General Yevgeny Buzhinsky, Solovyov listened to the general’s account of how in the last week Russian drone, missile and glide bomb attacks all across Ukraine had reached the highest level of intensity in the Special Military Operation to date, destroying vast swathes of the Ukrainian electricity infrastructure. Solovyov then asked him wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate this firepower on a very limited geographical space like the urban centers Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, heavily fortified centers in the middle of Donetsk oblast that stand in the way of a Russian army sweep across the plain to the Dnieper River? Wouldn’t it make more sense to heavily bomb central Kiev, after which the greater part of the population would flee the city, creating total chaos for the Zelensky regime and for the Western countries where these unwelcome refugees would arrive?

Buzhinsky is a professional Russian officer who feels very uncomfortable agreeing to ideas like these which contain a sharp reprimand to the General Staff and to the Supreme Commander (Putin), but nevertheless he agreed with Solovyov. It can be easily imagined that this kind of change in execution of the SMO was communicated to Team Trump in the past week ahead of the Trump-Zelensky meeting in the White House.

For all of these reasons, there is reason to hope for a productive summit in Budapest and for an end to the war on Russia’s terms in the near future.

A corollary to all the foregoing is that President Putin himself has cardinally changed his position on how to deal with Trump and with the Europeans. Yes, as my peers will say, this was arrived at in a collegial way. BUT the point is not collegiality in decision making. It is that discontent in the political establishment outside the Kremlin with the go-slow, softly-softly approach to the war of President Putin and its prospects for dragging on for years while Europe reindustrialized and rearmed had reached a critical point threatening the stability of the Putin presidency.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Yuri Ushakov on the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Machine translated from the Kremlin’s Russian Telegram Channel

Assistant to the President of Russia Yuri Ushakov revealed details of the conversation between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

— The conversation lasted almost two and a half hours, “was very substantive in nature and was extremely frank and confidential,” Ushakov said.

— Special emphasis was placed on the Ukrainian crisis: the Russian president assessed the situation and expressed the Russian side’s interest in achieving a peaceful political and diplomatic settlement.

— According to Ushakov, Putin noted that Russia holds the strategic initiative, while the Kyiv regime resorts to terrorist methods to which Russia is forced to respond.

— Trump, in turn, repeatedly emphasized the need for the swift establishment of peace in Ukraine, Ushakov noted. The idea that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict turned out to be the most difficult was evident throughout the conversation, added the assistant to the Russian president. The US president pointed out that ending the conflict would open up huge prospects for cooperation.

— The conversation also touched on the issue of possible deliveries of long-range “Tomahawk” missiles to Ukraine, Ushakov said. Putin reiterated that they would not change the situation on the battlefield but would cause significant damage to the relations between the countries.

— The heads of state also discussed the possibility of holding a new meeting, the assistant to the president of Russia said. An agreement was reached that representatives of the two countries would immediately begin preparing for a meeting, which could take place, for example, in Budapest.

— The contact was “very useful” and the two leaders agreed to stay in touch, Ushakov added.

…

Here is the formal translation on the Kremlin site.  This is the one that we should pay attention to.  Oh heavens, it mocks!  While Trump posts and posts, Putin is letting his aide make the statement.

…

Let’s add Trump:

NewsX World: Zelensky Speaks With Trump Over Air Defenses And Long-Range Strike Capabilities

I am pleased and not a little surprised that day after day this Indian global broadcaster invites my commentary on the Ukraine war when they know very well that my observations are at variance not only with Mainstream, but also at variance with a goodly number of celebrities in the Alternative Media.

I am being very discreet in my remarks in this interview. Allow me to spell out more clearly what my present thinking is: 

1. President Trump’s engagement with Vladimir Zelensky over sending him Tomahawks is yet again a signal to Vladimir Putin to get the damned war in Ukraine over with now by smashing Kiev to bits. He is saying, in essence that  ‘If you fail to do that and the war drags on, I may be obliged to give the Tomahawks to Kiev to apply further pressure on you.’
2. Putin’s blasé response to the threat of major escalation by Washington, which dispatch of Tomahawks signifies, regrettably positions him as Gorbachev-2.  Mikhail Gorbachev was played for a fool by his talking partners in the Bush Sr. administration.  No expansion of NATO one inch to the East, etc.   Now Putin is presenting himself as a similar fool by ignoring the ongoing and very damaging Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian refineries and energy infrastructure, all of it guided by US intel, as even the Financial Times details in its latest reporting.  The only dignified response to this American aggression would be for Putin to threaten to declare war on the USA if it continues one more day. Hegseth, Rubio, not to mention Senator Lindsey Graham must all be sniggering over Putin’s lack of cojones. Super weapons such as Russia possesses are no better than the will of leaders to use them in self-defense.

Concluding his 3-day stay in Tajikistan, President Putin answers questions from the mass media.

Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.

There were a number of speeches and discussions during these meetings, which also included the meetings of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).  I selected this one to comment on as it highlights the significant issues.  The CIS now also has a CIS+, and this plus will be invited from the SCO.  So we have growth here as well.  CIS came into being when the Soviet Union ceased to exist.  He also explains the confusion of the time.  Putin explains the interactions and roles of CIS, the Russia–Central Asia summit, and the EAEU.

—

RT headlines: “The multipolar revolution you missed: The alliance everyone forgot is shaping Eurasia’s future”.  At the CIS summit, Russia’s regional alliance quietly evolved from post-Soviet bureaucracy into a functioning pillar of the multipolar world.

—

The CIS consists of Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.  Moldova was part of this group, but suspended participation.  Mr Putn explains that when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, people were not very clear about the role of CIS, and generally believed that it replaced the Soviet Union.  I was looking for a map on Wikipedia, and sure, I found that it said CIS replaced the Soviet Union.  “As the Soviet Union disintegrated, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine signed the Belovezha Accords on 8 December 1991, declaring that the Union had effectively ceased to exist and proclaiming the CIS in its place.”

A cursory reading of this incredibly complex history soon makes it clear that the plan was for a group of countries like the EU (which came into existence more or less in the same historic period) to be relatively homogeneous and nicely manageable.  Then came Mr Putin.  I haven’t read much of this very recent history, but from what my father-in-law told me, it seems like the planning involved the creation of a manageable group of scattered countries.  The world was being divided into blocs or groups to serve a master and simplify management.  This was much less about the ‘dirty commies’ and much more about creating a world where one master would be in charge.  This is evident even with a cursory investigation of the fall of the USSR, the creation of the Russian Federation, and the process of creating the EU.  On the Russian side, it was during the era of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, with the happy Glasnost and Perestroika, which is the last that the Westoids heard of this vibrant Eurasian area.  We westoids only saw mockumentary comedies such as Borat.   Judging by what Mr. Putin explained in this presser, this ignorance of that Eurasian world was widespread, and not even the participants clearly knew what was going on.   

Again, then came Putin.

[Note:  By going through these questions and answers, we gain a clear lesson from Putin on how problems should be resolved in the tumultuous relationships as we transition to a new world order with new poles forming.  We should have a different descriptor than the New World Order, though, as we are only now moving to the world order envisaged and clearly documented at the initial steps of creating the UN.  This presser also illustrates the BRICS concept of decisions made by consensus and not by a vote. It is only highly developed civilizationals that will put in the time for problem solving, debate, even a fight or two, to clarify consensus.  Again, from the West, the principle of voting, in a sense, disrupts consensus, and one continually faces the unhappy side of the vote.  Westoids and unevolved societies cannot help but think that the opposite of a vote is a diktat, hence the nomenclature of anyone outside as a dictator.  BRICS as an evolving group must learn the consensus mechanisms and embody them].

Mr.Putin starts with labor migration into Russia from Tajikistan, where they are combining police forces in order to calm down the migrants, through to unanswered questions on the Russian plane that crashed in Kazakhstan.  He ends with the New START treaty, which, by all indications, currently will not be renewed.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.

I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.

You are welcome to proceed.

Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.

Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.

You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon, both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.

Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?

If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.

Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.

Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.

All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.

Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.

Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.

It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.

As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.

At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.

Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.

In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.

Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.

My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.

Two major international summits were held – the CIS summit and the Russia–Central Asia summit. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it, and what “added value” does it have?

Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.

Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.

It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.

Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.

People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.

This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.

Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.

The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.

Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.

Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.

This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.

Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.

Alexander Yunashev, Life.

Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?

I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.

It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.

I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.

But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.

The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.

I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.

Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.

Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.

Please.

Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.

Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.

Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.

This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.

We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.

Thank you very much.

Please.

Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.

Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?

One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?

Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.

Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.

We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.

These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.

Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.

There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.

Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.

I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.

[Note:  The language used by Russia is straight out of diplomacy.  They refer to the discussions at Anchorage as the guiding principle because it was the last summit between presidents and set the tone for relationships.  This is what diplomatic relations are all about.  But, we see each time when Russian diplomats visit this topic, the language refers to Trump’s ‘sincerity’ in wanting the Ukraine war to end and to play a part in it.  Never do they recognize progress or success.  The words used would always be ‘striving’, ‘trying’, ‘sincerity’, ‘hopes’, or other forward-looking and clearly emotional terms.  Good Buddy 10:4, 10:4.  We received your message, over and out.  Take a look at the next statement and confirm.  If there is progress and a positive result, then it would be historic.  Anyone who supposedly ‘decodifies’ Putin-speak should be aware of the straight diplomat-speak.]    

The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.

If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.

But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.

Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.

You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?

Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.

[Note:  For those who are expecting Russia to flare up into anger, you will wait a long time.  Mr. Lavrov noted:  Trump’s Peace Plan is the best that is on the table currently.]

Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.

You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.

And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.

Welcome.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?

Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.

As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.

Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.

Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.

Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.

And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.

Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?

Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.

Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.

Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?

Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.

In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.

Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.

Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?

Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.

Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.

I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.

Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.

If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.

Please.

Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.

My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.

My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.

Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.

Thank you very much.

Anything else?

Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.

At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.

However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.

All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.

Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.

But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.

Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.

A Stark Contrast in Styles: Putin Meets with His Generals

Nothing at all like Trump at Quantico

[Notes on two conversations and sketching a backdrop to this essay from Karl Sanchez:

Just recently, Radhika Desai made a fascinating statement.  She says:

“I don’t think multipolarity is an ideology. It’s a development.”

She is correct.  We are inclined to focus on the ideological aspects, while the developmental path remains unexplored to the depth it deserves.  This conceptual vision will form part of future discussions on the Geopolitical Economy track. ]

In that conversation and others, I mentioned that the message of “Putin must go,” promoted by Doctorow and others, is tired nonsense.  Putin will go when he must go, and the decisions will be carefully measured, designed, and aligned.  While we know that there are always conversations in Russia, some suggest that the Siloviki and the Moderates have differences.  This is normal and not untoward.

At the same time, I had a conversation with another group questioning the Doctorow work and the fire that was lit because of it.  I mentioned the following:

Karl then produced this outstanding essay, in words and in pictures.

With gratitude to karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium

Featured Image:  Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg.

President Putin spent his 73rd birthday in his hometown, met with the Security Council via video then shared some time with his generals, “the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff, as well as the commanders of the military groups in the special military operation zone.” What sets Putin’s meeting apart from that held by President Trump isn’t just the setting and content but the ceremony Putin and his generals jointly participated in, which is only told via the photos taken at the time—no media report I saw made any mention of what I consider to be a very singular and very Russian event. The short six-minute video address shared by Putin and General Gerasimov and broadcast to all Russians was a terse report on the SMO’s situation that was unsurprising to anyone closely following what’s happening in Ukraine. The venue for the ceremony is pictured at the header, the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg. As Putin greets his team, note what they have held in their left hands:

Yes, it’s a taper, the type of ceremonial candle used in Orthodox Church ceremonies. I have no clue as to the nature of the ceremony since I’m not Orthodox. IMO, the next several photos don’t need any explanation, although it should be noted that Putin is the central figure.

In the middle photo, you can see the white boxes with the gold appliques behind the wrought iron fencing. And then we see everyone crossing themselves. These men are more than all together.

In the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the President laid flowers at the coffin of Peter I.

The symbolism is off the charts—Putin and his generals hold a convocation of sorts at the foot of Peter the Great’s tomb. There must be a video, which would likely reveal the close comradery between those present. Some of that clearly spilled over into the meeting as the next photo shows:

Yet, all are attentive as Putin gives his short talk to the nation:

And there wasn’t much to say since Putin gave an excellent recap just a few days prior during his Valdai Club performance:

V. Putin: Dear comrades!

Let me remind you that just recently, on September 30, we celebrated the day of reunification of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions with the Russian Federation. The residents of these regions overwhelmingly voted for their future as part of Russia, confirming that the decisions made in February 2022 were correct and timely.

At the moment, the strategic initiative is entirely in the hands of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. This year, we have liberated almost 5,000 square kilometers of territory – 4,900 – and 212 settlements. The decisive role in this is undoubtedly played by our soldiers and officers, who demonstrate the best qualities of the Russian military, such as selfless dedication and love for their homeland, a high sense of duty, camaraderie, and brotherhood in arms. Please convey my sincere gratitude to all the personnel for the courage and heroism they display on a daily basis.

I would also like to highlight the crucial role of the country’s military-industrial complex in ensuring the successful operations of the Russian Armed Forces. The defense industry enterprises fully meet the needs of the Armed Forces for high-precision weapons, missiles, ammunition, armaments, and military equipment. In addition to the planned deliveries, the development of the latest weapons and their supply to the troops are progressing at an accelerated pace.

Despite their attempts at stubborn resistance, the enemy is retreating along the entire line of contact. In this context, the Kiev regime, seeking to demonstrate some success to its Western sponsors, is attempting to strike deep into Russian territory, targeting peaceful civilian facilities. However, this will not help them. Our goal is to ensure the safety of Russian citizens, strategic facilities, and civilian infrastructure, including the energy sector.

At today’s meeting, we will review the current situation in the special military operation zone, listen to reports from the commanders of the military groups on the progress of your tasks, and discuss current issues related to the provision of troops and plans for the near future.

Let’s move on to the reports.

Please, Valery Vasilyevich.

V. Gerasimov: Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief!

The troops of the Joint Group continue to engage in active combat operations, advancing in almost all directions. The enemy has focused its main efforts on stabilizing the situation in the critical sectors of the front in order to slow down our offensive.

The Northern Group of Forces is operating in the border area and continues to carry out tasks related to creating a security zone in the Kharkiv and Sumy regions of Ukraine. Its units are also successfully advancing in the southern part of Volchansk.

The Zapad group is completing the defeat of the enemy in the southern districts of Kupyansk and is successfully advancing in the Krasnolimansk direction. The liberation of the village of Yampol continues, with most of it under the control of our troops.

Troops of the Southern Group, despite the stubborn resistance of the enemy, are advancing with fighting in the cities of Seversk and Konstantinovka. The destruction of the blocked enemy formations in the area south of the Kleban-Byksky reservoir was completed yesterday.

The most active fighting is taking place in the area of responsibility of the Center group of troops, in the Krasnoarmeysk and Dnepropetrovsk directions. In an attempt to stop our advance, the Ukrainian command has transferred the most combat-ready units from other sectors, including those from the strategic reserves, to these areas. Despite this, the units and military formations of the Center group are continuing their offensive, overcoming the enemy’s resistance. Our assault units are advancing in the southern areas of Krasnoarmeysk. The settlement to the north of Krasnoarmeysk, Rodinskoye, is surrounded and is currently being cleared of Ukrainian Armed Forces units.

The Vostok military group continues to advance deep into the enemy’s defenses in the Dnipropetrovsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. Since September 1, more than 200 square kilometers of territory have come under our control in this area.

The troops of the Dnipro group are advancing towards the city of Zaporozhye. The fighting is currently taking place for the control of the settlements of Primorskoye and Stepnogorsk. In addition, according to the General Staff’s plan, targeted and massive strikes are being carried out against military facilities and those of Ukraine’s military-industrial complex. The priority is to destroy enterprises that produce missile systems and long-range unmanned aerial vehicles.

Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the formations and military units of the Joint Group of Forces will continue to conduct offensive operations in accordance with the approved plan. The commander of the group of forces will report on the current situation in more detail.

The report is finished.

V. Putin: Dear comrades!

Our common goal remains the same–-we must ensure that all the objectives set for the troops during the special military operation are achieved. Let’s get started and see how we are progressing towards this goal.

The first report is by Colonel General [Evgeny] Nikiforov, Commander of the Northern Military Group. Please. [My Emphasis]

Now, what might be the “approved plan”? Today a Ukie report emerged that admitted to the Line of Contact (LOC) no longer being a continuous line since its developed gaps in many places because of the lack of infantry, which confirmed the main point Putin made at Valdai. The Ukrainian ability to defend its territory is rapidly eroding, which is a signal that the end is growing nearer.

At Valdai, Putin urged Zelensky to seriously consider surrendering to save what remains of his Army and Ukraine’s manhood. There are also rumors that an election in Ukraine is being planned. Turning the screws by eliminating Ukraine’s last electrical power generating capacity as Winter approaches was a tactic that was urged last year but stopped short yet appears to be approved to go all the way this time. It should be clear by now that Zelensky doesn’t give a whit about the fate the Ukrainian people as he tries to figure out a way to escape with his stolen loot. maybe the Brits will take him.

Meanwhile, the Outlaw US Empire that started the war in 2014 is becoming an anarchic mess as it continues to try and slow its decline—efforts that only seem to result in hastening the downfall. RT reported Ryabkov’s spin on the issue:

Momentum from Trump-Putin Alaska summit exhausted – deputy FM

The impulse to resolve the Ukraine conflict has been extinguished by European supporters of prolonged war, Sergey Ryabkov has said.

As others note, NATO remains the issue, while NATO in reality is the Outlaw US Empire and the Europeans don’t have much military or military industry to mount anything against Russia or to help Ukraine. The dilemma for Trump is that he doesn’t want to declare defeat because that also admits the Empire started the war and is liable for the consequences of that act, regardless of what he thinks of International Law. So, like Netanyahu, it appears Trump needs to start another war that the Empire might win so the defeat can simply be forgotten.

Today, Putin is in Dushanbe for a state visit that began with his paying respects and laying a wreath at the foot of this monument:

Monument to Ismoil Somoni on Dusti (Friendship) Square in Dushanbe.

Another look:

—

And my final comment:  Putin must go?  Are you Nuts? Let the man finish his task, which includes leaving Russia and the development of multipolarity in good hands.  We all have tasks on the multipolarity track.  Mr. Lavrov mentioned that China still has in-depth work to do in fully developing Xi Jinping’s vision of what Global Governance should look like.  I may remind all that sovereignty is a first principle of the new Global Governance.  It is a concept that in western climes cannot be understood thus far.  They are so steeped in Global Primacy that they cannot believe nobody wants to be the next emperor. Currently, they shiver in fear and desperation, not understanding that by definition they will be another pole of multipolarity, but not an emperor.  We are all hoping that this lesson can be learned without kinetic action.

Transcript of chat with Lt Colonel Daniel Davis, 8 October

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855xgceYwv4

Davis: 0:01
In the very vexing opportunity and effort to try and find an end to the Russian-Ukraine war, there are problems really all around. Russian ones, American ones, European ones, and definitely your Ukrainian ones. But we’re trying to find out here where is the contours of any possible peace? Where are the fault lines of potential opportunities to get rid of the peace and to cause problems that could keep the war going on? And really, just where is all this headed?

We have with us today, I guess we’ve had him with us once before, many of you know him well, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow, historian and international affairs analyst, coming to us live from Brussels in in Europe. Doctor, welcome back to the show.

Doctorow: 0:44
Well, good to speak to you again.

Davis:
Well, listen, I wanted to– we were talking about some of the shifting red lines and where some in the West have claimed that various things are Russian red lines, even if the Russians didn’t say them like early on with a lot of the claims were that Russia set– the Western claims were that Russia set red lines with tanks and with artillery, and then with HIMARS and then with a ATACMS, etc., the F-16s. And every time the red line was brought up to, the West passed it and nothing ever happened. There’s some debate over whether Russia actually had red lines on those issues, but now the latest one that’s up for debate right now is this issue of the Tomahawk cruise missile. And some are suggesting that the Russians are actually putting a red line on this one where they haven’t on the previous one.

Here is Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov from earlier today talking first of all that a lot of momentum that appeared to be on the table for the talks between Russia and the United States in Anchorage, Alaska has now been lost. But then he directly interacts the Tomahawk issue.

Ryabkov: 1:51 [Russian, English subtitles]
Unfortunately it must be stated that the powerful momentum from Anchorage in favor of agreements has largely been exhausted. This is the result of destructive activity, primarily by Europeans. As for the Tomahawks themselves, as you understand, without software, without launchers, the rockets on their own are, let’s say, inert objects. Hypothetical use of such systems is possible only with direct involvement of American personnel. I hope that those pushing Washington towards such a decision fully understand the depth and gravity of the consequences of the decisions.

Davis: 2:34
Other news coming out of Reuters today said that some of the Russian members of parliament, of the Duma, said basically if you use these things we are going to destroy the launchers and the launch sites which would almost certainly mean destroy American troops. Do you think that this represents a real red line for Russia, or is this just more rhetoric?

Doctorow:
Look, this issue came up more than a year ago, and Mr. Putin then issued a red line. He was asked by Pavel Zarubin, who is a journalist with Russian state television, what this meant, when it’s discussed that the United States could be sending long-range missiles to Ukraine.

This was about June, July of last year. And Putin said, this was on the spot, outdoors, he answered the question saying that the Tomahawk can only, or didn’t name the Tomahawk, but long-range missiles of this variety could only be operated by the Americans, that all the programming would be American. And the only thing that would be Ukraine would be the finger on the button.

3:47
And in that case, if this happened, that Russia would respond militarily to that attack by any such missile from the source, where it came from, where it originally came from, not where it was launched from. So it’s a bit more, it was a bit more severe back then than even what you mentioned now, because you were describing a Russian attack on the launcher, presumably the launcher being somewhere in Ukraine, when Putin was speaking a year ago about attacking essentially the United States.

4:18
Now, what happened on Thursday when he spoke at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting in the city of Sochi in the south of Russia, he was asked about the Tomahawks and his response then was, his first response was this: the delivery of Tomahawks to Ukraine would spoil the relations between the United States and Russia. That seemed to be having a light-at-the-end-of the-tunnel characteristic now.

When he was leaving the stage, and after this four-hour session, he was quite relaxed, And he was stopped by Pavel Zerubin, that’s very same journalist whom I mentioned had asked him this question in June or July of last year. He said that the delivery of these Tomahawks to Ukraine would destroy American-Russian relations. Well, destroying relations more or less means you’re at war.

5:29
Then a moment later, he drew that back and he said, I meant to say: it would damage them. Well, Mr. Putin, which is it, damage or destroy? When you’re speaking about an essential matter of Russian national security, this is not a small detail. And it makes you wonder whether he is really in control of the responses that Russia should give to red lines being violated.

Davis:
Well, and let’s just stick on the topic of red lines for a minute. Are there any red lines? Are there actually any red lines that Russia has, whether they were self-imposed or attributed to Russia, there hasn’t been any so far because the war has stayed, thank God, contained within the borders of Ukraine and hasn’t escalated beyond that. But there … there’s a very difficult dynamic that any country would have to face, especially in Russia’s position, that they may not want any outside power to do anything, but if they take some action in there that could spawn drawing that other country in full on, not just with support, but like their armed forces, et cetera, that would be very high level. But to not do it, to not actually ever strike anything in there, is to encourage other sides to take even more action against them. How difficult is it for Russia to actually have a red line that they might enforce?

Doctorow: 6:57
Depends on whom they’re supposed to enforce these red lines against. And you can understand that they are very hesitant to set and then to defend red lines against the United States. The other nuclear power, their peer, which if it enters into a direct conflict, could lead to a nuclear war. That does not mean that Russia has no red lines that it would act upon.

And let’s go back to the Tomahawk issue. I see it as misleading and a distraction from the real issue before us. Let us remember that going back from even before his election, Friedrich Merz, the current chancellor of Germany, had been in favor of delivering, activating Taurus missiles. Unlike the Tomahawk, that is not a 30- or 40- year-old missile. It’s a rather current missile, which has a great deal of capability and which has never been encountered by the Russians. The Russians say that they have well-developed missiles, defense missiles against precisely the Tomahawk, knowing all of its characteristics.

They don’t have defenses against the German Taurus. And the German Taurus could be quite damaging, not the same range, it’s not going to be Moscow or Petersburg, but could do a lot of damage in, I think it’s a 500 kilometer range, which isn’t bad. Now, the situation was that first, Scholz and then Merz have been restrained. They didn’t want to be the first one going against Russia with long-range missiles. The logic was, they were waiting for the United States to go through the door first.

8:55
And what Mr. Trump is doing is walking through the door first. Whether he actually delivers a single Tomahawk or not is almost irrelevant. This opens the door for Merz to use Tomahawks. Now the red lines, the Russians surely will attack Germany. They will bomb the factory that makes the Taurus if they are deployed and directed against Russian targets. That is a red line you can be sure that they will exercise, because Germany is not the United States.

Davis:
Wow that’s a pretty bold statement there and pretty alarming as well, because they may not be the United States, but they are an Article 5- wielding member of NATO. What would be the thought process for the Russian side to take that kind of an action? Because that would … potentially draw in a lot of fighting against them, not just against the Ukraine side.

Doctorow: 9:52
Potentially but unlikely. Their calculation is the Germans would never get Article 5 support from other NATO members. If they are violating essentially violating international law which is what directing a Taurus against Russia would be, they become co-belligerents. And they, Germans, not NATO but Germans, would be subject to retribution from the Russians — which would be all the more logical if it were not directed against Berlin but were destroying the factory producing those missiles. That is the Russian calculation.

Davis: 10:26
Wow, that would be a pretty big issue, which hopefully explains why the Germans haven’t given the Taurus missiles, and hopefully that continues on.

Doctorow:
I’m not sure I agree with you. I think they have given the missiles. I think they went in before Scholz left the chancellorship. They just haven’t been opened to inspection. They haven’t been advertised. When they said under Scholz that in a few weeks we will send them, that is, by the way the whole war has evolved over the last three years, that means they were sent already.

Davis: 10:58
So, but they haven’t been deployed at least as far as we know.

Doctorow:
Exactly right.

Davis:
And one would hope that that permission isn’t given. And correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not a unilateral decision that Kiev could make. They could only do it with the participation of the German military, is that correct?

Doctorow:
That was the issue in Germany when several, I think it was Air Force generals, complained that deploying the Taurus in Ukraine was only possible with the technical assistance of German personnel.

Davis:
So then that is correct. As long as it hasn’t– in order for it to be deployed, it would have to have authorization, one would imagine, from the very top in Berlin, right?

Doctorow:
Correct.

Davis: 11:50
Well, let’s … hope that doesn’t happen then, because that … would be bad for a lot of cases others. We don’t want to risk any escalation of this. Going back to Trump for a second, when … he was talking about, or the possibility of using the … long range missiles, which … we were under here with the Tomahawk, the question is what is he going to do and what does he want to accomplish? Now, he had come into office obviously saying that he was going to end the war in 24 hours. He knew Putin; he knew Volodymyr Zelensky. It would be easy. He would know how to do it.

12:24
Well since then he’s kind of backed off of that a lot, saying well okay, it was harder than I thought. But he thought going into Anchorage, Alaska that he might be able to make something happen. But as Sergey Rybkov mentioned here, nothing did happen. And there’s not really any difference today than there was before that meeting back in August that took place. And yesterday in the Oval Office, President Trump was asked about that situation now, when he was visiting with Canadian Prime Minister Carney.

Trump: 12:50
Things are happening with respect to Russia-Ukraine. That’s one that last week marked 7,812 people were killed. Soldiers, mostly soldiers. But 7,000, more than 7,000, almost 8,000 soldiers were killed.

It’s a crazy, it’s a crazy thing. I thought that would have been one of the easy ones. I get along very well with Putin and I thought that would have been– I’m very disappointed in him, because I thought this would have been an easy one to settle, but it’s turned out to be maybe tougher than the Middle East. We’ll see what happens with the Middle East.

Davis: 13:25
Yeah, who would have thought that ending one role would be harder than the Middle East, but who would have thought either one of them were actually simple. But this seems to be an issue to come back to. I know that you’ve written some things, but you seem to be having challenges or differences of opinion, maybe a better way to put it, that Putin seems to be putting too much deference in trying to reach out to Trump. What do you mean by that?

Doctorow: 13:47
Well, his performance last Thursday at the plenary session of this Valdai Discussion Club was very puzzling and disturbing. He, they spent time talking about, Charlie Kirk. They spent time talking about the … American son of a CIA director and a head of a firm, a subcontractor to the US military, who died in Donbass, having volunteered to serve the Russians, because he believed in their Russian traditional values.

That was a lot of time spent flattering the United States, meaning flattering Trump. They also made remarks about what a good conversationalist, interlocutor Donald Trump is. He also talked about the Trump peace plan, the 20-point peace plan for Gaza, saying that he supported it. And he also mentioned in a complimentary way, Tony Blair’s appointment to be on this peace board that Donald Trump would head in the interim period after Hamas left and before the Palestinians were deemed suitable for self-governance.

15:08
This was a lot of flattery for Donald Trump. And it was surprising, and I think it was overdone, because it compromised Russia’s sovereignty. The whole message of Putin the last several years has been sovereignty. And here he was doing his best to ingratiate himself with Donald Trump, not quite calling him Papa, like the Secretary General of NATO did, but it didn’t look good. The countries are at odds, very seriously at odds, and this was not appropriate.

Davis: 15:47
How is that being viewed in the Russian media, in the Russian landscape?

Doctorow:
Well, that particular side of it has not been discussed on Russian state television, for example. But it has blown hot and cold about Donald Trump. The most serious commentary about Trump is, he’s a good guy, but he can’t deliver, because the political balance in Washington is against accommodation with us. And this was what Putin was overlooking. He seemed to be placing too much trust in the personal relationship with Trump that was so much in evidence in Alaska.

And it doesn’t look good for for Russia’s defending its interests. But let’s come back to what Trump is trying to say. And here I have a take on Trump’s message which is different from most of my peers, and I’m ready to defend it. Trump’s been buying time. He has been buying time almost since he took the Oval Office. Buying time for what?

Buying time for Putin to finish up the war, to get it over with. And Putin doesn’t get that message. Trump goes this way and that way. He is pivoting to Zelensky. Then he’s turning back towards Putin and it’s all buying time with Congress not to impose these tough secondary sanctions.

A lot of the difficulty that he would have in dealing in a straight way with Congress and the political establishment of the states, he is avoiding by attacking this way and attacking that way. And Putin doesn’t get it. When Trump said last week, repeated, that he was disappointed in Putin because he thought he would get it over with in the first week of the war. Let’s go back to the start of this special military operation. Most people like yourself were assuming that Russia would go in, in the American fashion of shock and awe, and would finish off Ukraine in a week.

18:08
Everyone knew that the Russian military operation was being done in a backwards way. When you have an attack, you want to take the country, you go in with three times their forces. Instead, Putin would end with one third of their forces. Now that explains why the special military operation got off to such a poor start. And Trump was revisiting that issue today.

Trump is not saying it, but he knows and we know that Putin can end this war tomorrow if he wants to. He has Oreshniks, they know where the government offices are on Bankovskaya Street in downtown Kiev. Well, in one day, they can decapitate Ukraine. And they should do it, but it’s not happening.

Davis: 19:04
And what do you suppose it is? With the capacity to do so, why do you think Russia hasn’t done it?

Doctorow:
One is the indecisiveness of Putin and his unwillingness to take risks. But the risks in … striking against Kiev are much smaller than the risks of this ongoing conflict with the West, where the leaders in Europe have gotten to understand that Ukraine is losing badly, and they are moving from one provocation to another, ever steeper and ever more risky and dangerous, that can lead us into World War III. And Putin does not get it.

Davis: 19:49
–was looking for something here to see if we could pull this up. Gary, if you could possibly pull up the Ursula von der Leyen that we used earlier today, that would be great from her comments this morning. Because I want to kind of go down that path. You say that the delay, and I know I’ve had some conversations with a number of folks that have some contacts on the Russian side themselves, and they have in one hand voiced a lot of frustration because of Leyen. Same thing, because they see people like Emmanuel Macron, who continues to mock Russia as he did last month by saying they’ve only taken 1% in the last two years because that’s all they can, the implication being, the counterclaim being that Russia can take more than that, but they are not using their forces in that regard. One of the arguments is, well, they’re doing that because they perceive that there could be a war with NATO one of these days.

20:41
And so they are, with all of this industrial capacity, they are stockpiling all the key aspects that was necessary for war, training up additional men, so that in the event that that comes in the future, they’re ready for it later on, which apparently they aren’t right now. First of all, just on that aspect of it, what is your understanding of that argument?

Doctorow:
That was good. The war has evolved. The war has changed dramatically over the course of the first three years. When the war started, Russia had a ten-time advantage over Ukraine in artillery shells and artillery tubes. They were waging, from the beginning, an artillery war. That was their war of attrition. Today, the artillery advantage is less important. I don’t mean to say it’s not important, but it’s much less a factor in the way the war is proceeding.

It is now basically a drone war. My peers who appear on programs like yours, they assume because they never name their sources, but I assume that they’re speaking to people in the military or military experts in Russia and are delivering their information on air from that source. They never stop to think whether anybody in the military in Russia would ever dare to give them something confidential, because they’ll be taken to court and they’ll spend the rest of their lives in prison for betraying national secrets. But somehow this little detail doesn’t enter into the minds of my peers.

22:12
What I’m listening to is Russian television. “Oh yes,” people say, “yes, Doctorow only watches television.” But my goodness, the whole of Sovietology in the Cold War was based on that type of expertise. People read Provda and it’s Izvestia. And you might say, why are they reading that junk?

Because in that junk, they found clues as to what comes next. Now, Russian television is much more honest than anybody imagines. I don’t mean RT. RT isn’t Russian television. It’s a special product, devised for the American public, to hold up a mirror to America’s ills.

22:45
That is not Russian television. Russian television interviews– is war correspondents on the front. I watch them every day, and it is extremely interesting and informative. The Russians are now talking about the birdies. The birdies are the attack drones.

Now the Ukrainians are not stupid people. They are very much like Russians in their skills, strengths and weaknesses. They’re very good at computers. They’re very good at video games and they’re very good at operating drones. This is a very big threat.

And it means that the Russians are operating on the field completely differently from what you would expect when the war opened and they had such an advantage in heavy tanks and all of the hardware. No, that’s not what– the tanks are being used as artillery today, just movable artillery, that’s all they are. There are no tank battles in Ukraine. The real issue today is one where the Ukrainians have a much more balanced stand against Russia than they did when the war started and they were a 10-time disadvantage in artillery shells.

Davis; 23:53
And so what is the net-net for that? What does that result in on the battlefield, those dynamics?

Doctorow:
Small movements. However, I disagree with what Macron said. It’s not a 1% increase. That’s nonsense.

When the war started, Russia had– maybe 70% of Lugansk was under Russian control and perhaps 50% of Donetsk. Now it’s 99% of Lugansk under Russian control and 70% of Donetsk under Russian control. That isn’t 1%. So Mr. Macron doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Or he’s just giving propaganda. They’re moving. But if it could continue to move at this pace, it’ll be a 10-year war.

Davis:
So is Russia moving at this pace because that’s all they can do, or are they moving at this pace because they’re risk-averse and they’re not using all their capacity?

Doctorow: 24:45
That is true, but that is not the only factor. A bigger factor is how they conceive of this war. They conceive of it in a manner that the German classics of warfare would approve of. Warfare is about knocking out the military force of your opponent. They are killing Ukrainian soldiers at a ratio perhaps of 10 times their own losses. And it is known that when they advance in this place or that, instead of proceeding and marching on and pushing the Ukrainians back further, they are retreating slightly to draw the Ukrainians into a trap and murder still more Ukrainians.

The problem is that Ukraine is still, though it’s dropped from 40 million to maybe 25 million, and though it has several hundred thousand deserters, it still has a military. And my peers who are speaking as if Ukraine is going to roll over and die tomorrow are dreaming. That is wish, that is not fact. And the move that the Russians are taking will bring them maybe in a few months at this pace to the Dnieper, but that’s not the whole of Ukraine. And the Russians have no interest in crossing into really Ukrainian territory where they will be invading, occupying army.

26:08
So the war’s end on the battlefield is questionable. I’ve said for some time the war would end in a political collapse of Ukraine. But if Europe rushes in with a hundred and forty five billion euros of assistance, there will be no political collapse of Ukraine. And there’s the problem.

Davis: 26:30
Well, and in fact, that’s exactly what I wanted to discuss next, because with this delay, if Russia’s military is capable of going much faster pace and achieving a military victory by destroying the units and then taking the territory as well — by going in this slower pace, it may be whittling down slowly at the capacity of the Ukrainian armed forces, but as you say, it keeps alive the possibility that no, we can hold out for a lot longer than this.

That was reinforced by Ursula von der Leyen earlier today, when she seems to go down here continuing path that this is a war, that we are actually in a war with Russia and maybe one we can win.

von der Leyen: 27:10
Something new and dangerous is happening in our skies. In just the past two weeks MIG fighters have violated Estonia’s airspace and drones have flown over critical sites in Belgium, Poland, Romania, Denmark, and Germany.

Flights have been grounded, jets scrambled, and countermeasures deployed to ensure the safety of our citizens. Make no mistake, this is part of a worrisome pattern of growing threats. Across our Union, undersea cables have been cut, airports and logistic hubs paralyzed by cyber attacks, and elections targeted by malign influence campaign. These incidents are calculated to linger in the twilight of deniability. This is not random harassment.

It is a coherent and escalating campaign to unsettle our citizens, test our resolve, divide our union, and weaken our support for Ukraine. And it is time to call it by its name, this is hybrid warfare.

Davis:
And so what do you make of that? Is her characterization accurate, or is the Russian view that they’re not trying to escalate into Europe? What do you think is the case?

Doctorow: 28:37
I think it’s a pile of lies. Von der Leyen is a hawk. She is a warrior. She wants to grab– she’s also virtually a dictator. She has seized as much authority within the European institutions as she could, which was not so difficult, because she’s surrounded by 27 cowards who all have linked arms and are afraid to rein her in. She may be reined in. She may lose a confidence vote in the next few weeks. But the point is: everything that she’s saying is to make the point that Europe is threatened and it needs a strong leader who makes defense federalized under her watch. And it’s all self-serving.

Now these attacks, the incursion on Estonian airspace, I ask you to look at the map. When you look at the overlapping territories that are sovereign territories of the countries bordering the Baltic Sea, which are now all– with the exception of Kaliningrad of Russia, all of the bordering lands of the Baltic Sea are NATO countries. When you extend out into the sea, their territorial rights leave you with almost nil international waters. So this whole claim of Russian infringement is in fact not a Russian aggression, it is a European-NATO aggression against Russia, to create an air and sea blockade on Russia in the Baltic. As they said very nicely, when Finland and Sweden joined NATO, it turns the Baltic into a NATO lake.

Well my friends, if that’s how you feel, we will have World War Three, because the Russians will not be barred from using the Baltic Sea. That is a casus belli. And it takes more than a few cutters from Estonia to stop a Russian oil tanker or Mr. Macron’s little police boats stopping a suspected gray-fleet Russian tanker somewhere off the coast of France. They proceed with this and we have World War III. There’s nothing to talk about. They won’t proceed with it, because the Russians will not allow them to do it.

31:25
However, this “drone attacks” is even more preposterous. All over the place and in everybody’s back yard is a drone attack, all done by the Russians. This is as nonsensical, as absurd as all of the “Russia, Russia, Russia” stories to prevent Trump’s election in 2016 and to impeach him after his election.

This, I would be sure, is all launched and coordinated by MI6 in London who are the main practitioners of dirty tricks, and von der Layen finds this very convenient, a story to establish and justify her stranglehold on power in the European Union.

Davis:
Yeah, I’m not sure what good it is going to be to have power if you end up with, some of your actions end up spawning a global war. Hopefully that will just stay in the rhetoric realm. I mean, you mentioned something a second ago that potentially that Russia could go all the way up to the Dnieper River and that that might still might not end it. That kind of lines up with something that Putin did say a couple of days ago when he talked about what their objectives were right now in the SMO.

Putin: 32:37 [English voice over]
I address the soldiers and officers, the real heroes of our time, with a special feeling. I thank you for your loyalty to your motherland, for your military valor and courage, for every day of your hard combat work. I am sure that, thanks to you, the security of Russia will be reliably ensured, and the long-awaited and strong world will return to the heroic land of Donbas and Novorossia. We are together and this means that all our plans will be realized.

Davis:
So he says all of his plans will be realized, all of Novorossia, which is we talked about on this channel a lot, that’s four additional oblasts besides just the four that are allegedly on the table right now and you’re saying, suggesting though, that that still might not be enough.

Doctorow: 33:25
Well there’s one thing missing in that Novorossia story, and that is Odessa. The French and British interest in Ukraine focuses on Odessa. Odessa, if you look at the map closely, it is very, it is in an easy strike range to Crimea. It is Ukraine’s major port. It’s what prevents Ukraine from being landlocked and is essential to the Ukrainian economy. It is important militarily, for the reason I just mentioned, because it would be a wonderful naval port for the French and the British.

34:10
The Russians understand that. And Russian television– which again I explain I use fairly regularly as a source– they are now calling out Odessa as one more objective before they end their military activities in Ukraine.

Davis:
So where do you see this going, let’s just say by the first quarter, by the spring of next year, so within roughly six months from now? Will this war just keep going on for years, or do you think Russia will finally just put the gas genuinely on the floor and try to achieve a military victory. What is your assessment?

Doctorow: 34:52
As I said, the political victory would be done in one day if Mr. Putin finds the guts to do it. And that is to bomb the hell out of the administrative buildings and use Oreshnik to go down to whatever depth is needed to wipe out Mr. Zalensky and his team in their underground hideouts. They have the missiles to do it, and that would end the war.

Europe will stand and do nothing about it. The Americans, Mr. Trump, will express regrets. That’s what war is all about. And then he’ll go about doing business with Mr. Putin that he’d like to do but cannot do while the war is raging. [It’s] beside my understanding that Putin does not end the war.

Davis: 35:51
And so if he doesn’t do that version where you say it could be over really quickly, what does it look like six months from now, the first quarter of 2026?

Doctorow:
Nothing. It looks like, well, if you want to see what it looks like, you have to go out four years. This bridging loan, which the Europeans want to give to Ukraine, what is it all about? It’s to keep the Ukrainians in play for three years, or four years. Why three or four years? Look at the rest of the program. They are spending now hundreds of billions of euros to build up, to bulk up Europe’s military production.

Germany is a leader in this with a one trillion euro debt that’s taking out mostly for the purpose of building out its armed forces and for, as Mr Merz said openly, to make Germany the biggest defender he calls it, let’s call it by the real name, the biggest military force in Western Europe. That will be ready for when? For 2029. Merz has said that the Russians will attack in 2029.

37:07
Let’s speak not more Orwellian language, but real language. He means that he will attack Russia in 2029. And if he builds out the army as he plans, you know, Europe could just win. This is not my opinion, but again, experts on Russian state television are saying, not that the Germans will win, but they’re saying that German industry should not be disparaged. German industry is quite serious, and if money is put into it, you know, they can build good arms.

So the situation is not a six-month perspective. The situation that Europe is looking at is a four-year perspective. And you know something? It can work like that. And that is precisely why I’ve changed my mind about the wisdom of the “go slow, don’t rock the boat, don’t challenge the West too much” policy of Putin. It’s reached the end of its practical life.

Davis: 38:08
Well, it does seem that there’s going to be a decision to make on a number of different parties here, not the least of which is in Moscow. And I guess we’ll have to wait and see how that’s going to work out.

Because the capacity is there to just a matter of whether the political will is and what the West would do in response. And all of that is, you know, something that’s very, very bad for global stability and global security, because anything that expands this war is bad for everybody.

And I pray to God we never see it, but we appreciate you coming on today giving us this different perspective than what we get from a lot of other places, and we really appreciate it.

Doctorow:
Well, thanks for having me.

Davis:
And we appreciate you guys to be sure, and like and subscribe if you haven’t done that on your way out. And we’ll thank you very much for watching our show today.

38:51
We’ll see you tomorrow on the “Daniel Davis Deep Dive”.

Analysis of President Putin’s Valdai Speech : From Transcript – shifting global power dynamics,

The Theme of this year’s Valdai Club annual meeting is:  The Polycentric World: Instructions for Use.

Let’s start with Mr Putin’s first instruction, mainly to Europe:

Calm down. Sleep quiet, and try to get to grips with YOUR problems’.

As an analytical framework and contextualization, I extracted and organized all the paragraphs and sub-paragraphs that directly address the concepts of multipolarity, polycentrism, and the end of Western hegemony, but in President Putin’s own words.  For this exercise, paragraphs purely about Ukraine or other tangential topics were left out, unless they directly reference the multipolarity theme. The goal is to give us a sharply focused dataset to work with.

The Speech:

• frames the shift to multipolarity as an irreversible, objective historical process.
• contrasts the new era (stable, just, based on sovereignty and equality) with the old one (unstable, dictatorial, based on Western hegemony).
• points to BRICS and the SCO as the concrete, attractive embodiments of this new order.
• issues a prescriptive, but implied, call to action for nations to join this alternative system and adopt its principles.
• uses a dual-toned strategy: rallying and calming for the “Global Majority” while not hiding the reasons for the shift, i.e., western hegemony.

The Irreversible Historical Shift to Multipolarity

The core argument is that the unipolar model is over, and a new, multipolar world is emerging.

The global situation is changing dynamically and is moving towards the formation of a truly multipolar world order. This is an objective process; there is no stopping it, and it means that the world is becoming more stable and secure, of course, provided that all participants in international communication act responsibly.

The formation of a multipolar world order is irreversible. The attempts of the so-called golden billion to retain its dominance and hegemony at any cost are leading to a sharp increase in conflict potential in the world.

The era of the unipolar world order, the era of dictatorship, of one hegemony, is receding into the past. A multipolar world is taking its place. This is an objective, natural process, because the concentration of the entire world politics and economy in the hands of one country, or a group of countries that are close in spirit, is no longer possible.
The formation of a multipolar international order is irreversible. The attempts of the so-called golden billion to retain its dominance and hegemony at any cost are leading to a sharp increase in conflict potential in the world.

The “Golden Billion” and Western Hegemony as the Cause of Instability

Here, Putin defines the old system as one of exploitation and dictatorship by the “golden billion,” which he contrasts with the more just multipolar model.

The so-called golden billion, led by the United States, continues to cling to the dogmas of its exclusivity, provoking chaos, ethnic and religious strife, and suppressing the identity and traditional values of other peoples. This is the real nature of the neo-colonialists.
The outgoing hegemony acts as a dictator and uses the entire range of means – from a forged financial and economic system to brute military force – the so-called hard power. We all see this. We see how they are trying to replace international law and universal norms with some kind of “rules-based order,” which are invented on the go and are used exclusively in the interests of one side, to punish those who are undesirable and to keep the whole world in check.

The outgoing hegemony acts as a dictator and uses the entire range of means – from a forged financial and economic system to brute military force – the so-called hard power.
We see how they are trying to replace international law and universal norms with some kind of “rules-based order,” which are invented on the go and are used exclusively in the interests of one side, to punish those who are undesirable and to keep the whole world in check.

BRICS and the SCO as Pillars of the New Multipolar Order

Putin points to the successful and attractive alternatives to Western-dominated structures.

On BRICS:
The attractiveness of the new global political and economic centres is also evidenced by the expansion of such associations as BRICS and the SCO. They are based on the principles of equality, solidarity, and respect for each other’s interests.

Dozens of states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are ready to work on this constructive agenda. And the growing authority of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other associations, which are now being joined by many countries, is convincing evidence of this.

On the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO):
The attractiveness of the new global political and economic centres is also evidenced by the expansion of such associations as BRICS and the SCO. They are based on the principles of equality, solidarity, and respect for each other’s interests.

Dozens of states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are ready to work on this constructive agenda. And the growing authority of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other associations, which are now being joined by many countries, is convincing evidence of this.

The Role of New Centers of Power and Sovereign Development

This section highlights the rise of new, non-Western centers of power and the importance of national sovereignty in the new multipolar system.

New, much more dynamic and promising centers of power are being formed, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region. The majority of the international community, including the countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, are striving to pursue an independent, sovereign, independent policy, based on their own national interests, on their identity, on the traditions and culture of their peoples.

The majority of the international community, including the countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, are striving to pursue an independent, sovereign, independent policy, based on their own national interests, on their identity, on the traditions and culture of their peoples.

It is with them, with these countries, with these peoples, that we are building relations – relations of a new type, based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, respect for each other’s interests, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.

Russia as a Sovereign Pole and Partner in the New World

Putin positions Russia as a key sovereign pole in this new world and a reliable partner for other nations seeking independence.

Russia has withstood the pressure of the collective West, has not broken down, and has demonstrated that it is capable of defending its national interests and its sovereignty.
It is with them, with these countries, with these peoples, that we are building relations – relations of a new type, based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, respect for each other’s interests, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.

We are open to the widest possible cooperation with all states and associations that are ready for joint work. We are convinced that the future of the world order should be based on the principles of justice, on the recognition of the right of every nation and civilization to their own path of development.

We are convinced that the future of the world order should be based on the principles of justice, on the recognition of the right of every nation and civilization to their own path of development.

As you can see, Putin explicitly links the expansion and growing authority of BRICS and the SCO to the attractiveness of the multipolar model, using them as primary evidence that the world is moving in this new direction.

The Positive Aspects of the Shift to a Multipolar World

1. Enhanced Global Stability and Security
“The situation in the world is changing dynamically and is moving towards the formation of a truly multipolar world order. This is an objective process, there is no stopping it, and it means that the world is becoming more stable and secure, of course, provided that all participants in international communication act responsibly.”

2. A More Just and Equitable Foundation for International Relations
“We are convinced that the future of the world order should be based on the principles of justice, on the recognition of the right of every nation and civilization to its own path of development.”

3. The Rise of Dynamic and Promising New Centers of Global Growth
“New, much more dynamic and promising centers of power are being formed, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region.”

4. The Triumph of National Sovereignty and Independent Development
“The majority of the international community, including the countries of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, are striving to pursue an independent, sovereign, independent policy, based on their own national interests, on their identity, on the traditions and culture of their peoples.”

5. The Emergence of Relationships Based on Equality and Mutual Respect
“It is with them, with these countries, with these peoples, that we are building relations – relations of a new type, based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, respect for each other’s interests, and non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.”

6. The Attractiveness of New Associations and Models of Cooperation
“The attractiveness of the new global political and economic centres is also evidenced by the expansion of such associations as BRICS and the SCO. They are based on the principles of equality, solidarity, and respect for each other’s interests.”

“Dozens of states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are ready to work on this constructive agenda. And the growing authority of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and other associations… is convincing evidence of this.”

In essence, the speech posits that the multipolar shift is not a neutral event, but a positive one, leading to a world that is more stable, just, dynamic, sovereign, cooperative, and respectful of civilizational diversity.

Mr Putin’s response to Prof Marandi’s Gaza and Palestine question (formal transcript)

The Russian formal transcript on Vladimir Putin’s Valdai speech (4 hours including questions), is proceeding apace and we will hopefully see the transcript complete today. Again, every Tom, Dick and Harry are in the process of announcing what Putin said, do their own translations, and sometimes I know full well that in cases, he never said what is already appearing on sloganeering. The other problem is that people take the pieces that they are interested in only, and they lose the context. The context was How to do this Mulitpolar world thing and where are we? I intend to pull that out of the massive speech over the next day or two, for this very important context.

As Prof. Marandi’s question was a very important one, let’s take a look at it, from the formal transcript.

We need to note that Mr Putin was not fully briefed. As usual, his perspective is very carefully presented and he said he is not up to date with certain information.

Professor Marandi, Iran.

Seyed Mohammad Marandi: Thank you very much for the opportunity, Mr President, and I thank Valdai as well, this excellent conference.

We are all saddened because during the last two years we’ve seen genocide in Gaza, and the pain and suffering of women and children being torn apart day and night. Recently we saw President Trump gave a peace proposal that looked more like a submission and capitulation. And especially introducing someone like Blair with his history is insult to injury. I was wondering what do you think the Russian Federation can do to bring an end to this misery, which has really darkened the days of everyone? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The situation in Gaza is one of the most tragic events in recent history. It is also well known that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has publicly admitted – and he often reflects Western views – that Gaza has become the largest children’s cemetery in the world. What could be more tragic? What could be more painful?

Now, regarding President Trump’s proposal on Gaza – you may find this surprising, but Russia is overall ready to support it. Provided, of course, that it truly leads to the ultimate goal we have always spoken about. We must thoroughly examine the proposals made.

Since 1948 – and later in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted – Russia has consistently supported the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state. I believe this is the only key to a final, lasting solution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.

As far as I understand – I have not looked through the proposal carefully yet – it suggests creating an international administration to govern Palestine for some time, or more precisely, the Gaza Strip. It is proposed that Mr Blair would head it. Now, he is not known as a great peacemaker. But I know him personally. I have even visited him at his home, spent the night there, and in the morning, over coffee in our pyjamas, we spoke at length. Yes, this is true.

Fyodor Lukyanov: Was the coffee good?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, quite good.

But what would I like to add? He is a man with strong personal views, but he is also an experienced politician. Overall, if his knowledge and experience are directed towards peace, then yes, of course, he could play a positive role.

However, several questions naturally arise.

First: how long would this international administration operate? How, and to whom, would power then be transferred? As I understand it, this plan foresees the possibility of eventually transferring power to a Palestinian administration.

I believe it would be best to transfer control directly to President Abbas and the current Palestinian administration. Perhaps they may face difficulties in addressing security matters. But as I heard from colleagues today, this plan also envisages that the power transfer may involve local militia groups in order to ensure security. Is that bad? In my opinion, this could be a good solution.

Let me repeat: we must understand how long this international administration will be in force. What is the timeframe for the transfer of civilian authority? No less important are security issues. I believe that this deserves support.

On one hand, we are talking about the release of all hostages held by Hamas, and on the other – the release of a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. It must also be made clear: how many Palestinians, who exactly, and in what timeframe this exchange would take place.

And, of course, the most important issue: how does Palestine itself view this proposal? This is absolutely essential.

Here, the opinion of the region and the entire Islamic world matters, but most of all Palestine itself and the Palestinians, including Hamas. There are different attitudes toward Hamas, and we also have our own position and contacts with them. It is important for us that both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority support such an initiative.

All these questions require thorough and careful study. But if this plan is implemented, it would indeed represent a significant step towards settling the conflict. Still, I want to stress once again: the conflict can only be fundamentally resolved through the creation of a Palestinian state.

Of course, Israel’s position will be crucial here. We do not yet know how it has reacted. Frankly, I have not seen any public statements yet; I simply have not had time to look. But what really matters is not public rhetoric, but how the Israeli leadership reacts to this and whether it is ready to implement what is being proposed by the US President.

There are many questions here. But overall, if all these positive elements I have mentioned come together, it could become a real breakthrough. Such a breakthrough would be very positive.

Let me repeat this for the third time: the creation of a Palestinian state is the cornerstone of any comprehensive settlement.

—

Take a look at all those ‘ifs’ and ‘provided that such and such is in place’ type answers. None of that is in place.

Live: President Vladimir Putin’s remarks: Valdai Club Plenary

#LIVE: President Vladimir Putin's remarks at the plenary session of the 22nd annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club https://t.co/h83MK9H9HB

— MFA Russia (@mfa_russia) October 2, 2025

Kremlin.News (https://t.me/news_kremlin_eng?livestream)

Valdai official website (https://valdaiclub.com/multimedia/video/live-plenary-session-of-the-valdai-discussion-club-s-22nd-annual-meeting/)

Rumble (RT) (https://rumble.com/v35waq4-rt-news-livestream-247.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_l)

Ruptly (https://ruptly.video/event_route?link_id=101a990a-0047-4cbb-962d-e9b0b988025f&provider_id=13&direction=video)

Transcript of ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 1 October

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80RIa_KHCR0

Napolitano: 0:30
Hi everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here for “Judging Freedom”. Today is Wednesday, October 1st, 2025. Professor Gilbert Doctorow will be with us in just a moment. Are the Russians losing patience with President Putin? But first this.
[ad]

2:18
Professor Doctorow, welcome here, my dear friend. Thank you for accommodating my schedule as you always do. Are you detecting rumblings of criticism of President Putin either for the failure to address NATO crossing of Russian red lines aggressively or the lethargic pace of the war in Ukraine?

Doctorow: 2:46
What I’m about to say comes out of my observation these last few days of Russian state television, which normally is very respectful of Mr. Putin, where someone like Vladimir Solovyov, who has one of the most popular talk shows and commentary shows, said repeatedly, “We do not pretend to offer advice on how to conduct the war to our Supreme Commander.”

3:15
Well, now he is. His panelists are. They don’t mention Mr. Putin as such, but they do speak about, as you just did a moment ago, the consequences of his very restrained and turn- the-other-cheek policies with respect to NATO crossing Russia’s lines. And in particular, they are riled up by Mr. Trump and Mr. Vance and Mr. Kellogg. My point is that this is not happening spontaneously in Russia. The open presentation of, extensive presentation of criticism, damaging criticism of Russia by Trump, by Vance, by Kellogg is aired extensively on programs that are quite loyal to Putin, or have been, like “60 Minutes”, which is hosted by a Duma member, Evgeny Popov, who happens to be a protégé of the head of Russia’s state television news in general, and the “Xxxxxx” program, panelists who are speaking with great irritation about the lack of respect for Russia, the misinformation coming out, particularly, for example, remarks by Trump during his talk to the 800 assembled generals in Virginia, that the nuclear submarine which America dispatched as kind of warning to Russia, was 25 years ahead of anything Russia has in technology. This type of demeaning remark stirred up discussion in Russia, which was going on at a very low level for some time, for months and perhaps more than a year, but was not as intense and as focused as what I’ve heard in the last two days.

Napolitano: 5:24
Well, let me just ask you about the submarine. That statement is inaccurate, isn’t it?

Doctorow:
Well, a lot of things that have been said by the administration are completely inaccurate. For example, Vance’s remarks to a journalist in an interview yesterday, I think it was Fox News, that Russia’s economy is crumbling, that the advances of just a few hundred square kilometers in a month of fierce fighting demonstrate that the war is at a kind of stalemate, that Russia cannot win, and so forth. These statements, which we would typically expect to hear from Kellogg and still do, were now coming from Vance. And I just, I know Vance is a very clever and well-informed man who reads everything.

6:11
So it is not because the information he’s receiving is incorrect. It is a taunt to Putin, just as his boss, Donald Trump, is taunting Putin, and there’s a reason for it. And it’s not the reason that the major media believe, that Trump is pushing Putin to come into the negotiations which Trump wants to mediate, the negotiations with Zelensky. No, no. I see the contrary.

If that were the case, if he were trying to pressure Putin to acceed to the demand of negotiating a peace settlement, then they wouldn’t be insulting the Russians as they are. The insult is to rile them, and it’s having the effect they desire: open discussion of whether the go slow, the war of attrition, is working or is not working. And now we hear people saying, more or less, that it’s not working.

Napolitano: 7:18
Do you believe that Trump, Vance, Kellogg, Gorka and company are trying to get President Putin to accelerate the war so that it will be over, so Trump can in some perverse way take credit for its ending?

Doctorow:
Yes, he’s looking for a peace settlement, but by Russia’s total destruction of Ukraine. That is not what most people think about.

Napolitano:
No, no, that’s not what most people would think as a peace settlement. But let’s get back, let’s go down to basics. Can Trump intimidate Putin? I don’t think so.

Doctorow: 7:55
I agree with you. He cannot intimidate Putin, But he can upset the elites by this embarrassing and accurate description of the way the war is being conducted. And there you have it.

Napolitano:
But don’t the elites understand the war is being conducted with methodical patience? The goal, one of the goals, is to degrade the Ukrainian military for the next generation so that the next generation doesn’t have to deal with this.

Doctorow: 8:32
Yes and no. I think they are tired of this and they are watching the Western reaction, which looks like a new escalatory phase. So that instead of ending in this culmination that so many of us have seen, myself included, in a matter of months, they are now seeing the possibility of it going on a year or more.

Napolitano:
Mmm. You know, we haven’t heard from former Russian president, I’m not sure what his title is today, Dmitry Medvedev, who has articulated rather ferocious views in the past. I guess we should expect to hear from him soon.

Doctorow: 9:17
Oh, I think so. But I doubt that he will be leading the charge against Vladimir Putin. I don’t know. But speaking as a former Sovietologist, what I’m seeing on Russian media suggests that a palace coup is being prepared against Vladimir Putin. The alternative–

Napolitano:
That is almost unthinkable for a man who was elected with 82 percent of the vote and who in your experience and mine, at least up till this point, has enjoyed enormous popularity.

Doctorow: 9:56
Agreed. But the popularity polls, which are accurate, I’m sure, which saw him dropping from 80% to 79% approval ratings in the last week or so, they’re only asking, do you believe that Putin is trustworthy, is a good leader, and so forth.

They are not asking, is he conducting the war correctly? And I believe that if that question were put to the political classes, they would say no. I’d say specifically the political classes, because if you look at the working man in Russia, he doesn’t think about it in those terms. He sees that his salary went up by three times in the last year or two. He sees that he gets subsidized mortgages, that he gets a lot of assistance for families with children. And so the war has not had any detrimental effect on his way of living. On the contrary, he’s made it much wealthier.

11:00
But the thinking classes, the political classes, are another story. And I think they’re very disturbed by what they see on television, that the Americans in particular are speaking of them as a paper tiger.

Napolitano:
What do the political classes want the president Putin to do? Destroy [Ukraine] with Oreshniks in a couple of hours?

Doctorow:
I think you just put your finger on it. That’s exactly what they’d like to see him do.

Napolitano:
And he’s reluctant to do that. By the way, does anyone in Russia still call this series of events in Ukraine a special military operation, or does everybody call it all-out war?

Doctorow: 11:47
No, nobody says specifically it’s all-out war. But they have– initially, it was verboten to speak of it as a war at all. Now for some time, more than a year, it is called by some people a war. Officially, it is still a special military operation, and in state television, that’s what it’s called.

Napolitano:
So the special military operation is slowly and methodically achieving its goals. I know that General Kalugov has very little standing over here, in my view, has argued that if he were winning, meaning President Putin, he’d be moving much faster. But he is slowly achieving his goals and the Ukrainian military, is slowly being degraded. Is there any question but that Ukraine is destined to lose this, even in the minds of the most skeptical members of the political class?

Doctorow: 12:49
I think the skeptical members of the political class are worried about what’s going on in Europe right now. That is the remilitarization, the preparation for war with Russia. And the longer this special military operation goes on, the more threatening that is to Russia in a three-year time frame, which is like tomorrow. I gave one explanation as a Sovietologist, so to speak, of what has happened. That is that Mr. Putin was being prepared to be shoved out of office. The other explanation, which I also see as possible, is that Putin himself is preparing the public for changing his strategy from a war of attrition to a decapitation strike.

Napolitano:
How would Putin be removed from office legally? Is there some procedure or would it just be an illegal coup? And if the latter, I would imagine whoever’s plotting it would be arrested for treason.

Doctorow:
If it succeeds–

Napolitano;
Right, right. Right, right. Remember that famous one line, treason never prospers. And what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare to call it treason. Stated differently, when you strike at the king, you must kill him.

Doctorow: 14:24
I don’t think legality is an issue here. If it happens, it will probably be proclaimed as essential and necessary change. Maybe he’ll be given some honorific post the way Medvedev was pushed upstairs. I don’t think that he’s going to face any personal physical risk or whatever. Nonetheless, it was formerly inconceivable, but now I’ve changed my mind. It is not possible that what I see on television is happening without approval from people on high.

Napolitano:
Have you seen this consistently and systematically or just recently?

Doctorow:
Hints of this had been going on for a long time, but it never was so intense and they didn’t– well, there was no need to show the full statement by Vance, which more or less trashed Russia. There was no need to do that. And the fact that it was done was a statement. The fact that it was allowed to happen was a statement.

Napolitano: 15:31
Where is the senior military leadership on this? Do they understand the slow methodical pace, which is costly to them? Or are they saying, “Hey, boss, let’s get this over within a week. This has been going on long enough.” Do they talk to him that directly?

Doctorow:
I can’t say. Let me just go back a bit. A year or so ago when someone like John Helmer was saying that the military was conspiring, the people on the general staff were conspiring against Vladimir Putin because they don’t like the way the war is going. And I dismissed that out of hand. As far as the military goes, I would dismiss it out of hand today.

But as regards the civilian elites, I think it’s entirely possible that something like that is occurring in the minds of people around Vladimir Putin.

Napolitano: 16:26
Does the Kremlin control Russian television to the point where this stuff wouldn’t be hinted at without the Kremlin’s consent?

Doctorow:
That’s my point exactly. Kremlin being Mr. Putin’s office, or the Kremlin in a wider sense of the ruling elite, I think that in general, Russian television is under very tight control.

There are a few trusted people. This is Kiselyov, the general manager of all Russian news broadcasting. He does not act with whispers coming from above. So that they would show these things. It didn’t have to. There was no obligation to give so much coverage to these very damaging and insulting remarks coming from the States.

Napolitano: 17:29
How about my friend, Dimitri Simes? I appear on that program quite a bit and I am often questioned by his other guests whom he represents as being senior members of the Duma and in one case a very senior general. Where is he on this?

Doctorow:
Oh, I don’t know. I haven’t listened to the Dmitry Simes for some time. It’s not easy, frankly speaking. It’s very difficult for me here in Brussels to catch this program, “The Great Game”. A year ago it was quite easy; right now it isn’t. So I don’t know–

Napolitano:
Why is that? Are there sanctions making it difficult for you to watch certain Russian television programs?

Doctorow: 18:17
Oh, definitely. The normal Russian broadcasting is not accessible here in Western Europe. There are exceptions made, and some programs get around it by playing tricks on YouTube. That is, the program is being carried by some unknown person who has his own channel. But generally speaking, their coverage, Russian news, Russian programs are difficult to access.

But I don’t think– take a step back and look at somebody else in the constellation at the top, which leaves me wondering what is going on. Sergey Lavrov, whom you respect greatly and who has an enormous group of admirers, but not only in Russia, but outside Russia. Sergei Lavrov said, in answer to a question a day ago, if the Americans supply the– what is it that we’re going to supply now? The–

Napolitano:
Tomahawks?

Doctorow: 19:21
Yes, the Tomahawks. That won’t change the situation on the battlefield. I couldn’t believe my ears. I could not believe that he was saying something so utterly foolish. Something is going on there as well around Lavrov.

Napolitano:
All right. So where do you see all of this going? Should we wake up some morning and find out that the government buildings in Kiev are gone or that Vladimir Putin is taking a vacation?

Doctorow:
I don’t know. It can go either way. The tea leaves suggest either eventuality as possible. We’ll have to see how this progresses. But there are a lot of people in Russia who have been calling for some time.

Mr. Karaganov, who a year and a half ago was– this is the political scientist who has a very large reputation in Russia and abroad– was saying that Russia should strike using tactical nuclear weapons somewhere in Western Europe to demonstrate that it is a serious power. These people certainly would be behind the kind of palace coup that I’m suggesting. But there’s no way to know at this point; we have to wait a little bit.

Napolitano: 20:38
Fascinating conversation, Professor Doctorow. Something happens in one direction or another, I trust you’ll reach us and we’ll discuss it as close to real-time as possible. … Your observations to me are rather startling, and I’ve heard them nowhere else.

Doctorow:
I hope to investigate this more seriously and with better access to all sorts of information three weeks from now, on the 20th of this month. I’ll be going to Petersburg for three weeks. And this kind of question I tend to pursue.

Napolitano: 21:20
Thank you, Professor Doctorow. All the best, my friend. We’ll see you again next week or sooner if the situation warrants.

Doctorow:
OK.

Napolitano:
Of course. Coming up today, a full day for you. At one o’clock this afternoon, Professor Glenn Diesen. At two o’clock, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson; at three o’clock, Phil Giraldi. At four o’clock, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor Sachs will analyze Prime Minister Netanyahu’s– in Jerusalem and on his plane– repudiation of the agreement he claimed he joined in with President Trump in the Oval Office.

22:01
Judge Napolitano for “Judging Freedom”.

Thinking People vs. Philistines: Putin’s Worldview vs. Trump’s

Russia’s Economic Roadmap: Putin Speaks at Eastern Forum

The transcript will be up in a few hours.

Over 6,000 people from 76 countries are attending the forum. The largest delegations have come from China, India, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam.

The business programme covers seven key spheres – international partnership, technological development, cooperation between business and the state, development of the Far East, investment and innovations, logistics, and urban planning – and includes over 100 themed sessions.

HIGHTLIGHTS FROM PUTIN’S SPEECH AT EASTERN ECONOMIC FORUM

Development of Far East & Siberia is Russia’s priority for the 21st century

Ties of Russia’s Far East with foreign countries strengthening

Mining in Russian Far East expanding

Putin reveals plan to transform Russian Far East into rare earth metal hub

Russia plans the construction of new bridges in North Korea

Trans-Arctic Corridor to boost Russia’s Far East, Siberia, & Arctic, with cutting-edge shipbuilding centers for tugs, bulk carriers, icebreakers

Trans-Arctic Corridor will provide direct access from Siberia to Arctic sea routes

MORE HIGHTLIGHTS FROM PUTIN’S SPEECH AT EASTERN ECONOMIC FORUM:

Russia and China began major joint work 20 years ago, driven by national interests, not current circumstances

Russia has never refused to cooperate with countries eager to develop ties

Many European companies left Russia at a loss; many are waiting for political restrictions to be lifted

Protectionism harms those who pursue such policies

Russia is open to cooperation with all countries, but first and foremost, with its friends

HIGHLIGHTS FROM PUTIN ON UKRAINE DURING EASTERN ECONOMIC FORUM

Russia will consider any troops on Ukrainian territory as legitimate targets for destruction

Putin expressed willingness for contact with the Ukrainian side but he sees no purpose in it: reaching an agreement on key issues with Ukraine will be “practically impossible”

Russia will guarantee Zelensky’s security if he comes to Moscow for talks

Moscow is the best place to hold these talks, Ukraine asking for a different location is “too much”

Ukrainian constitution says that any agreements on territories must be approved by referendum, but for this to happen, martial law must be lifted

Russia will respect security guarantees for Ukraine, but it also demands security guarantees for itself. So far, no one is seriously discussing what security guarantees they’re prepared to offer Russia

Transcript: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77927

Vladimir Putin: Interview to Xinhua News Agency

Ahead of his official visit to the People’s Republic of China, Vladimir Putin gave a written interview to the Chinese news agency Xinhua.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77864

Question: In May this year, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia and took part in the celebrations marking the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War – a visit that proved highly successful. Your own visit to China is expected shortly. What are your expectations for the upcoming visit? Over the past decade, you and President Xi have maintained close contacts, shaping and guiding the steady development of bilateral relations. How would you describe President Xi Jinping as a leader?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the visit of our friend, President of China Xi Jinping, to Russia in May was a resounding success, drew wide international attention and was highly regarded in our country. His arrival coincided with a date that is sacred to us, the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, thereby lending deep symbolic significance to the further development of Russian-Chinese relations. We reaffirmed the strategic choice of our peoples in favour of strengthening the traditions of good-neighbourliness, friendship, and long-term, mutually beneficial cooperation.

The Chinese leader was the principal guest of honour at the celebrations in Moscow. During our high-level talks, we held a very productive discussion of key issues in cooperation between our nations. The outcome was a comprehensive joint statement and the signing of a substantial package of bilateral documents.

Very soon, at the invitation of President Xi, I will pay a return visit to China. I greatly look forward to visiting the city of Tianjin, which will host the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit under China’s presidency. We expect that the summit will give the Organisation powerful new momentum, strengthen its capacity to respond to contemporary challenges and threats, and enhance solidarity across our shared Eurasian space. All this will help shape a fairer multipolar world order.

As for the Russian-Chinese talks, these will take place in Beijing. I look forward to in-depth discussions with President Xi Jinping on all aspects of our bilateral agenda, including political and security cooperation, as well as economic, cultural and humanitarian ties. And, as always, we will exchange views on pressing regional and international issues.

In Beijing, we will also pay tribute to the shared act of heroism of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who together defeated militarist Japan, thereby bringing the Second World War to its final conclusion. We will honour the memory of those who sealed with their blood the brotherhood of our peoples, defended the freedom and independence of our states, and secured their right to sovereign development.

President Xi Jinping treats his country’s history with utmost respect; I know this from personal communication with him. He is a true leader of a great world power, a man of strong will, endowed with strategic vision and a global outlook, and unwavering in his commitment to national interests. It is of exceptional importance for China that such a person stands at the helm at this challenging, pivotal moment in international affairs. The President of China sets an example for the entire world of what a respectful and equitable dialogue with foreign partners can and should be today. In Russia, we deeply value the Chinese leader’s genuine commitment to advancing our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.

Question: China and the Soviet Union, as the principal battlegrounds of the Second World War in Asia and Europe, bore enormous sacrifices and made a significant contribution to victory in the global fight against fascism. In your view, what is the relevance of preserving the memory of that Victory in today’s complex international environment? How should China and Russia jointly defend their shared historical memory at a time when some forces on the international stage are attempting to distort historical truth?

V.Putin: As I have already noted, this year, together with our Chinese friends, we commemorate the 80^th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the capitulation of militarist Japan, which marked the end of the Second World War.

The peoples of the Soviet Union and China bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered the heaviest losses. It was our citizens who endured the greatest hardships in the struggle against the invaders and played a decisive role in defeating Nazism and militarism. Through those severe trials, the finest traditions of friendship and mutual assistance were forged and strengthened – traditions that today form a solid foundation for Russian-Chinese relations.

I would remind you that even before the full-scale outbreak of the Second World War, in the 1930s, when Japan treacherously launched a war of aggression against China, the Soviet Union extended a helping hand to the Chinese people. Thousands of our career officers served as military advisers, assisting in strengthening the Chinese army and providing guidance in combat operations. Soviet pilots also fought bravely alongside their Chinese brothers-in-arms.

Between October 1937 and June 1941, the Soviet Union supplied China with 1,235 aircraft, thousands of artillery pieces, tens of thousands of machine guns, as well as ammunition, equipment, and supplies. The principal route was an overland corridor through Central Asia to China’s Xinjiang Province, where Soviet specialists built a road in record time to ensure uninterrupted deliveries.

The historical record leaves no doubt as to the scale and ferocity of those battles. We remember the great significance of the famous Hundred Regiments Offensive, when Chinese Communist forces liberated a territory with a population of five million from Japanese occupation. We also recall the unparalleled feats of Soviet troops and commanders in their clashes with Japan at Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin Gol River. In the summer of 1939, our legendary commander Georgy Zhukov won his first major victory in the Mongolian steppes, which in effect foreshadowed the later defeat of the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome Axis. In 1945, the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation played a decisive role in liberating northeast China, dramatically altering the situation in the Far East and making the capitulation of militarist Japan inevitable.

In Russia, we will never forget that China’s heroic resistance was one of the crucial factors that prevented Japan from stabbing the Soviet Union in the back during the darkest months of 1941–1942. This enabled the Red Army to concentrate its efforts on crushing Nazism and liberating Europe. Close cooperation between our two countries was also an important element in forming the anti-Hitler coalition, strengthening China as a great power, and in the constructive discussions that shaped the post-war settlement and helped to reinvigorate the anti-colonial movement.

It is our sacred duty to honour the memory of our compatriots who displayed true patriotism and courage, endured all hardships, and defeated powerful and ruthless enemies. We pay deep respect to all veterans and those who gave their lives for the freedom of future generations and the independence of our countries. We are grateful to China for its careful preservation of memorials to Red Army soldiers who gave their lives in battles for the liberation of China.

Such a sincere and responsible attitude towards the past stands in stark contrast to the situation in some European countries, where monuments and graves of Soviet liberators are desecrated in a barbaric manner or destroyed, and inconvenient historical facts are erased.

We see that in certain Western states the results of the Second World War are de facto revised, and the verdicts of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals are openly disregarded. These dangerous tendencies stem from a reluctance to acknowledge the direct culpability of the predecessors of today’s Western elites in unleashing the world war, and the desire to erase the shameful pages of their own history, thereby encouraging revanchism and neo-Nazism. Historical truth is being distorted and suppressed to suit their current political agendas. Japanese militarism is being revived under the pretext of imaginary Russian or Chinese threats, while in Europe, including Germany, steps are being taken towards the re-militarisation of the continent, with little regard for historical parallels.

Russia and China resolutely condemn any attempts to distort the history of the Second World War, glorify Nazis, militarists and their accomplices, members of death squads and killers, or to defame Soviet liberators. The results of that war are enshrined in the UN Charter and other international instruments. They are inviolable and not subject to revision. This is our shared, unwavering position with our Chinese friends.

The memory of the joint struggle of the Soviet and Chinese peoples against German Nazism and Japanese militarism is an enduring value for us. I would like to reiterate that the participation of President Xi Jinping in Russia’s commemorations of the 80^th anniversary of the Great Victory carried profound symbolic importance. To mark the 80^th anniversary of the USSR’s Victory in the Great Patriotic War, China’s Victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, and the founding of the United Nations, we signed a Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China–Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era. This document provides a consolidated response by our countries to attempts by certain states to dismantle humanity’s historical memory and to replace the well-established principles of world order and dialogue forged after the Second World War with the so-called “rules-based order.”

Question: In recent years, practical cooperation between China and Russia in areas such as energy, agriculture, automotive manufacturing and infrastructure has produced positive results and brought about new breakthroughs, while bilateral trade has reached record levels. How do you assess the current state of Chinese-Russian practical cooperation? What are your plans for further promoting high-quality, mutually beneficial cooperation between China and Russia?

V.Putin: Economic relations between Russia and China have reached an unprecedented level. Since 2021, bilateral trade has grown by about 100 billion dollars. In terms of trade volume, China is by far Russia’s leading partner, while last year Russia ranked fifth among China’s foreign trade partners.

I would stress that while trade figures are denominated in US dollar equivalents, transactions between Russia and China are carried out in rubles and yuan, with the dollar or euro share reduced to a statistical discrepancy.

Russia firmly retains its position as a leading exporter of oil and gas to China. Since the Power of Siberia pipeline began its operation in 2019, cumulative deliveries of natural gas have already exceeded 100 billion cubic metres. In 2027, we plan to launch another major gas route, the so-called Far Eastern Route. We are also working together effectively on LNG projects in Russia’s Arctic region.

We continue our joint efforts to reduce bilateral trade barriers. In recent years, the export of pork and beef to China has been launched. Overall, agricultural and food products occupy a prominent place in Russia’s exports to China.

Bilateral investment volumes are growing. Last year, Russia and China agreed to an updated Plan for Bilateral Investment Cooperation. This year, a new Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments has been signed. Large-scale joint projects are being implemented in priority sectors.

Our countries are cooperating closely in industry. Russia is one of the world’s principal markets for Chinese car exports. At the same time, production is being localised in Russia not only for Chinese cars but also for household appliances. Together, we are building high-tech manufacturing and infrastructure facilities. We also have large-scale plans in the construction materials industry.

To sum up, economic cooperation, trade, and industrial collaboration between our countries are advancing across multiple areas. During my upcoming visit, we will certainly discuss further prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation and new steps to intensify it for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and China.

Question: This year marks the conclusion of the cross years of culture between China and Russia. During this period, our countries have developed extensive cooperation in education, cinema, theatre, tourism, and sports. How do you assess the results of Chinese-Russian cultural and humanitarian exchanges and cooperation? What prospects do you see for further promoting ties between the peoples of China and Russia?

V.Putin: Large-scale bilateral cultural and humanitarian initiatives make a significant contribution to fostering friendly relations. The Russian Year in China and the Chinese Year in Russia (2006–2007) were a great success. The subsequent themed years of languages, tourism, youth, media, regional cooperation, sport, science and innovation, launched successively from 2009 onwards, received broad public resonance.

Today, cultural exchanges between Russia and China continue to develop dynamically. The Russia-China Roadmap for Humanitarian Cooperation until 2030, which includes more than 100 major projects, is being consistently implemented.

I would particularly highlight the successful organisation of the Russia and China Years of Culture, held in 2024–2025 and timed to the 75^th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. The rich and diverse programme met with an enthusiastic response both in Russia and China.

I would also note that the Russian side initiated the Intervision International Song Contest, scheduled for September 20 this year, and we are pleased that our Chinese partners have shown keen interest in this project.

Education and science remain especially promising areas for cooperation. Academic mobility and inter-university contacts continue to grow. Today, more than 51,000 Chinese students are studying in Russia, while 21,000 Russian students are studying in China. In May, President Xi and I agreed that 2026–2027 will be designated as the Russia-China Years of Education.

Cooperation in science, technology, and innovation is also expanding, including in fundamental research and megascience projects. For example, Moscow State University and Peking University plan to open a joint institute for fundamental research. We fully support the establishment of modern laboratories and advanced centres in priority high-tech fields to strengthen the technological sovereignty of Russia and China.

Film production is another vibrant area of cooperation. In February, the joint Russian-Chinese adventure film Red Silk premiered in Russia, and we expect it to reach Chinese audiences soon. In May, an Action Plan for Film Production was signed in Moscow. We anticipate the release of many new Russian-Chinese films in the near future: films that will promote sound moral principles and traditional spiritual and ethical values, while presenting truthful accounts of important historical events. To this end, we have also launched a new initiative, the Open Eurasian Film Award, a unique platform for cinema, free from bias or political intrigue.

Tourism is another important sphere I would like to note. The figures here are encouraging: by the end of 2024, mutual tourist flows had increased 2.5 times, reaching 2.8 million people.

Sports cooperation has also been productive. We are grateful to our Chinese partners for their active participation in international sporting events hosted by Russia, including the innovative Games of the Future, BRICS Games, and many others. The Chinese national team was among the largest delegations at these competitions. We firmly believe that sport should remain free from any politicisation.

Youth policy is another priority area.

We highly value the coordinated work of leading Russian and Chinese media, and our cooperation between archives plays an important role in preserving historical truth.

It is encouraging that bilateral cultural and humanitarian cooperation continues to gain momentum. This is undoubtedly a strategic dimension of our relationship, helping to build a broad public base of friendship, good-neighbourliness, and mutual understanding.

Question: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), jointly established by China and Russia, serves as an important platform for comprehensive regional cooperation, crucial for ensuring peace, stability, and development across the Eurasian space. China holds the rotating SCO presidency for 2024–2025, and the 25^th SCO Heads of State Council meeting will soon take place in Tianjin. How do you assess the constructive role the SCO has played over more than two decades in maintaining regional peace and stability and promoting common development and prosperity? In your view, in which areas should member states further strengthen exchanges and cooperation?

V.Putin: The establishment of the SCO in 2001 embodied the shared aspiration of Russia, China, and the Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – to build trust, friendship, and good-neighbourly relations, and to promote peace and stability in the region.

Over the years, the SCO has developed a solid legal and institutional framework, creating mechanisms that enable effective cooperation in politics, security, trade and investment, as well as cultural and humanitarian exchanges. Since then, its membership has expanded to include India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus, while partner and observer countries, representing the political, economic, and cultural diversity of Eurasia, are also actively engaged in joint activities.

The SCO’s appeal lies in its simple but powerful principles: a firm commitment to its founding philosophy, openness to equal cooperation, non-confrontation with third parties, and respect for the national characteristics and uniqueness of each nation.

Drawing on these values, the SCO contributes to shaping a fairer, multipolar world order, grounded in international law, with the central coordinating role of the United Nations. A major element of this global vision is the creation in Eurasia of an architecture of equal and indivisible security, including through close coordination among SCO member states. We view the Greater Eurasian Partnership, linking national development strategies, regional integration initiatives, and strengthening ties among the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, the CIS, ASEAN, and other international organisations, as the socio-economic foundation of this architecture.

I am confident that the Tianjin summit, along with the SCO Plus meeting, will mark an important milestone in the SCO’s history. We fully support the priorities declared by the Chinese presidency, which focus on consolidating the SCO, deepening cooperation in all areas, and enhancing the organisation’s role on the global stage. We attach particular importance to aligning this work with the practical measures taken under Russia’s presidency of the SCO Heads of Government Council. I am confident that, through our joint efforts, we will give the SCO new momentum, modernising it to meet the demands of the time.

Question: As President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasised, China is ready to work hand in hand with Russia to strengthen mutual support across multilateral platforms, including the UN, the SCO, and BRICS, to safeguard the development and security interests of both nations, unite the Global South, and promote an international order that is fairer and more rational. How do you assess cooperation between China and Russia within these multilateral frameworks? In your view, in which areas can China and Russia set new benchmarks in global governance, particularly with regard to emerging fields such as climate change, artificial intelligence governance, and reform of the global security architecture?

V.Putin: Cooperation between Russia and China in multilateral formats is a key pillar of our bilateral relations and plays a major role in global affairs. Time and again, our exchanges on critical international issues have shown that Moscow and Beijing share broad common interests and strikingly similar views on fundamental questions. We are united in our vision of building a just, multipolar world order, with a focus on the nations of the Global Majority.

The Russia-China strategic partnership acts as a stabilising force. As the two leading powers in Eurasia, we cannot remain indifferent to the challenges and threats facing our continent and the wider world. This issue is a constant focus of our bilateral political dialogue. Russia’s concept of creating a common space of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia resonates closely with President Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative.

The interaction between Russia and China at the UN is at an unprecedentedly high level, fully reflecting the spirit of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Both countries attach special importance to the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, a vital mechanism for consolidating the Global South. Among its key achievements is the resolution “Eradication of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations,” adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 4, 2024.

Russia and China support reform of the UN so that it fully restores its authority and reflects modern realities. In particular, we advocate for making the Security Council more democratic by including states from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Any such reforms must, however, be approached with the utmost care.

Close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing has positively shaped the work of leading economic forums, including the G20 and APEC. Within the G20, together with like-minded nations, and especially BRICS members, we have redirected the agenda towards issues of real importance to the Global Majority, strengthened the format by including the African Union, and deepened the synergies between the G20 and BRICS.

This year, our South African friends hold the G20 presidency. As a result of their efforts, we look forward to consolidating the Global South’s achievements and establishing them as a foundation for the democratisation of international relations. Within APEC, China’s chairmanship in 2026 is expected to give fresh impetus to Russia-China engagement.

We are working closely with China within BRICS to expand its role as a key pillar of global architecture. Together, we advance initiatives aimed at expanding economic opportunities for member states, including the creation of common platforms for partnership in strategic sectors. We are paying special attention to mobilising additional resources for critical infrastructure projects. We stand united in strengthening BRICS’ ability to address pressing global challenges, share similar views on regional and international security, and take a common stand against discriminatory sanctions that hinder the socioeconomic development of BRICS members and the world at large.

Alongside our Chinese partners, we support the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

We are united in the view that a new financial system must be based on openness and true equity, providing equal and non-discriminatory access to its tools for all countries and reflecting the real standing of member states in the global economy. It is essential to end the use of finance as an instrument of neo-colonialism, which runs counter to the interests of the Global Majority. On the contrary, we seek progress for the benefit of all humanity. I am confident that Russia and China will continue to work together towards this noble goal, aligning our efforts to ensure the prosperity of our great nations.

WION ‘Game Plan’: Russia-Ukraine War | Will Russia Allow EU Boots On Ground?

WION ‘Game Plan’: Russia-Ukraine War | Will Russia Allow EU Boots On Ground?

I present here the link to yesterday’s conversation with Shivan Chanana, anchor on the Indian broadcaster WION with whom I have had numerous conversations in the past and whom I greatly respect.

I use this video to make a point on how the game is played between broadcaster and invited specialist if you have your wits about you and enjoy cat and mouse games.

Viewers will notice that the introductory words of the presenter are repetitive. That is because our interview was interrupted and their production team had to start over.  Viewers will also note that I twice evaded the host’s opening question about what the Security Guaranties for Ukraine would look like.  This is not because I was hard of hearing but because I had other plans for what messages I wanted to deliver to the audience and especially to hammer home my view that Team Trump has done very well in the peace talks to obtain its fixed objectives while neutralizing its opponents, domestic and foreign, by saying what they want to hear while doing what it wants to do.

One Commenter on yesterday’s other Indian interview, with Firstpost, wrote that he would send me a MAGA hat for what I was saying. No, I am not a supporter of MAGA as such. But I am ready and willing to toss a bouquet in the direction of Team Trump when I believe they are doing something skillful and praiseworthy.

Let me be perfectly clear:  the contract between interviewer and interviewee seems to give all benefit to the broadcaster while the interviewee is just a resource.  However, it does not have to play out that way. The interviewee can use the microphone and air time to his or her own advantage as well.

Enjoy the show!

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

A busy day of interviews with Indian television

Global broadcasters are straining their in-house resources to make sense of what Trump, Putin, Zelensky and the European Coalition of the Willing are doing and saying to promote a diplomatic solution to the Russia-Ukraine war. In these circumstances, they are turning to outside geopolitical analysts like myself to add value to their coverage.

I discovered the old rule of this game in 2016 in Russia, when the U.S. presidential election and the Trump victory made me the darling of Russian talk shows on multiple channels. Once you are presented by one broadcaster, the others are quick to seek time with you as well. And then you are in their collective press pool – until world news moves on to other topics and you are dropped as quickly as you were acquired.

At WION, India’s largest news broadcaster in English with 10 million subscribers, where I first appeared more than a year ago and had established a very good rapport with one of their program hosts, the invitations to appear there thinned out about six months ago. At the same time, I noticed that they were putting up more videos on youtube featuring their own staff. That seems to have ended two weeks ago when preparations began for the Alaska summit. Now for the second time in 10 days I was phoned by their producers to join them for an on-air chat about the evolving situation around Ukraine. The program host who asked to be linked with me on LinkedIn six months ago was back and ready to party. I am waiting for them to send me the link to what we recorded this morning and will then post it here.

Virtually at the same time today, I got a request from another well-known Indian broadcaster, Firstpost. Wikipedia tells us that “Firstpost is an Indian news website owned by the Network18 Group, which also runs CNN-News18 and CNBC TV18.”

What I will say is the Firstpost interviewer is a top professional and that it was a pleasure for me to chat with him as I hope it will be a pleasure for the Community to watch this. The subject, of course, is where the negotiations for peace in Ukraine are headed, whether Putin and Zelensky will actually meet face to face and much more

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 20 August 2025: The Kremlin’s View of Trump

This conversation with Judge Napolitano brought out some essential points that have received little or no attention in alternative media, not to mention mainstream.

First among these comes from the interview that Sergei Lavrov gave to Russian state television yesterday in which he strongly hinted that a step towards convening a Putin-Zelensky meeting should be revocation of the prohibitions on use of the Russian language in schools, in public places, and on dissemination of Russian language media.  If that were to happen, I believe the Russians would be more amenable to a one-on-one meeting of their president with Zelensky.

As I explain here, surely Zelensky’s insistent demand for such a meeting was premised on the likely refusal of the Russians to agree so that he could turn around and say to the Americans and to the EU leaders “you see, I told you that Putin does not want peace,” after which he would proceed with his demands for more arms and financial assistance.

We also discussed at length what I call out as the very capable conduct of the negotiations with the Europeans by what I call the Collective Trump, taking in his obviously very smart assistants, of whom Steve Witkoff is only one example.  He was stringing the Europeans along on his supposed support for an immediate unconditional cease fire. He was not persuaded of anything in this matter by Putin when they met in Alaska; rather his meeting with Putin was essential for him to be convinced that Putin is someone he really can work with. That done, he proceeded to announce his favoring a full peace treaty now.

I see the same deception being played now by Trump when he tells the Europeans that there will be American participation in the planned security guaranties for Ukraine.  Perhaps, but only if the “peacekeeping” force is very different from what the Coalition of the Willing that descended on Washington this past Monday expects.  If it is not just Europeans but also Chinese, Indians and others from the Global South then it will likely be acceptable to Moscow as consisting of monitors, not war makers, not a pseudo-NATO that is ready to attack Russia at any moment.

I will go no further here but urge the Community to pay close attention to this conversation.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Transcript of conversation with Glenn Diesen, 17 August 2025

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyzGNH5vO0g

Diesen:
Hi everyone and welcome back. We are joined today by Gilbert Doktorow, historian and international affairs analyst and author of books such as “War Diaries – the Russia-Ukraine War”. And yeah, thank you for coming back on the program.

Doctorow:
My pleasure.

Diesen
So, yeah, the big news obviously is the Trump and Putin meeting in Alaska. And, yeah, after three and a half years since Russia launched its a special military operation, well, most of this time, the West boycotted diplomacy in an effort to isolate Russia. We now had a meeting between the Russian and American president. And the immediate reactions of course have ranged from extreme optimism to utter panic, especially then in Europe. And well, the media especially is hostile to their diplomatic efforts. And there’s been these efforts to portray Trump as weak unless he is tough on Russia, which is usually what we demand of all politicians, which effectively translates into prolonging the war, I think. But again, it’s an important summit. And I wanted to ask you, what are your main takeaways from this summit?

Doctorow: 1:20
Well, if we had this discussion 24 hours ago, I would be at a loss to say something that my peers had not already said, because everybody had a microphone in front of them in the minutes following the closing of the conversation. But since we are speaking today, a lot of fresh news has come in, which I hope we can go through, because it answers the question that immediately came up following the press briefings– so I think it was 12 minutes, 15 minutes, it was very short– that took place immediately following the summit talks in Anchorage. The question that arose was what did the Russians and the Americans agree on? Because Mr. Putin said, yes, we’ve come closer to solving the problem. Well, how did they come closer?

It was not– there was no information given out by either party in the minutes following the summit. And all of that has come out both by intent and by a subversive release to the press by people, I’m sure, like Macron. He couldn’t possibly resist the temptation to call reporters in to show how much he knew that was of interest to them. What I’m saying is that the basic agreements that Trump and Putin made have come out in the last 24 hours.

The first shoe to drop was soon afterwards and the most important information only came out I would guess in the middle of the night or early this morning. The last and very important information I read extensively reported in the “Financial Times”, their online edition this morning, talking about the territorial issue, specifically saying that Putin had proposed that Russia would receive or should receive all of the territory of the Donbass, that is, of the two oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk, and that it would compromise on the other two, the other two oblasts which form the new Russia and these are Zaporozhzhia and Kherson. In those two last two oblasts or regions, Russia would agree to a freeze at the line of confrontation. In the first two, strictly speaking Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk, they would insist that Ukraine would withdraw completely from those territories, so that Russia would receive now a territory that it had not conquered. Our lying press has said, ah yes, the Russians only hold about 50% of the territory they’re now demanding be turned over.

First of all, out of the two oblasts, the Russians have 98%, maybe 99% of Lugansk. Lugansk was the easiest for them to recapture; from the very first days of the Special Military Operation, that was the case. With respect to Donetsk, before this summer offensive got underway, the Russians had about 50% of that. Now they have 70%.

So from the get-go, what our CNN and BBC are telling us is fabricated. The concession is one of time, time and lives, because it is apparent to anybody with military knowledge that the Russians will take the whole of Donbas in a matter of weeks. The story coming out of Kiev is that by giving up Slavyansk and Kramatorsk– these are fortified towns between the present line of confrontation around Pokrovsk to the east and the Dnieper River– Ukraine would be giving up its ability to resist a further Russian onslaught across the Dnieper into the rest of Ukraine.

Well, this is the same lies and fabrication that have been behind the Ukrainian story, which was repeated endlessly by the United States and the European allies over the last three years. I think most of us who have our brains screwed in right understand that Russia would never willingly take any Ukrainian territory in West Ukraine, because that would be really an occupation and not a governance, and they would expect a lot of difficulty ruling that area.

6:34
So the whole story of what the Russians want is now clear. The other, smaller issue which came out, which is the first shoe to drop, which I didn’t mention a moment ago, was that Mr. Trump announced he had switched his view, and essentially he’s aligned with Vladimir Putin, on what sort of an agreement is now before us. He had previously been aligned with the Europeans and with Kiev, saying we must have immediate unconditional ceasefire. And that was about to be imposed on Russia. This summit was supposed to end in the signing off by Putin of such a ceasefire and so forth.

What we have now is Trump aligned with Putin in saying that that is senseless, that is only provisional, it can be reversed, and what we need is a genuine peace treaty. The difference is very great. The Ukrainians are doing their best to confuse the general public about what the difference is and to suggest that a genuine peace is only setting the stage for further Russian offensive against them. The Europeans are trying to rope in Trump to the notion that when we have this peace signed, that we need to have peacekeepers to enforce the peace. These are absolute propaganda and lies.

Then the point of Mr. Putin is: we have to resolve the underlying issues behind this war and we have to remove the issues that separate us and have caused conflict. And if you have that enshrined in a peace treaty, there’s no need for peacekeepers, because there’s no conflict to break out again.

So this is where we are today, with Europe digging in their heels, finding any logic, however impossible and possibly irrational it is, like what I just described, that a peace treaty is only setting the stage for the next war.

Well, this is a very interesting interpretation of what peace treaties are about. Oh yes, when you have peace treaties that are disastrous like Versailles, that’s true. But if you have peace treaties designed with people of intelligence and compromise and diplomacy and goodwill, then a peace treaty is a peace treaty. And you don’t have to confuse it with a truce. So this has happened in the last 24 hours, and it is illuminating.

If I can just go one step further, I don’t want this to be a lengthy talk here, a lecture. I want to say that we really, Glenn, we’re living in a dark age. It’s very sad to say, but I listened to your interview yesterday with the minister, the member of parliament, the German former UN official talking about lack of respect, lack of diplomacy. Let me just change the term for this. We’re living in the Dark Ages.

This is a period of hate, a period of vile propaganda, a period of impunity. And where those who have committed crimes, including high crimes and treason, walk away without ever being brought to court and with no fear that their crimes will be fully exposed and that they will pay for them. This is where we are today, and it is terrible. I take it back in the United States to Mr. Obama who never did anything about those guilty for the invasion of Iraq. Though they all were sitting, Mr. Cheney was out there.

Oh yes, my last comment is on the first response of the British press and also some of the US press. How do they respond to the warmth and cordiality of Mr. Trump’s reception of Putin?

11:23
Well, either that Mr. Trump is being played by Putin, which is peculiar, since they hadn’t even met. The warmth and cordiality preceded the talks. As what do they do, they remind us, hey, they’re meeting in Alaska because there are not too many places where Mr. Putin and Trump can meet because, hey, remember that Mr. Putin is an international, is a war criminal, a war criminal, and he has been condemned by the International Court of Justice. Well, they pulled that one out of the hat, in case any of us forgot, that complete miscarriage of justice over the supposed kidnapping of thousands, or maybe it was several dozen Ukrainian children who were in the middle of the war zone without parents or custodians. Anyway, that’s my lengthy introduction to where we are today.

Diesen:
Well, you’re right on the hate part and the rest for that sake, but the hate part is quite interesting because during the Cold War, when we’re speaking to Stalin or Khrushchev or anyone from the other side, there would nonetheless be some respect. You wouldn’t– you would address them properly. You would have diplomacy. You would be able to discuss what are the real security concerns? How might we be intensifying them? How may we alleviate it? None of this exists today.

12:53
Instead, I get the sentiment that you’re obliged to hate. The hate becomes a source of, it displays our morality. So how can you meet a war criminal? I even had people from the military ask me, how can you have diplomacy when someone has attacked another one?

This is when you have diplomacy. I mean, these are people who are in leadership position, and they talk this excessive moralism, which makes it impossible to actually do any good in the world by talking to the other side. But in terms of what seems as a key achievement though, for the, I guess, achievement of peace would be that Trump, he moved away, as you said, from the ceasefire, which doesn’t mean peace, and moved towards addressing the root causes. And for me, this is interesting because in Europe since the 1990s, we decided let’s create a new Europe organized around the EU and NATO. Everyone should be part of it except for Russia. And also Russia shouldn’t have a veto or say over what we do because they’re not part of NATO.

So essentially we created, institutionalized Russia’s exclusion from Europe, and we kind of wished Russia away. But in reality, all you do is when you deny Russia any voice in international institutions to defend its and represent its security interest, the only thing to do is leave the military option as the only one. And then by now creating the conditions for, well, only a ceasefire, then we put peacekeepers or whatever you might call them there. It’s not going to work.

It’s just, it makes common sense. If you want to end the military conflict, you have to open up a political one, institutions where the Russians can also sit at the table and say, listen, you can’t put your missiles on our borders. We can’t put them in Mexico. You can’t put them there and then find a common agreement. This used to be common sense, but again, it used to be common sense to talk to each other with basic respect and not criminalized diplomacy, but it does appear to be a bygone thing.

15:07
But in terms of, yes, resolving the Ukraine issue is quite important. And I think accepting the Russian premise that we have to address the root causes is quite interesting. We kind of got that confirmed by all the Europeans who are now in full panic. But what I thought was interesting though is there appeared to be also a heavy focus on bilateralism. That is, Russia and the US aren’t simply hostages to what happens in Europe. I was wondering how you read into this focus on bilateral relations.

Doctorow:
Well, I’ll get to that in one moment, but I want to go back to the hate issue and to the issue of respect, the lack of respect that you’ve touched upon. Some time ago, when I was in regular correspondence with Professor Stephen Cohen, he insisted to me when I was about to write something regarding George Soros’s visit to Brussels and his inability to remember anything on stage, I was about to mention the senility in my article. And he cautioned me, this was 10 years ago, the man is still alive. He cautioned me that ad hominem argumentation is really unacceptable in academic discourse.

I disagreed, and I continue to disagree. I, Russians of– you probably noticed, since you spent good time there, they don’t believe in phrenology any more. They don’t take the shape of somebody’s skull as meaning very much. I mean, the top part, for example, or the back part, but they do take physiognomy very seriously. They take facial expression very seriously.

16:58
And Americans, pretend it doesn’t exist. Anybody who was following Dick Cheney must have understood the man was mentally ill just by his crooked smile. But you couldn’t really speak about it because that’s an ad-homonym remark I mean, but his smile, you know, finally, unlike his nose or his ears, the smile is something you make. And it tells you something about what’s behind the face. The Mogherini, she became mentally ill in service. She became, you could see in her face the tension and she lost concentration. She wasn’t up to the job.

All right. I made my point that what can you say about the descent of political culture in the West? We know about the United States descent: never rose very high, with a few exceptions, but even from that medium bar, it’s descended since the 1990s. In Europe, it’s collapsed, an intellectual collapse. When I was growing up in the States, people said, “The British, oh, they speak so well. They always have really upper-crust people running the government.”

You can’t say that now. They’ve had a succession of idiots, which they themselves, which the City of London called out. When they threw out, was it Truss, I forget who, who lasted like six weeks, lasted less time than iceberg lettuce. Because she was intellectually incompetent.

What can you say about Kallas? She’s a laughing stock of Russia. What can you say about Annalena Baerbock? That Germany would have in its cabinet, a moron like that, I mean she’s a moron, is unthinkable. And so how can you look for respect, diplomacy, and the rest of it for people who are savages, uneducated, no knowledge of anything, people who speak about a 360-degree change of opinion?

This is beneath contempt. I think we have to look at the democratic processes that are putting these morons in power. Before we can start saying, well, they see this or they don’t see that. This has to be reexamined. Here in Belgium, we have very good political scientists who spend a lot of time working, talking about electoral processes, because we have to: we have this crazy situation of two nations under one roof, the Flemings and the Francophones. And so they try to find very inventive, progressive solutions to these problems.

20:04
That kind of creativity has to be used more within Europe to find solutions to bring out competent people to the floor. They are not there. And under those circumstances, you have the crazy reaction to yesterday’s summit that we see on the front pages of the European newspapers. They simply are not up to the challenge. I know you have addressed in some of your recent programs this question about Europe becoming geopolitically irrelevant because of the low level of political culture in present-day Europe.

There are no great people. There’s some brave people like Orban and Fico, but there are no great people. I don’t mean to say that great people are always wise people or likable people, but their intellectual capacities, their ability to look at big picture issues, it’s not here today. So that’s, I’m sorry, now that I’ve gone off on this tangent, I’ve lost the line of your question. Could you just remind me?

Diesen:
Oh, no, I’ll, no, I wanted to move on and ask about the focus on the bilateralism. But if I can just first, a quick comment on the … interview I did with Mikael von der Schürrnberg yesterday, again, he’s not just a member of the EU Parliament, but as Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, he spent 34 years in conflict zones. He didn’t live in Germany and fly out. He resided there. He had houses. He lived in the conflict zones for 34 years.

And to now see him, you know, he saw hope in all of those areas, but in Europe now he just seems gutted, like this may, there’s no, he doesn’t see any solutions, because there’s no one addressing the problems. And I got that impression in this country as well, if you criticize, because I’ve been told I criticize Europe a lot, but yeah, I do. I think you criticize for course correction, but if you didn’t like it, then you shouldn’t live here any more. I mean, this is the mentality.

If you like Europe, then you have to support all the policies of Kallas, Van der Leyen and the rest of this insane asylum. Or also if you care about Ukraine, then you’re just going to pump in more weapons, keep the war going. Even though I know that this is just going to lead to the destruction of that nation. They’re never going to be able to rebuild. They’re not going to have the territory, the people, the infrastructure.

I mean, that makes no sense. But this is the mentality in Europe now. Just do as you’re told and support any insane policies. Otherwise you’re on the enemy’s side. It’s just, it’s something — the whole reason has shut down, I think.

22:56
Anyways, yeah, you know, I think the bilateralism was the direction I was going. Well, this has been in the past, going back to the fall of the Soviet Union, the bright new era that opened up in the 90s. I had colleagues who were so enthusiastic about the opportunity for American-Russian friendship, cooperation, strategic cooperation in all domains. For my take, well by the end of the 90s, they were still saying that. And I was saying, my goodness, we’re just lucky we’re not at one another’s throats at this moment. And you want to be strategic allies? It just is unreasonable.

But going back to what underpins such strategic cooperation, sually business is part of it, and trade is part of it. When Mr. Nixon did his detente with the Soviet Union, he was actively encouraging American business executives to go there and do business, to trade, and to invest in manufacturing capacity there.

In the case– my understanding though, is that this basis for bilateralism really doesn’t exist between the United States and Russia. Their economies have never been complementary in the same way as Russian-European relations were. The amount of trade done between the two countries never was very big. It’s not that it fell from great heights. It never reached any heights, not because of lack of will, but because the economics didn’t push people together the way they pushed Germans and Russians together, for example, in energy supply and raw material supply, which was something that Mr. Macron held out when he was still thinking about Russia in positive terms.

25:07
So that very strong foundation for genuine bilateralism doesn’t exist. And those who are calling out the project of train, tunnel, bridge across the Bering Strait, these are toys. This is not serious. That is not how to build a foundation for genuine bilateralism. The US and Russians have interests in world governance, which should be enough to justify decent relations and cooperation in many areas of security, global security.

But to build it out, they’re going to have cultural relations, they’re going to have economic ties of a great magnitude — is unreasonable, looking at the basic conditions for who produces what and who buys what. It’s not there. Still, as I said, the geopolitical common interests should be sufficient for bilateralism. As for the rest of the world, well, bilateralism does not exclude their both participating in regional societies of trade and other interests, including technological interests. It’s not an exclusive thing.

Certainly Russia is not going to close the door on BRICS for the sake of warm relations with the United States. As for Mr. Trump, he’s busy closing the door on the world. So that question for him doesn’t exist. Have I covered that? I mean, in the way that you expected, have I not answered the question in the manner you looked for?

Diesen: 27:11
Yeah. No, well, I think, yeah, there’s of course limits to the economic participation. But as you said, the geopolitical, the arms control, there’s a lot of other things to do. But even with the economic sphere, I don’t think Russia’s going to shift away from BRICS.

I think this greater-Eurasia initiative they’re pursuing now which replaced their goal of a Greater Europe, which included Russia, I think is very much permanent. But the Russians do want, I guess, more of a balance of dependence. So you don’t want excessive dependence on an actor like China, which is more powerful than you, given that Russia will always be more dependent on China than China is on Russia. They can’t be equal economies. But the asymmetry can be offset if they just diversify, have more partners, don’t put all eggs in one basket.

28:04
And I think from this perspective it would be in their interest to have better trade relations with the US, also more predictability, I would say, which would be good for both sides. But no, I think if the ambitions of Trump is for Russia to turn its back on China, you know, I think it’s fantasy, it’s not going to happen. But in terms of what can be learned from the summit in Alaska is, I guess one of the reasons why more can be learned now as opposed to 24 hours ago is that a meeting is going to be set up between Trump and Zelensky on Monday already if I’m not mistaken, which is a few hours from now. But based on what they’re going to discuss, do you know what this will be all about? And does it tell you anything about how the meeting went between Putin and Trump?

Doctorow:
Well, the Europeans are counting on, they’re preparing Zelensky for the meeting with Trump on the assumption that if he’s properly programmed, he can avoid crossing sensitive points with Trump, can avoid the kind of blow up that happened six months ago when they met in the Oval Office, and that he can turn Trump around. After all, we all know that Putin played Trump, that Trump was talking ceasefire, when he went to the summit; he was talking peace treaty when he left the summit. So well, I could tell you again, I think they’re missing the point. What Trump has only let out false information, misleading information to keep his opponents off balance, to keep the press off balance, without his being turned by anybody.

30:05
He’s only very gradually putting into place what he surely had in mind before. This brings up the whole question, what does he know? So many of my peers assume that he is a lightweight, that he has no concentration, that he changes his opinion from day to day, and that he’s ill-informed. When he repeats that the Russians have lost a million men or they’re losing 30,000 a month, they’re saying, “Oh, you see, he’s being fed bad information by his assistants.” I really am stunned by the lack of imagination of former CIA analysts.

It is depressing. Well, maybe it’s good news. It tells you the CIA doesn’t really have much analytic talent at any given moment, which is, I don’t mean to say that the whole institution is that way. But when I look at some of the analysts’ remarks, I’m stunned. To think that Trump would know less than they know is very peculiar.

I’m sure he knows it all. When he said Russia is a war machine, that tells you the whole story. He doesn’t have to go into the figures, the killer figures. He was repeating the rubbish that the press is talking about. Again, to keep them off balance, to let them think that he thinks the way they do, when it is most improbable that he thinks the way they do or that he has accepted any of the rubbish reports on what the battlefield really looks like.

So I think he is well informed, I think he has his own course how this will go and that takes us into the question that you just raised: what’s going to happen tomorrow? I think that he will repeat what he has told Zelensky on the phone, that he has adopted the position of the Russians with respect to how this war should end and in what time. And that part of the war ending is Ukraine conceding once and for all, not temporarily, probably de jure, that it has lost the Donbass and parts of the other two regions that I mentioned, the part of new Russia that is Zaporozhzhya and Kherson, and that it will not have an army above a certain force, and that it will not be part of, enter NATO.

When you look at the comments coming from Europe, as recently as yesterday, that, “Oh, it’s just temporarily they can’t enter NATO”, they’re not listening. They’re not listening to Trump. He has made it clear: never.


Then you’ve got the whole question of the “coalition of the willing” readiness to put troops’ boots on the ground in Ukraine for the sake of protecting Ukraine from further Russian aggression. I think that the news that the Europeans have put out, that Trump is on board, though they don’t know to what extent the United States will participate, I think that is fake news. I think they are trying to, again, to entrap him, putting in his mouth words that he never spoke or, if he spoke them, words that he never intended to implement, because his way of dealing with his enemies is not, generally speaking, not to contradict them directly but to say what they want to hear and then go off and do what he wants to do.

So the meeting tomorrow, I think, will be very tough for Mr. Zelensky. I think the Europeans will not get any satisfaction out of it. And I imagine that Trump is setting up the case for turning his back on Ukraine and the Europeans, when they show that they are putting a monkey wrench into the works, as Mr. Putin said in his press briefing after the summit.

Diesen: 34:46
Yeah, well, there’s, I guess, two different hypotheses in terms of Trump’s rhetoric, which is often shifting. And as you said, the first one, which I hear, I guess most often is, you know, he’s uninformed, doesn’t know what he’s saying, or he’s just stupid. But alternatively, as you suggest, one also has to recognize the reality that he’s in a difficult spot though, because he has to navigate between two positions which seemingly can’t be bridged. On one side you have not just hostile allies in Europe, Zelensky and indeed the Washington political establishment, which wants none of this at all, what he’s trying to do. And on the other side, you have Russia with fairly high demands in terms of what it wants in this peace agreement, given that this has been going on unresolved now for 30 years.

And it did remind me a bit about, I did an interview with Fyodor Lukyanov. He’s got actually several positions. We used to work together in same department in Moscow and well every year at the Valdai discussion club he’s the one sitting next to Putin interviewing him. And he was making the point, because I asked him, what do you make of Trump’s rhetoric shifting back and forth?

And he had a good point, though, which is, well, we have to see at what point he starts, because Europeans, of course, they boycott all diplomacy. They don’t want to talk to Russia. Zelensky, he ruled out talking to Russia. He wants no negotiations, no diplomacy, just more weapons. Anything else is unacceptable. But he was making a point. Well, just look at the gradual steps.

And now two months down the road, you have in France, they’re now discussing whether or not they should reopen diplomacy with Russia. You’re having Zelensky. Yeah, well, he’s sending his team. They’re meeting with the Russians, talking. They’re looking for a way to resolve this.

So there has to be a step by step. So it’s, I mean, maybe it’s a bit of both. Maybe some of the information Trump isn’t really on top of, But I think ignoring, as you say, ignoring this difficult positions between demanding Russians and very unflexible and demanding Europeans and Zelensky that he has to navigate the space, I’m not sure.

But also I’ve heard another theory that, well, which I also see as probable, that the United States isn’t necessarily that eager to give up all containment of Russia, but they rather want to outsource it to the Europeans. I was wondering what you thought about this.

Doctorow: 37:37
Well, this would have been certainly a good interpretation before Mr. Trump and his associates gutted the CIA, gutted the National Foundation of Democracy, before they took all the bad guys that they could find out of the federal government. I don’t know who is continuing this type of intervention, neocon intervention. Maybe it’s just the Soros foundation or similar organizations. Certainly, the Brits are deep in this, probably much more responsible for any of these nefarious developments than the Americans are.

The problem with Trump, and which puts me in an awkward position is the sharp contrast between what he is doing as a peacemaker in Ukraine and what he is doing as an enabler of genocide in Gaza. When I listened, I think it was Politico, it was being interviewed this morning by the BBC about Mr. Trump as a peacemaker and how it pains him to hear about people being killed in war. What can I say?

That is not the Trump that I am an apologist for, so to speak. I am in favor of what he’s doing in Ukraine. I believe it is well planned that he has very able assistance, in Steve Witkoff, to keep him in line, to keep his thinking solid. But of course, he is working with the same Witkoff doing this very, very nasty cooperation with Netanyahu’s government in genocide.

So it’s a mixed picture, a very mixed picture. But to think that he shifts from day to day, well, I can’t abide that. There is clearly a very heavy commitment of that man to find a peace in Ukraine, not because he loves peace and is worried about people being killed, but because of much bigger things, how he wants to reshape global geopolitics. And yes, of course, you’re right. The idea of separating Russia from China is an idee fixe of many people in his circle, starting with Rubio, his secretary of state.

So that is certainly guiding his attention to Russia and his attempts to deal diplomatically and cordially with Mr. Putin.

Diesen: 40:43
I think Russia would have been more vulnerable to be swayed by this earlier, because from ’94 when they established the OSCE, they thought, okay, now finally we have an inclusive Europe. And then came 1999 with the NATO expansion. And then they always tried to find an agreement. Under Medvedev in 2008, they had this proposal for a new European security architecture in 2010. Putin pushed forward this idea of a EU-Russia union, and all the way up to 2014. But 2014, I think this is when things began to break and they began to shift from greater Europe to greater Eurasia. However, yeah, in 2022, I think that sealed the deal for certain. But if this would have been back in 2008, 2007, eight, well, seven, when Putin made that speech at Munich, I think that was kind of the last chance to accept, including Russia into this Europe they were building.

I think it’s just too late at this point. They also don’t see a future in Europe, although this is the important thing as well. It’s not only to see Europe as hostile and stagnant, but also the Russians have less historical baggage in Asia and there’s more giants there. They’re not feared or hated as much. And economies are better.

It’s hard to argue against. If you take the point of departure, what is in Russia’s interest, it kind of makes sense why they’re not really looking to Europe any more.

Doctorow: 42:32
Let’s not speak about Europe. Let’s speak about who runs Europe. Who runs Europe is Germany. And the responsibility for this lost opportunity I put directly at the door of Angela Merkel in 2008. You have mentioned the Medvedev initiative. I followed that very closely when it was made. It was very badly prepared by the Russians. Mr. Lavrov made an attempt to revive that after it was cursorily dismissed by Merkel, to breathe some life into it because the text that Medvedev released, and I think he released it on social media, he was trying to be very, very “with it”, very up to date. America still had public diplomacy as a flag they were flying, and he used that. Anyway, it was badly done. Nonetheless, she dismissed it out of hand.

“We have security done. It’s called NATO. Don’t bother us.” And that was a disastrous, lost opportunity because Mr. Medvedev say he was the stand-in for Putin, but he was the president. And he didn’t have “stand-in here” across his chest. He could do something and sign something and negotiate something. And everyone said, “Oh, Merkel, she speaks Russian. She gets on with them. She is the intercessor with the Russians” and so on.

She hated the Russians from her childhood, obviously. And she was dismissive of them in the most crude way. When in 2012 she ended all talk about visa-free travel saying they just– “We’re not going to let those crooks into our country”, as if every Russian was an oligarch. And those thieving oligarchs all got into the country anyway, but normal citizens were not able to. She was the point of departure for where we are today. I say that because she had control of the appointment of the president of the Commission.

Wienker was put in at her suggestion because he was manageable, in the usual sense. That’s to say they had the goods on him. So he was under her control. The parliament, the European parliament, was under her control effectively because the European People’s Party even back then, in circa 2015, had complete control of the European Parliament. And she missed the opportunity.

The German, why? It wasn’t an accident. Because Germany had done a switch. Germany was no longer interested in the East. Germany was interested in Mittel Europa.

Germany had found very good colonies in Poland and the Czech Republic for very cheap labor to facilitate its export industry of manufactured goods. They never put in to the, particularly in Poland, complete cycle production. They put in “bits and parts” production. So the Poles had nothing, the Germans had everything. They had all the profit coming from the exports.

46:03
And given that the economic interests of Germany, the number of Germans employed, thanks to Mittel Europa, no doubt many times exceeded the 400,000 Germans in 2015 who were said to owe their jobs to the Russian trade, Germany economically decided, the Mittelstand decided that the Mittel Europa friends within the former Soviet bloc were more valuable to them than good relations with Russia. And it so happened that those countries, Poland and the Baltics, they’re Russian-hating. And Germany joined the Russian-hating gang.

So, I say we can talk about Europe’s mistakes, but I think we’re missing the point. We’re missing the point today, considering where Mr. Merz is. He didn’t come from nowhere. He’s in direct line of this German turn against Russia. He’s an aggravated case. He’s an ugly case, but it’s the same line that you can find in 2008, and still better in 2014 with the Minsk Accords, to which she was a party. She was anti-Russian, and she and Germany controlled the European institutions.

Diesen:
Yeah, just as we said, the 2008 proposal by Medvedev for new European security architecture, It didn’t actually call for replacing NATO or disbanding NATO. It recognized solely that we need a wider pan-European umbrella over this because NATO is a military block. It has zero-sum security. It does not subscribe to indivisible security.

So in order not to end up in a situation where the borderline states, be it Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, have to choose between East and West and we rip up the society and pull them in each direction that we have some common security architecture so we don’t end up that everything is zero sum. This was it, and they poured cold water on it.

Doctorow:
They poured cold water on him. And this was a terrible mistake. They didn’t have good Russian knowledge. They should have understood that this is the most optimistic, sunny man running Russia for, I don’t know, 200 years. There was no one like Medvedev. He was very well disposed to the West. He was a very outgoing person. And to confuse him with Medvedev today is a tremendous mistake. He was a potential good friend of Europe. And they spurned him. They humiliated him.

Diesen: 48:47
Yeah, Now I remember then when I lived in Russia, the way they talked about him, “Ah, he’s weak, blah, blah, blah.” You know, he put himself out there and they humiliated him.

So again, it’s indistinguishable from the Medvedev you see today though has become, I guess, learned from his past and become very hawkish. My last question, though, was just, I guess, is a smaller question. What do you make sense of the meeting which took place in Alaska? Is this, as some have suggested, just to get as far away from Europe as possible, unburdened by this conflict?

Doctorow:
No, I think that Trump was advised, I don’t think that he initiated this, but certainly got very clever advisors who did, for symbolism, so many elements of symbolism, taking Alaska. Some of them have been called out, including by Putin at the press briefing after the summit. But others which have not been called out generally, as I said the first thing that I wanted to call out is that it was bought. And it could be a model for how to end the Ukraine War if somebody would like to take it up, but it seems like nobody does.

50:08
And the other thing is that despite its [being] outside of Russian control since 1857– I think that was the year of the purchase, the Seward Purchase– there is a lively Russian community there, including the patriarch, sorry, the Metropolit, whom Putin met yesterday to give him two icons from Moscow, and the how many communities that are, Orthodox church communities, in Alaska, with mostly Eskimos in there as congregants, Inuits it is, properly speaking.

And the physical proximity, to remind everyone that Russia and the United States are not separated by oceans, but are separated by four kilometers of sea. The two islands that they both hold in the middle of the Bering Strait. This is important. It also would be, as it is on American soil, it’s the possibilities of wiretapping.

“Wiretapping”, it’s an old-fashioned term. Simply of snooping on the exchanges if it were taking place in the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. Let’s not kid ourselves, it must be bugged like hell. And if they want to have complete confidentiality, until of course, they pass the bomb to Macron for what they decided, when it confidentially ended. Nonetheless, if they wanted to have a few moments of confidentiality, it was best assured of the United States.

It also gave Mr. Trump the opportunity to have a B-2 fly over them. Just to remind Mr. Putin, in case he forgot, the Americans do have a little bit of military technology out there. So in many respects, it was very convenient.

52:14
Also, the issue of flight rights, if it were to be in some places, it would be difficult for the Russians to get the flight passage authorization. Here there was no issue of the sort. They just flew over their own territory till they flew into American air space. These were reasons.

Of course, the opportunity for Putin to pay his respects to the nine Soviet Russian airmen whose tombs are just near that base and whom he visited after the summit. All of these are very important, symbolically, and to separate it from all other meetings that have been had and will be had as the negotiation and the war continues.

Diesen: 53:19
Yeah, whenever the Russians want to reach out to the Americans, they usually point out the shared war effort in the Second World War. But I guess this could be also a positive one, that they have this shared cultural heritage found in Alaska. The fact that it was also purchased in 1867 after the Civil War as opposed to taken by force, it makes it easier to celebrate a common heritage there as opposed to if it would have shifted hands in a more brutal manner.

But yeah, I don’t know. I thought it did take me by surprise. I had my money on United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia. So I, yeah, I was mistaken on this. Gilbert, Doctorow, thank you so much for your time.

Doctorow: 54:11
Thanks for inviting me.

Vladimir Putin held a meeting on the outcomes of the Russia-US talks

Upon his return from the United States, Vladimir Putin held a meeting on the outcomes of the Russia-US talks (https://t.me/news_kremlin_eng/6017)

The President briefed senior officials of the Presidential Executive Office, the Government, the State Duma, ministries and agencies on the outcomes (https://t.me/news_kremlin_eng/6021) of the meeting in Anchorage.

Key statements from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s working meeting in the Kremlin to discuss the results of his meeting with US President Donald Trump in Alaska by Ria Novosti:

The visit to Alaska was “timely and very useful,” and his conversation with Trump “frank and informative.”

All areas of the Russia-US cooperation were discussed during the talks.

There was the opportunity to “calmly and thoroughly” outline Russia’s position on the Ukrainian conflict.

A fair resolution to the Ukrainian crisis was discussed.

Russia wants to see the fighting in Ukraine end and would like to move to resolving all issues with Kiev peacefully.

Moscow respects the Trump administration’s position on the need for an early cessation of hostilities in Ukraine.

Addressing root causes of the Ukrainian crisis should be the foundation of a future peace settlement.

Trump received the War’s Victor

Michael von der Schulenburg: Alaska Meeting Was a “Game Changer”

Excellent discussion and correct preliminary conclusion. “Trust-building” was leitmotif, to halt the runaway train to nuclear war. Reality between the two who count are now materially different. Europeans stand alone, and will cast off by Empire. “The Peace” is gonna be imposed on the crazed Europeans, and others fueling Forever Wars. Russia is recognized as peer power that must be negotiated with, sans diktat or derision, as they hold the cards.

Formal Readout: Joint news conference by the President of Russia and the President of the United States

It is also important to note that our shared history and many positive events are largely related to Alaska. There is still an enormous cultural legacy preserved since the age of Russian America, with Russian Orthodox churches and more than 700 place-names of Russian origin.

During World War II, Alaska served as the starting point for the legendary air route that delivered lend-lease supplies, including military aircraft and other equipment. It was a dangerous and challenging route over enormous ice-covered territories. Nevertheless, the pilots and experts of both countries did everything they could to bring victory together. They risked and sacrificed their lives for our common victory.

I have just visited the Russian city of Magadan. A monument honouring Russian and American pilots stands there, adorned with the Russian and American flags. I know that here, too, there is a similar monument, and at a war cemetery a few kilometres away from here, there are graves of Soviet pilots who lost their lives in that heroic mission. We appreciate the efforts of US officials and citizens to preserve their memory. This is a dignified and noble undertaking.

We will always remember other examples from history when our countries stood together against common enemies in the spirit of combat camaraderie and alliance, rendering each other help and support. I am certain that this legacy will help us restore and develop mutually beneficial and equal ties at this new stage, even in the most challenging conditions.

As you know, Russian-American summit talks have not been held for over four years. That is a long time. This period has proved exceptionally difficult for bilateral relations, and, let’s face it, they have deteriorated to their lowest point since the Cold War. And this does not benefit either our countries or the world in general.

Obviously, sooner or later we had to remedy the situation, to move from confrontation to dialogue, and in this regard, an in-person meeting between the two heads of state was really overdue – of course, with serious and thorough preparations, and this work has been done.

President Trump and I have established very good direct contacts. We have had frank conversations on the phone multiple times. As you know, the US President’s Special Envoy, Mr Witkoff, has visited us in Russia several times. Our aides and heads of foreign ministries have maintained regular contacts.

As you are well aware, the situation around Ukraine is one of the key issues. We acknowledge the commitment of the US administration and President Trump personally to help resolve the Ukrainian conflict, and the President’s willingness to understand the root causes and its origins.

I have repeatedly said that the developments in Ukraine present fundamental threats to Russia’s national security. Moreover, we have always considered the Ukrainian people – and I have said this many times – a brotherly people, no matter how strange it may sound in today’s circumstances. We share the same roots, and the current situation is tragic and deeply painful to us. Therefore, our country is sincerely interested in ending this.

Yet, we are convinced that, for the conflict resolution in Ukraine to be long-term and lasting, all the root causes of the crisis, which have been repeatedly explained, must be eliminated; all of Russia’s legitimate concerns must be taken into account, and a fair security balance must be restored in Europe and the rest of the world.

I agree with President Trump. He said today that Ukraine’s security must be ensured by all means. Of course, we are ready to work on this.

Hopefully, the understanding we have reached will bring us closer to this goal and open up the road to peace in Ukraine.

We hope that Kiev and the European capitals will take the current developments constructively and will neither try to put up obstacles nor attempt to disrupt the emerging progress with provocative acts or behind-the-scenes plots.

By the way, under the new US administration, our bilateral trade has been on the rise. So far, it is a symbolic figure but still, the trade is 20 percent higher. What I am saying is that we have many interesting areas for cooperation.

It is obvious that the Russian-US business and investment partnership holds tremendous potential. Russia and the United States have much to offer each other in trade, energy, digital and high technologies, and space development.

Cooperation in the Arctic and the resumption of region-to-region contacts, including between the Russian Far East and the West Coast of the USA, also appear relevant.

Overall, it is crucial and necessary that our countries turn the page and get back to cooperation.

Symbolically, as I have already said, there is an international date line nearby, on the border between Russia and the United States, where you can literally step from one day into another. I hope that we can do the same in political affairs.

I would like to thank Mr Trump for our joint work and for the friendly and trust-based conversation. The main thing is that there was a commitment on both sides to produce a result. We see that the US President has a clear idea of what he wants to achieve, that he sincerely cares about his country’s prosperity while showing awareness of Russia’s national interests.

I hope that today’s agreements will become a reference point, not only for resolving the Ukrainian problem but also for resuming the pragmatic business relations between Russia and the United States.

To conclude, I would like to add the following. I remember that in 2022, during my last contacts with the former US administration, I tried to convince my former US counterpart that we should not bring the situation to a point fraught with serious repercussions in the form of hostilities, and I said directly at the time that it would be a big mistake.

Today, we hear President Trump saying: “If I had been president, there would have been no war.” I believe it would have been so. I confirm this because President Trump and I have established a generally very good, businesslike and trustworthy contact. And I have every reason to believe that, as we move along this path, we can reach – and the sooner the better – the end of the conflict in Ukraine.

Thank you for the attention.

President of the United States of America Donald Trump: Thank you very much, Mr President. That was very profound, and I will say that I believe we had a very productive meeting.

There were many-many points that we agreed on, most of them, I would say, a couple of big ones that we have not quite gotten there, but we have made some headway. So, there is no deal until there is a deal.

I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate, and I will, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today’s meeting. It is ultimately up to them. They are going to have to agree with [what] Marco [Rubio] and Steve [Witkoff] and some of the great people from the Trump administration who have come here, Scott [Bessent] and John Ratcliffe. Thank you very much. But we have some of our really great leaders. They have been doing a phenomenal job.

We also have some tremendous Russian business representatives here, and I think, you know, everybody wants to deal with us. We have become the hottest country anywhere in the world in a very short period of time. We look forward to that, we look forward to dealing, we are going to try to get this over with.

We really made some great progress today. I have always had a fantastic relationship with President Putin, with Vladimir. We had many tough meetings, good meetings. We were interfered with by the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. It made it a little bit tougher to deal with, but he understood it. I think he has probably seen things like that during the course of his career. He has seen it all. But we had to put up with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax. He knew it was a hoax, and I knew it was a hoax, but what was done was very criminal, but it made it harder for us to deal as a country in terms of the business and all of the things that we would like to have dealt with. But we will have a good chance when this is over.

So just to put it very quickly, I am going to start making a few phone calls and tell them what happened. We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We did not get here but we have a very good chance of getting there.

I would like to thank President Putin and his entire team, whose faces, who I know, in many cases, otherwise, other than that, whose faces I get to see all the time in the newspapers. You are almost as famous as the boss, but especially this one right over here.

But we had some good meetings over the years, right? Good, productive meetings over the years, and we hope to have that in the future. But let’s do the most productive one right now. We are going to stop, really, five, six, seven thousand, thousands of people a week from being killed, and President Putin wants to see that as much as I do.

So again, Mr President, I would like to thank you very much, and we will speak to you very soon, and probably see you again very soon. Thank you very much, Vladimir.

Vladimir Putin: Next time in Moscow.

Donald Trump: Oh, that is an interesting one. I do not know. I will get a little heat on that one, but I could see it possibly happening. Thank you very much, Vladimir. And thank you all. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you so much.

‘Judging Freedom’: Alaska Preview

Those in the Community who read my essay this morning on Substack will be heartened by what I had to say a few minutes ago in my weekly chat with Judge Andrew Napolitano. 

I introduced a pessimistic note this morning with reference to the discussions Donald Trump had with European leaders and with Volodymyr Zelensky via video conference. Trump was said to have promised Zelensky not to deal with the territorial issue when speaking to Vladimir Putin, nor would he discuss anything other than the Ukraine cease fire. Moreover, other sources said yesterday that Trump threatens Putin with “consequences” if he does not agree to a ceasefire tomorrow.

All of this sounded as if Trump had caved in to European pressure and reversed his position on the “summit,” essentially depriving it of any reason to be held.

However, in the couple of hours before the start of ‘Judging Freedom’ I listened to the latest broadcast of the authoritative Russian state television news and commentary show ‘Sixty Minutes’ and to a news wrap-up of Rossiya 1. This made it clear that Russia remains optimistic about the meeting with Trump and expects it to be substantive and successful. They named the five members of the Russian negotiating team – Minister of Defense Belousov, Foreign Minister Lavrov, Head of the Foreign Direct Investment Fund Dmitriev, Presidential advisor Ushakov and Finance Minister Siluanov. This indicates that a broad program of discussions is anticipated, including surely restoration of normal trade ties. The Russian commentary indicated that stabilization of global politics has been put on the agenda by the Russians.

As I said to Judge Napolitano, it is clear that Trump is lying to someone – either to the Europeans or to Putin.  I choose to believe that he is lying to the Europeans and that he will come back and put them in their place if he indeed reaches an amicable agreement on the major issues with Vladimir Putin, as his envoy Steve Witkoff seems to have done when the notion of a summit was discussed.

I used the opportunity in the interview to mention that the Russians have made stunning advances of more than 21 km yesterday in their ongoing offensive along the line of confrontation in Donbas.  This greatly accelerated  advance proves that the pace of Russian military action in the war is not dictated by the cautious rules of war of attrition alone but is susceptible to political scaling up as the geopolitical situation demands.  Should these talks tomorrow fail, I have little doubt that the Russians will make a very fast advance on the still untouched Ukrainian oblasts of Nikolaevsk and Odessa, reducing Ukraine to a land-locked rump state in preparation for its military obliteration.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Pepe Escobar & Nima: Putin RALLIES BRICS for a Showdown as Trump Turns Up the Heat in Alaska!

‼️ Michael Hudson: Note 2 on the planned Alaska meeting

The discussion and the thinking continue:  Note 1 is here

Putin started this year’s meetings with Trump by saying that the root of their problems is not Ukraine. Ukraine is only an arena in the fight by NATO (led by the US) against Russia, China, and their BRICS and Global South allies.

To solve the fighting in Ukraine, the expansion of NATO must end. That is what Putin demands.

But there seems to be zero chance of this developing. Even if Trump stops US support of NATO’s war in Ukraine, NATO’s roots in the EU bureaucracy (von der Lehen and KK), Britain under Starmer and MI6, Germany under Merz and the Bundeswehr trying to become the new Wehrmacht, and Macron’s France are acting on their own, almost instinctive hatred of Russia.

So there is little chance of agreement, certainly over Russia’s demand that the West recognize its imminent military victory and ability to create a postwar shrunken Ukraine.

NATO has just intruded into the Caucasus with Azerbaijan and Armenia, with US control of the Zangezur Corridor threatening Iran and also China’s Belt and Road trajectory.

And the US has withdrawn from the last vestiges of atomic arms control, while sending nuclear submarines nearer to Russia in at least a symbolically threatening move.

This reflects the Neocon demand for U.S. unipolar hegemony, preventing any country from having its own sovereignty to act independently of the United States.

So my guess is that at the upcoming meetings, the United States has only one tactic – and it is a tactic that Trump loves for his own psychological purposes:

America has only one thing to offer other countries: the (temporary) promise NOT to hurt them. There’s nothing positive to offer, given its de-industrialization and the world’s de-dollarization. (Has Germany ever begun to get back its gold reserves left on deposit with the New York Fed?)

Trump’s generals (the hardest-liner is now in Kiev) and EU/NATO are urging more and tougher sanctions against Russia, mainly to fall on the EU and BRICS countries.

‼️ Michael Hudson: Note 1 on the planned Alaska meeting

It is a distortion of reality for the press to depict Russia as at war with Ukraine. It is at war with NATO; Ukraine is the battlefield for this war, the arena.

NATO uses the old police tactic of Good Cop (now ironically played by Trump for the dominant US side – that’s usually the lead cop), with the EU (Britain, Germany and France) being the bad cops, good type casting.

As a passive arena for NATO expansion, Ukraine has no right to be represented, except to augment the bad-cop contingent for “peace talks.”

The talks in Alaska will be in two parts. Part I is whether the U.S. will acknowledge that the trajectory of the current fighting is for a total Russian victory, on the terms that Putin has been explaining for two years: no NATO membership, no foreign arms supplies, Nuremberg-like trials of the Banderite leaders, and perhaps reparations by Ukraine and NATO for the rebuilding of formerly “Ukrainian” Russia.

Russia may give a sop to depict the $300 billion that the EU has confiscated to rebuilding what was Ukraine’s Russian-speaking East. That would be a concession that’s not really a sacrifice.

The real discussion will determine the aftermath, starting with whether a new atomic missile and arms treaty will be put in place.

If it cannot be enacted, Putin’s position logically will be as follows:

“We don’t want an atomic war with the United States. Let’s agree that if a German or other EU/NATO missile hits Russia, when we retaliate it will only be against Britain, Germany and France, not North America.”

The US will be told to keep its submarines away from Russian borders, and to stay out of the Black Sea altogether.

That’s the “peace” proposal. Peace in the Ukrainian arena will be (or will have been) established on the battlefield, now that the outcome is obvious.

A new Ukrainian government will be a Russian proxy, not Poroshenko or other NATO puppet oligarch.

Putin / Trump meeting: Yury Uskanov

Comment (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77725) by Aide to the President of Russia Yury Ushakov on Vladimir Putin’s meeting with US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff (August 7, 2025)

Interview is here, loud and clear: https://t.me/rtnews/105741

Yury Ushakov: This meeting took place in a business-like atmosphere and was quite constructive. Both Sides can be satisfied with the outcomes of this conversation. The discussion focused on matters dealing with future efforts to work together in the context of resolving the Ukraine crisis.

Once again, it was noted that Russia-US relations could be placed on a totally different, mutually beneficial footing, which would be in stark contrast with the way these relations have evolved in recent years.

Regarding the Ukraine agenda, at the proposal of the United States, there was a principled agreement to hold a top-level bilateral meeting in the coming days, which means a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Together with our American colleagues, we are about to start working on the specific parameters of this meeting and its venue. The venue has also been coordinated, and we will communicate on this point a little later.

As for the option of holding a trilateral meeting, which for some reason became a subject of speculation yesterday in Washington, the US representative simply mentioned it during the meeting at the Kremlin. However, there was no specific discussion on this topic. Russia has not commented on this option in any way. Our suggestion primarily focuses on preparing for a bilateral meeting with Donald Trump.

What matters most is that the meeting proves successful and produces tangible results.

It is already well known that Donald Trump spoke to several of his European partners on the phone to discuss these issues after Steve Witkoff reported back to him. It is worth noting in this regard that we have also been updating our close partners and friends through the relevant communication channels to inform them on the topics discussed during the meeting with Steve Witkoff.

Next week was suggested as a possible timeframe [for holding the meeting], but since the effort to prepare for this important event is only just beginning for both Parties, it is hard to say how long the preparations will take.

That said, the option of holding this meeting sometime next week was on the table, and we hold quite a positive view in this regard.

Ushakov’s statements: Meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff:

3-Hours Later:

Main points from Ushakov’s statements following Putin’s meeting with the US leader’s special envoy Steve Witkoff:

The conversation between Putin and Whitkoff was useful and constructive.

Putin and Whitkoff discussed the Ukrainian crisis.

Russia conveyed signals on the Ukrainian issue to the American side and received corresponding signals from Trump.

The Russian President has complete information on the Ukrainian issue.

Prospects for the possible development of strategic cooperation between the US and Russia were also discussed.

“Trump has not yet been briefed on the results of the meeting. Therefore, I would refrain from more detailed comments. We will see when Witkoff can report on today’s conversation to Trump. After that, obviously, I will be able to supplement my comments with something more substantial,” – Ushakov

Putin on Oreshnik, disappointment in talks, corruption in Ukraine: in Brief

According to the Russian leader, all the frustrations in the negotiation process stem from “excessive expectations”  https://tass.com/politics/1997165

BRICS: Mr Putin’s address at the plenary session of the 17th BRICS Summit

Vladimir Putin took part, via videoconference, in the main plenary session of the 17^th BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, under Brazilian Chairmanship.

During the session, dedicated to peace, security, and global governance reforms, participants discussed prospects of further cooperation between the BRICS states in politics, trade, the economy, culture, and humanitarian affairs, as well as the international agenda.

After the plenary session the final Declaration of the 17^th BRICS Summit has been adopted.

* * *

Remarks at the main plenary session of the 17^th BRICS Summit

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, friends.

First of all, I would like to join the words of gratitude to President Lula da Silva and the Brazilian Chairmanship for their active efforts in advancing the strategic partnership within BRICS.

It is important that the BRICS countries continue to deepen their cooperation across key sectors in politics, security, the economy and finance, cultural and humanitarian contacts.

This group has significantly grown and now includes leading states in Eurasia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Together, we possess a vast political, economic, scientific, technological, and human potential.

The BRICS countries account for not only a third of the Earth’s landmass and almost half the planet’s population, but also for 40 percent of the global economy, while their combined GDP at purchasing power parity stands at $77 trillion. This is the 2025 data according to the IMF. By the way, BRICS is substantially ahead of other groups in this parameter, including G7 with $57 trillion.

Year after year, our group’s global authority and influence continue growing. BRICS has rightfully established itself as one of the key centres of global governance, with our collective voice in support of the global majority’s vital interests resonating ever more powerfully across the international stage.

BRICS has many supporters in the Global South and East. The culture of an open partnership and cooperation, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests in the group appeals to them. Based on this knowledge, during the summit in Kazan, Russia, in October 2024, we decided to establish a category of BRICS partner states, to develop ad hoc practical cooperation with all interested countries. BRICS has ten partner states to date.

I will stress that the BRICS countries represent different development models, religions, authentic civilisations and cultures, while unanimously upholding equality and neighbourliness. They prioritise traditional values, the high ideals of friendship and accord, striving to contribute to global stability and security, the prosperity and success of all nations. Without doubt, this constructive approach and unifying agenda are highly relevant amidst the geopolitical challenges of today.

We all see that the world is experiencing tectonic shifts. The unipolar system of international relations that once served the interests of the so-called golden billion, is losing its relevance, replaced by a more just multi-polar world. Global economic patterns are changing faster. Everything indicates that the liberal globalisation model is becoming obsolete while the centre of business activity is gravitating towards developing markets, launching a powerful growth wave, including in the BRICS countries. To maximise the emerging prospects, it is important to intensify cooperation within the group, primarily in technology, effective resource development, logistics, insurance, trade and finance.

It is important to continue expanding the use of national currencies in mutual payments. It is believed that creating an independent payment and monetary system within BRICS will expedite currency transactions while also ensuring their effectiveness and security. Furthermore, using national currencies in trade within BRICS is steadily growing.

In 2024, the share of Russia’s national currency, the ruble, and the currencies of our friendly states in transactions with Russia and other BRICS countries reached 90 percent.

Multiplying mutual capital investment by the BRICS countries, including through BRICS mechanisms, primarily, the New Development Bank appears to be an important goal as well. To this end, Russia proposed creating a whole new BRICS investment platform. The idea behind it is to jointly develop coordinated instruments to support and to bring in the funds from the economies of BRICS countries and from the Global South and Global East countries.

Importantly, our Brazilian colleagues were receptive of the initiatives put forward during Russia’s chairmanship last year and continued to implement them. The common achievements include launching a special mechanism for holding consultations on World Trade Organisation matters. The processes for creating a grain exchange, a climate research centre, a permanent logistics platform, and a sports cooperation programme in BRICS are moving forward.

Please note that there are other valuable ideas proposed by Russia, which include the formation of a carbon market partnership, an arbitration investment centre, a fair competition platform, and a permanent tax secretariat within BRICS. We count on our BRICS colleagues supporting these promising initiatives.

One more thing. In September, Moscow will host Intervision, a popular international television song contest which has got the attention of numerous performers from BRICS and BRICS partner countries who confirmed their willingness to participate in it. A humanitarian project of that magnitude is designed to promote universal, cultural, family, and spiritual values ​​shared by our countries.

I would like to close by thanking our colleagues from the BRICS member states for their productive and constructive interaction. We believe that the Rio de Janeiro Summit final declaration, which is ready for approval, provides a good premise for further joint work in the spirit of continuity and equal cooperation which is characteristic of BRICS.

Thank you.

Ushakov’s commentary on Putin / Trump telephone discussion

Commentary by Aide to the President of Russia Yuri Ushakov following the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump

Yuri Ushakov: Dear colleagues,

Another almost hour-long telephone conversation between President of Russia Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump has just concluded.

Donald Trump began the conversation by announcing that the US Congress passed his administration’s flagship bill envisaging reforms in taxation, immigration, and the energy sector. President Trump himself calls it the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’

Vladimir Putin wished Donald Trump success in implementing the changes he envisioned and, naturally, offered greetings for Independence Day, the national day of the United States, which will be celebrated tomorrow.

At the same time, it was noted by our side that Russia had played a significant part in the establishment of the United States as a nation, including during the War of Independence, fought 250 years ago, and later during the Civil War, which ended 160 years ago. It was stated that our countries are bound not only by their alliance during World Wars One and Two, but also by deeper historical ties.

Incidentally, Vladimir Putin mentioned that just before speaking with Donald Trump, he had a conversation with representatives of Russia’s business community. One of the ideas suggested during that meeting was holding an exchange of motion pictures promoting traditional values, which both we and the Trump administration hold dear. President Trump reacted immediately and said he liked this idea.

There was a detailed discussion of the situation surrounding Iran, and the state of affairs in the Middle East in general. The Russian side emphasised it was crucial to settle any and all contentious issues, differences, and conflicts exclusively via political and diplomatic means. The two leaders agreed to maintain contact on the issue between the respective foreign services, defence ministries, and presidential aides.

The latest developments in Syria were addressed as well. Similarly, the Russian and US sides intend to continue the dialogue on the matter.

Naturally, the issues surrounding Ukraine were also discussed. Donald Trump has once again raised the issue of ending the hostilities as soon as possible. In turn, Vladimir Putin noted that we still continued the search for a political, negotiated solution to the conflict. He informed his counterpart on the progress in implementing the humanitarian agreements reached during the second round of direct Russian-Ukrainian talks held in Istanbul. He also noted Russia was willing to pursue negotiations. Additionally, the President of Russia said that Russia would strive to achieve its goals, namely the elimination of the well-known root causes that led to the current state of affairs, the bitter confrontation that we are seeing now. Russia will not back down from these goals.

While exchanging views on bilateral matters, the two sides confirmed their mutual interest in implementing a number of promising projects in economy, notably the energy sector and space exploration.

Overall, I would like to point out that the conversation between the two presidents has, as always, shown that they are on the same page. It was candid, business-minded, and concrete. The two presidents will naturally continue communicating and will have another conversation soon.

Thank you.

President Putin: Plenary address at the EAEU summit and the Eurasian Economic Forum

I’d like to say that here in Minsk, we have a few hundred small, medium, and large-sized Russian enterprises, those who are directly involved in developing integration and economic ties with the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. They understand firsthand how much this integration does for them and how much needs to be done to improve them even further.

The EAEU has been a successful integration association, and the volume of trade turnover of the EAEU is comparable to the world’s leading economic powers, Russian President Vladimir Putin says at the Eurasian Economic Forum.

Statements published by Ria Novosti:

The EAEU is making a real contribution to creating a space for partnership and economic growth;

Russia will take into account all the useful ideas and recommendations made at the Eurasian Economic Forum in Minsk in its work to strengthen the EAEU;

The EAEU has grown stronger in 10 years since its creation, the economic potential of the five countries has strengthened;

The EAEU is open for cooperation with all interested partners;

The unemployment rate in the EAEU is 2.8%;

The unemployment rate in Russia is now 2.3%, which is one of the best indicators in the world today;

BRICS is working to create a digital investment platform, and similar initiatives can be implemented in the EAEU;

The EAEU countries are jointly making efforts to integrate financial infrastructure;

The situation in the Middle East is calming down;

The stop of the Iran-Israel conflict allows the world to count on the development of relations with the countries of the Middle East, including with Iran;

The freezing of Russian gold and foreign exchange assets is a robbery by the West;

The movement towards regional financial institutions in the world will only accelerate if frozen Russian assets are confiscated;

Russia is seeking to reduce the dependence on Western financial institutions;

Russia’s dialogue with the World Bank is now difficult due to the bias of Western financial institutions.

🚨 PRESIDENT PUTIN SPEAKS AT SPIEF PLENARY SESSION

PRESIDENT PUTIN SPEAKS AT SPIEF PLENARY SESSION https://t.co/nfz0eRSmEJ

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) June 20, 2025

Alternatives:

https://forumspb.com/en/programme/business-programme/150101/?ELEMENT_ID=150101#broadcast

https://www.facebook.com/100069392071612/videos/1229570355316906

https://www.facebook.com/100069392071612/videos/1229570355316906

Putin holds meeting with heads of international news agencies at SPIEF: Live Updates

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 18 June: What the Kremlin Thinks of Trump

‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 18 June: What the Kremlin Thinks of Trump

Today’s chat opened with the title question, what the Kremlin thinks of Trump.

I am always a bit embarrassed by questions of this nature because, of course, I am not a member of Putin’s inner circle, nor do I have direct access to such people. My reading of the Kremlin views on any given subject comes from my watching the leading talk shows like Vladimir Solovyov’s in which the panelists include chairmen of Duma committees like Defense, as well as experts in Middle Eastern affairs and professors of political science at Moscow State University or MGIMO, the university which trains the diplomatic corps.

Does the Kremlin believe that Trump is rational?  I believe so, and this stands in stark contrast to their reading of Joe Biden and his ‘puppet masters,’ nominal assistants Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken, whom Putin and Kremlin insiders considered to be insane and therefore very dangerous.

Does the Kremlin trust Trump?  I think not. But not because he is a liar or a card cheat.  No, because so much is beyond his control given the very strong opposition his policies face from leading figures in Congress and in the European Union, who are united against him.

Our conversation then moved in many different directions, often building on points I have made in recent essays published here.

One point that I was especially happy to elaborate on was my view that Trump is opportunistic. I qualified this by noting that I, for one, have respect for opportunism, which is a common trait in entrepreneurs, because my own start up the career ladder in the business world in 1975 was made possible precisely by opportunistic entrepreneurial employers. Of course, his opportunism can get Trump into trouble, as for example his latest jumping on the Vanquish Iran bandwagon in the belief, yet to be validated, that the Israelis truly have dealt Teheran severe blows from which their war effort cannot recover.  The fact is that we don’t really know at present who will win this war.

Another point we discussed was how flawed American foreign policy is right now under Trump.  The problem with this is that it all sounds like what I heard years ago from dissidents in Russia about the Putin ‘regime’ and life in their country:  all their complaints may have had some validity but they were unwilling to hear that the corruption and other ills they named were no greater and often less than what goes on in other countries around the world.   My colleagues in the Opposition to American foreign policy do not want to consider the world as it is and whom Trump has to deal with – namely elites whom I call jackals and depraved individuals. This goes for all of the leaders in Europe with a couple of exceptions, Hungary and Slovakia. Not to mention the war mongers who dominate Congress in both parties.  It is a mean world and that has to be taken into account when passing any judgment on Trump.

Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern on ‘Judging Freedom,’ 6 June 2025

Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern on ‘Judging Freedom,’ 6 June 2025

It is not my custom to post links to the video interviews of peers, but I will make an exception for yesterday evening’s ‘Judging Freedom’ Intel Roundup with ex-CIA analysts Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern. The show raises many more questions than it answers and provides stimulating food for thought to fill free moments this weekend. This is so because in what is a rare instance on these programs the two interviewees are in disagreement about most every question tossed to them by Judge Napolitano. That leaves a lot of room for the audience to work the angles and try to come to an independent determination.

See  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrKNU9PUesk

                                                           *****

I use the opportunity to put into the mix some of my own conclusions below relative to the questions posed by Napolitano. But first I note that, in general, I am cautious about expressing my differences with any of my peers. One reason is that some readers think that the Opposition to U.S. foreign policy should be totally aligned, should express solidarity and not show fault lines.  I strongly disagree, saying that solidarity behind wrong-headed analyses demonstrates weakness, not strength. But more importantly because when you spend time looking laterally at what others are doing and saying, you are not looking forward and being constructive.  I stopped reading the political scientists published by Foreign Affairs magazine a decade ago when I understood that critiquing their Neocon-inspired essays did not spread light, only rancor. 

With that waiver behind me, I proceed below to share some thoughts on the ‘Judging Freedom’ edition of Intel Roundup yesterday.

The dispute between Larry and Ray over whose sources in and out of Russia are more reliable in reading Russian thinking was a draw.

I agree with Larry Johnson that the airbase attack was not a pinprick and that Putin did not mention it in his address because it is all too embarrassing.  And yes, the Russian response is still coming, as Ray says.

But there are other aspects of all this that were not discussed.  The terror attacks on the trains were a much bigger issue than Larry Johnson thinks.  His recalling the Crocus massacre a year ago is wrong. Yes, 145 deaths then trump the 7 deaths in the Bryansk train wreck last weekend.   But how many Crocus entertainment centers are there in Russia?  Answer:  one, two, a half dozen perhaps.  How many railway tracks and bridges are there to blow up? The answer is thousands and thousands.  The Russian news a day ago showed the latest sabotage of various rail lines for the sake of derailment.   Russians travel the trains in hundreds of thousands or millions every day and there are a lot of very worried Russians now when they buy train tickets for their summer vacation.

The missile and drone attacks on Kiev and on every major city across Ukraine in the past couple of days IS NOT an appropriate Russian response to any of this.  It is only more of the same targeting arms production research centers and production facilities.  We see how effective they are: it is just sweeping back the tide.

My own guesstimate is that Putin will continue to go slowly, slowly and the level of anger in the broad Russian population will mount.

I never was in accord with Paul Craig Roberts that Vladimir Putin’s reasonable, sage and humane approach to the war with Ukraine is leading to ever more escalation and taking us precisely where Putin does not want to go, namely to a global nuclear war. I never was in agreement with Sergei Karaganov that Russia must stage a devastating strike in Western Europe to puncture the bubble of condescension and scorn for Russia’s supposed weakness and bring the European leaders to their senses.

However, I am becoming much more sympathetic to both of these positions day by day. We have already lost prospects for renewed arms negotiations talks thanks to the airbase attacks.

You cannot watch every kilometer of rail track or rail bridges across Russia to ensure the security of Russian citizens. The only solution, now that Putin has identified the Kiev regime as a terrorist state, is to destroy the decision-making centers, starting with Mr. Budanov and his whole team of terror planners and operatives in downtown Kiev. One Oreshnik hypersonic missile can do that.  Will Mr. Putin do what has to be done, or not?

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Trump says he spoke to Putin about Ukrainian attacks

Russia’s talking heads discuss the Ukrainian attacks on air bases across the RF this weekend

In an essay yesterday, I mentioned the Ukrainian drone attacks over the weekend on airbases across the Russian Federation from Murmansk in the North, to the Moscow region and Central Russia, across all of Siberia to the Baikal region (Irkutsk). My brief remarks were based on Western accounts, principally, The Financial Times, which in turn was re-transmitting what Kiev had to say about its daring and seemingly highly successful feats destroying Russian strategic bombers.

Note that the Ukrainians had stressed that the aircraft destroyed were being used to launch missiles that were fired on Ukraine. However, for our purposes in looking at the broader threat to Russian security that their destruction poses, should it have occurred as the Ukrainians say, these aircraft are key components in the Russian nuclear triad for strategic defense against the United States. The Ukrainians claim to have destroyed 40 such bombers, meaning one-third of the Russian fleet in this category of aircraft.

Last night, the Sunday edition of Vladimir Solovyov’s widely watched talk show featured a military expert panelist who told us a good deal more about what happened and in which directions Russian investigation of this calamity and thoughts of retaliation are headed.

Firstly, the Russians deny that the destruction was as extensive as the Ukrainians claim. They insist that their local air defenses neutralized most of the incoming drones. They speak of some damaged aircraft without specifying how many.  On the other hand, they are considering a nuclear response in line with their nuclear doctrine of retaliation for attacks which endanger Russian national security. This in its own way is an acknowledgement that something awful did occur.  The same panelist makes it clear that the ongoing investigation has already led to arrests of Russians who facilitated the attack by acts of commission and omission.

The attack this weekend took 18 months to prepare. The positive conclusion we may draw is that a follow-on attack is improbable if not impossible to carry out. Nonetheless, the events of the weekend highlight serious security problems that it will not be easy for Russian authorities to correct.

Specifically, it is now known that the Ukrainian drones were brought into the Russian Federation in truck-trailers. This means that the border inspections by Russian customs were strangely lax at more than one border crossing and on more than one date.  Secondly it raises the questions about the complicity of the truck drivers, some of whom have now been arrested and who, under questioning say they had no idea what the containers held.

Then there are questions one must pose regarding the long time that these trailers were kept in place in the general vicinity of Russia’s most important air bases. How could their presence not have raised questions for local officials?

Finally, the investigation has revealed that Russian military recruits on the airbases under attack photographed what was happening and the destruction of planes, and then put these images up on social media. That they had kept their personal phones with them was itself a violation of military regulations. That they posted images identifying the strategic bombers which were damaged is itself punishable under Russian wartime law.

                                                                                 ****

The next set of questions, for which as yet we have no answers, is how the Kremlin will respond to this attack that would appear to meet the criterion for nuclear escalation under the latest Russian doctrine.

Will President Putin now declare war on Ukraine, as his legalistic mind would suggest, to clear the way for destruction of the ‘decision making centers’ in Kiev, with or without all staff on board?  Will he break off all peace negotiations, as logic would have it? 

We will not have long to wait to get answers. I expect to see them in the coming week.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025

Translation below into German (Andreas Mylaeus)

Russlands Kommentatoren diskutieren die ukrainischen Angriffe auf Luftwaffenstützpunkte in der Russischen Föderation an diesem Wochenende

In einem Essay habe ich gestern die ukrainischen Drohnenangriffe vom Wochenende auf Luftwaffenstützpunkte in der gesamten Russischen Föderation erwähnt, von Murmansk im Norden über die Region Moskau und Zentralrussland bis hinüber nach Sibirien und in die Baikalregion (Irkutsk). Meine kurzen Ausführungen basierten auf westlichen Berichten, vor allem aus der Financial Times, die wiederum die Aussagen Kiews über seine gewagten und offenbar äußerst erfolgreichen Angriffe auf russische strategische Bomber wiedergab.

Es sei darauf hingewiesen, dass die Ukrainer betont hatten, dass die zerstörten Flugzeuge zum Abschuss von Raketen auf die Ukraine eingesetzt worden seien. Für unsere Zwecke, die darin bestehen zu betrachten, welche umfassendere Bedrohung für die russische Sicherheit von dieser Zerstörung ausgeht, sollten diese Angaben der Ukrainer zutreffen, sind diese Flugzeuge jedoch wichtige Komponenten der russischen nuklearen Triade zur strategischen Verteidigung gegen die Vereinigten Staaten. Die Ukrainer behaupten, 40 solcher Bomber zerstört zu haben, was einem Drittel der russischen Flotte in dieser Flugzeugkategorie entsprechen würde.

Gestern Abend war in der Sonntagsausgabe der vielgesehenen Talkshow von Wladimir Solowjow ein Militärexperte zu Gast, der uns einiges mehr darüber erzählte, was passiert ist und in welche Richtung die russischen Ermittlungen zu dieser Katastrophe und die Überlegungen zu Vergeltungsmaßnahmen gehen.

Erstens bestreiten die Russen, dass die Zerstörungen so umfangreich waren, wie die Ukrainer behaupten. Sie beharren darauf, dass ihre lokalen Luftabwehrsysteme die meisten der ankommenden Drohnen neutralisiert hätten. Sie sprechen von einigen beschädigten Flugzeugen, ohne jedoch zu präzisieren, wie viele es waren. Andererseits erwägen sie eine nukleare Reaktion im Einklang mit ihrer nuklearen Doktrin der Vergeltung für Angriffe, die die nationale Sicherheit Russlands gefährden. Dies ist in gewisser Weise ein Eingeständnis, dass etwas Schreckliches passiert ist. Derselbe Diskussionsteilnehmer macht deutlich, dass die laufenden Ermittlungen bereits zur Festnahme von Russen geführt haben, die den Angriff durch aktive Handlungen und Unterlassungen ermöglicht haben.

Die Vorbereitungen für den Angriff an diesem Wochenende dauerten 18 Monate. Die positive Schlussfolgerung, die wir ziehen können, ist, dass ein Folgeangriff unwahrscheinlich, wenn nicht sogar unmöglich ist. Dennoch zeigen die Ereignisse des Wochenendes, dass es für die russischen Behörden nicht einfach sein wird, die gravierenden Sicherheitsprobleme zu beheben.

Konkret ist nun bekannt, dass die ukrainischen Drohnen in Lkw-Anhängern in die Russische Föderation gebracht wurden. Das bedeutet, dass die Grenzkontrollen durch den russischen Zoll an mehr als einem Grenzübergang und an mehr als einem Tag seltsam lax waren. Zweitens wirft dies Fragen hinsichtlich der Komplizenschaft der Lkw-Fahrer auf, von denen einige inzwischen festgenommen wurden und die bei Verhören angaben, keine Ahnung gehabt zu haben, was sich in den Containern befand.

Dann stellen sich Fragen hinsichtlich der langen Zeit, in der diese Anhänger in der Nähe der wichtigsten Luftwaffenstützpunkte Russlands abgestellt waren. Wie konnte ihre Anwesenheit bei den örtlichen Behörden keine Fragen aufwerfen?

Schließlich hat die Untersuchung ergeben, dass russische Militärrekrutierte auf den angegriffenen Luftwaffenstützpunkten die Geschehnisse und die Zerstörung der Flugzeuge fotografiert und diese Bilder dann in den sozialen Medien veröffentlicht haben. Dass sie ihre privaten Mobiltelefone bei sich hatten, war an sich schon ein Verstoß gegen die militärischen Vorschriften. Dass sie Bilder veröffentlichten, auf denen die beschädigten strategischen Bomber zu erkennen waren, ist nach russischem Kriegsrecht strafbar.

                                                                                 ****

Die nächste Reihe von Fragen, auf die wir bislang noch keine Antworten haben, betrifft die Reaktion des Kremls auf diesen Angriff, der nach der neuesten russischen Doktrin offenbar die Kriterien für eine nukleare Eskalation erfüllt.

Wird Präsident Putin nun, wie es sein legalistischer Verstand vermuten lässt, der Ukraine den Krieg erklären, um den Weg für die Zerstörung der „Entscheidungszentren“ in Kiew zu ebnen, mit oder ohne alle Mitarbeiter an Bord? Wird er alle Friedensverhandlungen abbrechen, wie es die Logik vermuten lässt?

Wir werden nicht lange auf Antworten warten müssen. Ich erwarte sie in der kommenden Woche.

Transcript of NewsX interview, 31 May

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyVxbewKgP0

0:00 NewsX:
Ahead to Europe, US Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal have met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kiev as diplomatic efforts intensify ahead of expected peace talks. Graham announced that the US Senate will advance a bill next week to impose tougher sanctions on Russia and countries continuing to buy its oil and other goods. During their visit, both senators accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of stalling the peace process. Graham, who spoke with Donald Trump before the trip, said the US president expects concrete actions from Moscow. This comes as Trump called both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stubborn while trying to mediate an end to the war. Here is what the senators had to say.

Graham:
I don’t believe Russia is interested in peace. As we speak, they’re building up their forces along Ukraine’s border for a counteroffensive in the summer or the fall.

I’m going to Paris and I’m going to Germany after this trip. I’m going to urge our European allies to lower the price cap to make it harder on Putin’s fossil-fuel economy. Increase OPEC production and lower the price cap. If Europe will do that, it will matter. It will hurt Russia’s war machine.

Ukraine is ready for peace, is willing to make sacrifices and compromise for peace, is willing to stop the fighting to achieve peace. It’s clear to almost anyone, Putin is not remotely interested in anything that would lead to peace.

Blumenthal: 1:46
–on Vladimir Putin. And right now, let’s be very blunt, he’s playing the United States for a stooge. Americans don’t like to be made fools of. But that’s what he’s doing. Clearly, obviously, prolonging and playing for time, stonewalling and stalling and stringing out the President of the United States. Americans won’t stand for it.

NewsX:
Meanwhile Russia claims to have shot down over 1,400 Ukrainian drones in the past week and taken control of 13 settlements in Sumy, Kharkiv and the Donetsk region.

The Russian Defence Ministry also reported strikes on Ukrainian military infrastructure and reportedly repelled multiple attacks while advancing on several fronts. Ukraine on the other hand said its forces deployed a newly developed mobile air defence system to shoot down Russian drones over Odessa. Kiev reported 93 frontline clashes on May 30th alone, including the repelling of 28 Russian attacks near Pokrovsk. This comes as Russia’s ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nabensya, has said that Moscow is open to a ceasefire, but only if the West stops arming Ukraine and Kyiv halts troop mobilisation. He added that a simple truce would not be enough to end the conflict.

3:08
Well several developments there. Joining us to discuss them is Gilbert Doctorow, a Russian affairs expert, who’s joining us from Brussels. Gilbert, as always, thank you ever so much for taking the time to speak with us. Some strong statements there from US senators that are in Ukraine. They say that Russia is stalling. They say that sanctions are coming and that the US have been having the wool pulled over their eyes. What’s your response to those comments?

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 3:36
We’re watching political theatre. The two senators, Lindsey Graham and Blumenthal, who are now in Kiev, have been among the most vicious anti-Russian politicians on Capitol Hill. And they are both there expressing the views that they have said in Washington in the last week, that they are imposing on President Trump a bill calling, which sets these new sanctions on Russia as a harsh response to what they have just explained in the tape you gave, Russia supposedly unwilling to come to the peace table.

Well, that is political theater, but it does set certain conditions for Mr. Trump. And he is maneuvering very well, very skillfully, dancing his dance, which is to keep all of his opponents off balance, not to appear as if he’s siding with the Russians, when de facto he is. I expect that he will make the best of this bad situation. He will accept the sanctions as having been originated in his group, when they have not been. They are being imposed on him, and they are veto-proof because more than 80 senators have signed up to them.

4:50
But what I expect will come out of this is exactly the opposite of what Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal think will come out. It will be that Mr. Trump will gracefully acknowledge that Russia must be punished, and he will punish Russia, at the same time that he is balanced and is punishing Ukraine. The explanation will be that both sides need pressure to moderate their positions and come to terms. As regards Ukraine, he will cut all American aid to Ukraine, and that will sober up people in Kiev, and it will indeed bring the war closer to an end. That is what I see resulting from this political theatre that you have just put on the stage.

NewsX:
Gilbert, some US officials, top senators, we’ve also had European leaders as well, saying that Putin is dragging his feet and prolonging these peace negotiations to strengthen his position on the battlefield. Does Putin actually want peace?

Doctorow: 5:56
The appearance that we get from the news, on both alternative news and mainstream news in the West and the world at large, is that Mr. Trump is dominating all world developments. Indeed, you can’t go through a day without hearing major reports on what Trump is doing domestically or internationally.

The reality with respect to the Russian-Ukraine war is that Mr. Putin is dominating this. He is being very considerate. He doesn’t want to insult the Americans, least of all Mr. Trump. And he is giving them the appearance of controlling events, when de facto the Russians are controlling events. A week ago, Americans were saying that the Russians must change their negotiating team, Mr. Medinsky is too aggressive, and so forth, that the negotiation should be held in Geneva. Well, many suggestions were coming from the States.

6:50
The reality is that Mr. Putin and his team have determined where they will take place, which is in Istanbul, and what they will do. They will review memoranda, which will not be disclosed to the public or to the other side before the 2nd of June. And Mr. Medinsky remains in charge of the Russian negotiating team.

7:13
So what I’m saying is that without insulting President Trump, Mr. Putin is de facto controlling events. Draw it out? The Russians, of course, they’re drawing it out, until and unless they receive what they want, which is a truce, or a ceasefire that cannot be violated by the Ukrainians, in the sense that they will be rearming, repositioning their troops and so forth, and so regaining some stability which they have lost in the preceding weeks.

The war on the front is dominated by the Russians. They are pushing the Ukrainians steadily back, a few hundred meters a day, a few kilometers a day, all across the front. They are– in your news, you mentioned the attacks on Pakrovsk, which the Russians called Krasnoyarsk. Yes, that is a key transport hub, a major point of defense of the Ukrainian forces and distribution, logistic center, and it is partly taken over already by the Russians. It will soon be in Russian hands. After that, the next news that we’ll have, that you will be placing before your viewers, will be the Russians attack on Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, which are the last remaining major towns in the Donetsk oblast.

8:38
That is, before you reach the Dnieper River. We’re coming to that. So we don’t have to speak about a late summer offensive, a massive offensive, a Russian move in the fall. No, no, in the coming weeks we will see gradually the Ukrainian forces without the front collapsing, but they are being progressively pushed back towards the Dnieper River. That is how the war is evolving.

NewsX: 9:03
Yes Gilbert, I will repose the same question, just because I’d like a more direct response to whether Vladimir Putin actually wants peace in this war. You’ve just detailed there all of the gains that are being made. You’ve said that Russia are controlling these discussions, which is something that Western leaders have said. Russia are setting the agenda. Putin says he wants direct talks with Zelensky. Zelensky offers them. Putin says no. Does Putin want peace?

Doctorow:
He wants peace. He wants a peace treaty. Let there be no mistake about that. If the war ends with a Russian running to the Dnieper River and the Ukrainian forces collapsing, but without a peace treaty, the Russians will be very unhappy. Mr. Putin is a legally-minded person. He is a lawyer by training. He wants a piece of paper signed by a legitimate representative of the Ukrainian nation.

Why? He doesn’t want to face the next 20 or 30 years of Russia being subjected to terrorist attacks by Ukrainians who are in a chaotic region that doesn’t have a proper government. He wants Ukraine to be headed by a legitimate government, which concludes a valid peace treaty with Russia.

And so it’s taking some time; he set conditions which are harsh, but which Russia will not step back from, and which Russia will eventually obtain. Namely that a truce, a ceasefire, is part of a global settlement that will be validated by European and US powers and will have and will be a peace for a long term and not just for the next six months.

NewsX: 10:49
Yes. Gilbert Doctorow, thank you ever so much for joining us. We will of course continue to bring you–

Transcript of WION interview, 26 May

Transcript submitted by a reader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-5KO68FMFE

WION 0:00
US President Donald Trump has lambasted his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, describing him as “absolutely crazy” after Moscow launched its largest air attack of the war on Ukraine, killing at least 13 people. The comments came as Ukraine’s Air Force said Russia had launched a record number of drones against Ukraine overnight on Sunday. The Russian attack was the largest of the war in terms of weapons fired, although other strikes have killed more people. So what happened to the Bonhomie? And does that mean the ongoing talks are in limbo?

Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is an international affairs analyst. He’s also an author and a historian. He is now joining us live from [Brussels]. Dr. Gilbert, thank you very much for your time. What do you make of Trump’s fury over Putin? They just spoke days ago, and it seemed as if it was smooth sailing for them.

Gilbert Doctorow, PhD: 0:53
Well, he had to respond to the outrage that European leaders have expressed and that the mass, the mainstream media have expressed over the sharp increase in Russian strikes on Kiev and other major cities. Though we knew in advance that that would happen, since the Russians had pointed out that 1,000 drones and other objects had been fired at Russia by Ukraine in the preceding week, including many focused on Moscow. So this was anticipated, but nonetheless it brought outrage. And Donald Trump had to show that he is listening to what his critics are saying. But is he really listening? That is the question for discussion.

WION: 1:40
Doctor, Moscow has intensified its warfare by using drones and even missiles. What’s the message that Putin is trying to pass to his adversaries in the West?

Doctorow:
That Russia has gained, after a lot of work to increase its technology and production, that Russia has now mastered drone warfare, which really is decisive or defining the stage of warfare today in the Russia-Ukraine war. It was originally strictly an artillery duel. This was, most of the three years were an artillery duel, but Russia enjoyed a very large advantage in supplies, 10 to 1 in armaments advantage over Ukraine. But in recent, in the last six months, eight months, the Ukrainians showed that they had great capabilities in drones, and the drones could be effective in preventing a mass attack on the front line, because soldiers were obliged to break up into small units to avoid carnage from attack drones. The Russians have now more than mastered drones, and this is demonstrated by the latest attacks.

2:59
The drones are also used as a way of diverting the attention of the air defence from the missiles that are incoming and which do the real damage.

WION: 3:12
President Putin recently visited the Kursk oblast and some critics were saying that was a kind of provocation. What do you make of Putin’s visit to Kursk?

Doctorow:
The single most remarkable thing about the visit is that he got there. He was subjected to massive drone attack by the Ukrainians. Somehow they had been made aware of his plans to visit Korsk. So he got there. That was a big achievement. What he did on the ground was also very important. He met with officials, he met with the victims of the Ukrainian occupation of this territory.

3:55
He spoke with the people who are rebuilding, the volunteers who are facilitating the reestablishment of people whose homes were destroyed by the Ukrainian occupiers of this basically Russian territory, part of the Russian Federation. And so it was to build confidence, both locally and nationally, that he made that visit.

WION:
Is President Volodymyr Zelensky’s shuttle diplomacy working, do you think?

Doctorow:
Well, he doesn’t stop traveling, that’s for sure. What comes out of it is public relations, and he is a public relations man. It’s regrettable for the life of Ukrainian soldiers that their military command is directed by a public relations man, and that they are viewed as fodder for the demonstration of Ukrainian strength and resilience to get more assistance from the West. So it has been. But he is visiting everywhere to find new support, financial and material, for the war, which he will really need to have as the United States withdraws from the conflict.

WION:
Sanction threats towards Russia have returned. President Putin seems unperturbed, even after the EU said it will push forward with sanctions. Trump is also considering sanctions as another option. But how far will these threats go if Putin continues to give them a deaf ear?

Doctorow:
Well, Putin is holding out that possibility of a [deaf]. So the more immediate military task that he discussed when he was in Kursk is to ensure a buffer zone that protects Russian civilian settlements as in Kursk or Belgorod, the neighboring frontier or border provinces of Russia, from attacks by Ukrainian short-range missiles and drones. That is where the emphasis is going, not on seizing new territory, however desirable it is for Russian patriots to take Odessa.

WION: 6:12
What about the sanctions? Because they are increasing by the day, and President Trump says that he may consider advancing the sanctions on Russia.

Doctorow:
This is all rhetoric. The fact of the matter is that Russia is sanction proof. Three years of sanctions have made it the country with the largest number of sanctions ever imposed on any state in history. They have survived quite well, and are doing very nicely, thank you. So this is just rhetoric addressed by European leaders in particular and by opponents of Trump in the States hoping to pressure him to apply greater sanctions; it is rhetoric.

The, frankly, the West has no leverage over Russia. That is a fact that is coming out, and I want to make the point that the most important development in the past week or two has been that mainstream media have caught up with alternative media in describing accurately the dire situation of Ukraine, militarily, financially, and otherwise.

WION: 7:19
Let’s now talk about the negotiations or the talks. Russia’s demands were Ukraine’s recognition of Russian-occupied Crimea, independence for separatist-controlled Luhansk and Donetsk, and demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba stated that while his country was ready for talks to resume, Russia’s demands had not changed, critics call those demands unfathomable.

Doctorow:
You are exactly right. The claims or the expectations of the warring parties are irreconcilable. And that is why discussion of a peace arrived at in the current negotiations is not realistic. It has served political purposes, particularly in the States, where Donald Trump is the one who first called for peace talks.

But the reality is that they will fail in their present composition, because the Ukrainian leadership is unwilling to face the reality on the ground that even its friends like “Financial Times” are openly acknowledging. So I do not believe there will be a military victory. In that respect, I’m in agreement with JD Vance and others in the administration of Donald Trump. But there will be a political collapse.

8:48
And we’ve seen that coming in the growing fissures within leadership in Ukraine, most recently by the statements by the Ukrainian ambassador to England, Zaluzhin, admitting the dire situation the country is in.

WION:
Doctor, finally, let’s talk about this issue that has been going on for a long time. A peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine remains elusive. What will it take for both sides to calm down, meet, talk, agree and end the conflict? What’s your message to both Putin and Zelensky?

Doctorow:
Well, I don’t believe that Mr. Zelensky will be around to conclude the peace. So my commenting on him is not really relevant. Putin most likely will be around. And I think this will take place before the end of the year, not because of some massive Russian advance on the front that breaks the Ukrainian line. I don’t believe that they will collapse.

But I think they will capitulate because of a political breakdown. That is to say the leaders, the political leaders within Ukraine will move away from Zelensky towards another person who is willing to accept reality. That person might very well be Mr. Zaluzhny, judging by what he said last week.

He was put forward some time ago as America’s preferred replacement for Zelensky. So in that event, a political collapse will bring the parties to the table. The terms will be rather similar to what Mr. Putin has demanded at the current negotiations.

WION: 10:33
Dr. Gilbert Doctorow is an international affairs analyst. He’s also an author and a historian. We’ll have to leave it there. Thank you very much for giving us time and for talking to me on World Is One today.

Doctorow:
Thanks for the invitation.