Official website of the President of Russia

Документ   /

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.

Let us begin.

Konstantin Panyushkin: Konstantin Panyushkin, Channel One.

Your visit to China has been unlike any other. You have been working here for four days. During this time, you have held many meetings with President Xi. How would you assess the results of the Russian-Chinese talks, and what do you consider to be the most important outcome of this multi-day visit?

Vladimir Putin: It was a multi-day visit indeed, just as you said. The reason is that several events were to be held here. So, when we planned my visit, we did it so as to avoid moving a long distance many times. I would like to remind you that the schedule included a SCO summit, a trilateral Russia-Mongolia-China meeting, and a visit to the People’s Republic of China proper.

It should be said that this format is not only good for meeting at the negotiating table but, more importantly, for holding many informal discussions on any issue of mutual interest in an informal and friendly atmosphere. This is extremely important, and it has turned out to be very useful.

As for the results, I believe they are extremely positive. The documents that have been adopted by all participants look to the future. In this context, I would like to point out China’s global governance initiative. I believe that it has been advanced at the right time. More importantly, this initiative is aimed at promoting positive sentiments between the countries that attended the summit in China and our potential partners among the countries that are not willing today to proclaim their readiness for this partnership.

All this taken together, along with the unity of the attendees amount to an important demonstration of a positive resolve and confidence in our ability to achieve the goals set before us.

Next, please.

Lana Samsoniya: Lana Samsoniya, Interfax.

I would like to follow up on your visit to China, but my question is about the bilateral agenda. A substantial package of documents has been signed following your visit, and perhaps these documents are primarily related to the Power of Siberia 2 project. This project has essentially become the key topic of all top-level negotiations recently and even an indicator of Russia-China relations.

Do you think it is fair to say that these agreements negate the speculation about Russia-China relations, the attempts to interfere from the outside, and to influence bilateral relations?

Vladimir Putin: Frankly, I am not even sure what you are talking about, because I am busy doing current work and try not to get distracted by rumours or speculations, as you said.

This work has indeed been underway for a long time, and we have been discussing it with our partners for a long time as well. Several routes were under scrutiny, each with its pros and cons. The talks took years. But as we know, it is a known fact that the global economy – even though we witness a recession in many countries, including in the leading EU economies – the global economy is nevertheless growing, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.

The demand for energy is up, including in the Chinese economy, which continues to be one of the global economy’s drivers, posting over five percent of growth, and this growth is measured against the baseline number. Some say that their GDP growth rates are down. True, they are, but the baseline number has increased over this time, and the five-plus percent we are seeing today is not the same five-plus percent that was 10 to 15 years ago. What does this lead to? This leads to a greater demand for energy.

So, the negotiating parties have at long last arrived at a consensus. You know, there is no charity on either side. These are mutually beneficial agreements that are being implemented on market principles, based on market principles that are specific to this particular region. By the way, pricing strategy for this product relies on a specific formula, rather than today’s prices, and this formula is purely objective and based on market variables.

Therefore, the growing Chinese economy has demands, and we have the capability to supply raw materials in demand. In the end, this issue is not timed to our meeting. It is simply the outcome of many years of work by the economic agents on both sides.

Sure enough, this will create competitive advantages for our Chinese friends because, to reiterate, they will receive the product at balanced market prices, not inflated prices, as is the case in the eurozone. Most importantly, these supplies are steady and reliable.

Everyone is satisfied and happy with this result. Truth be told, I am, too. After all, Gazprom is one of our leading companies that keeps gaining access to new markets. Through Mongolia, we will have 50 billion [cubic metres of gas]. What we have now is 38. And then a couple more routes, which will also expand. In all, it will amount to over 100 billion cubic metres of gas.

Pavel, please.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV channel.

You often speak about the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, and yesterday you mentioned this as well, when they started dragging the country into NATO. But now we can see that the European leaders, who declare and discuss certain “security guarantees” for Ukraine, are almost entirely focused on deploying their troops there, while many of them also continue to insist on Ukraine’s accession to the EU.

However, we can also see that the European Union is quickly turning, before our very eyes, from a once economic union into a kind of a military-political bloc, with practically non-stop aggressive decisions and aggressive rhetoric.

How would you comment on these developments?

Vladimir Putin: I agree with those who believe that every country has the right to choose its own system of ensuring its security. This applies to all states, including Ukraine. But this also means that the security of one side cannot be built at the expense of the security of another party – in this case, the Russian Federation.

We have always opposed Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But we have never questioned its right to conduct its economic and business activities as it wishes, including joining the European Union.

Alexander Yunashev: May we continue with Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Alexander Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Life.

When Russia and the United States’ efforts to achieve peaceful settlement in Ukraine are being discussed, the formula “security guarantees in exchange for territories” is increasingly mentioned. Does this correspond to what you talked about with [President] Trump in Alaska?

And what do you mean when you say that Russia is ready to join in working out these guarantees? Who do you think should act as guarantor?

And, if I may, one more question about Zelensky: is there any point in meeting with him now, under the current circumstances? Is it possible to work out real agreements at such a meeting?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Please repeat the first part once again.

Alexander Yunashev: As for US efforts, there are speculations now that a formula exists of “security guarantees in exchange for territories.”

Vladimir Putin: No, we have never raised the issue in this way, nor have we ever discussed it in such terms.

Security guarantees are a natural necessity, as I often stress. We proceed from the fact that every country should have them, a security system, and Ukraine is no exception. But this is not connected to any swaps, especially those of territories.

To be honest, and I want to emphasise it, we are fighting not so much for territories as for human rights – for the right of people living in these territories to speak their native language, to live within their culture and within the traditions passed down from previous generations, from their fathers, grandfathers, and so on. This is the main point.

If these people expressed their will to become part of the Russian Federation as part of democratic electoral procedures, such as referenda, this choice must be respected. This is democracy. I want to remind those who keep forgetting it. Moreover, this fully complies with international law. The very first articles of the UN Charter explicitly affirm the right of peoples to self-determination.

However, we do not tie the issue of territories in with security guarantees. Of course, one can argue that these topics are related, but we do not directly tie them together. This issue was not even framed like that during the discussion in Anchorage.

Regarding possible meetings with Mr Zelensky, I have addressed this matter on earlier occasions. In general, I have never ruled out the possibility of such a meeting. Is there any point in holding these meetings? Let us take a closer look at it.

According to the constitution of Ukraine – you may agree with it or not, but you just need to read the text carefully – there are no provisions for extending the powers of the president of Ukraine, none at all. The president gets elected for five years, and five years later the term is over, end of story.

There is a provision stating that elections shall not be held under martial law. That is true. But this does not mean the president’s powers shall be extended. It means his powers expire, and his authority is transferred to the speaker of the Rada, including his authority as supreme commander-in-chief.

So, what should the incumbent authorities do if they want to stay legitimate and participate fully in the settlement process? They must first hold a referendum. According to the Ukrainian constitution, questions regarding territories – any questions – are decided only by a referendum, as far as I recall. But a referendum cannot be held under martial law, and this is also a provision of the constitution. Therefore, to hold a referendum, martial law must be lifted. But as soon as it is lifted, elections must be held. And this process would drag on and on.

The outcome of the elections is unclear, but whatever it may be, a corresponding ruling from the constitutional court must be obtained, as stipulated by the fundamental law. How can a ruling from the constitutional court be obtained when, after the authorities demanded that this very constitutional court of Ukraine confirm the renewal of the president’s powers, and it essentially refused to do so, do you know what they did in Ukraine? It may look laughable, but it is a fact: the security denied the chairman of the constitutional court access to his workplace.

That is it, end of story. Not quite, because he, as far as I know – I have no idea of his current whereabouts – but at one point he left the country. The terms of some members of the constitutional court have expired over the past years. It lacks a quorum to pass rulings. Therefore, meeting with the current head of the administration – let us put it mildly – is a road that leads nowhere.

If a meeting in question is well-prepared and may potentially lead to positive results, we can have it, and I never turned this idea down. By the way, Donald [Trump] asked me, if possible, to hold such a meeting. I told him it was possible. After all, if Zelensky is ready, he can come to Moscow, and we will have such a meeting.

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

Do you think that the multipolar world, the need for which you stated in your Munich speech back in 2007 – and whose new poles are apparently Russia, India, and China – has finally taken shape? Or is there still something to strive for?

And, if I may, one more question. Just a few hours ago, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called you, quote: “perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time.” What do you think of it?

Vladimir Putin: When did he say this?

Andrei Kolesnikov: Literally a couple of hours ago.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

As for whether the multipolar world has formed or not –generally, its contours have certainly taken shape. However, I would not speak about any dominants in this multipolar world. Multipolarity does not mean the emergence of new hegemons. No one raises such a question, either within the SCO, or within BRICS. All participants in international affairs should have equal rights, and all should be in the same position, from the standpoint of international law.

Yes, of course, there are economic powerhouses, such as India and China. By the way, our country, too, is among the world’s four largest economies in terms of purchasing power parity. These are today’s realities. These are not our calculations but the data of international organisations. Yet this does not mean that anyone should dominate in a political or in any other sphere, including security.

Therefore, we do not proceed from the idea that some new dominant powers should appear. Everyone should be on an equal footing.

As for the statement you just mentioned, Mr Peskov told me about it just a few minutes ago. What do I think? I see it as an unsuccessful attempt to shift responsibility – not from him personally but from his country and from the collective West as a whole, for the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine today.

What do I mean to say? Let me remind you: I have spoken about this repeatedly. In 2014, ministers from three European countries came to Kiev and signed a document which was essentially an agreement between the then President Yanukovych and the opposition. Under this agreement, all contentious political issues were to be resolved within the constitutional framework, peacefully and legally.

Yet literally on the following day, a bloody and violent coup d’etat took place. None of those guarantors lifted a finger to channel the situation back to legal framework. This is where the conflict began. Right after that, developments in Crimea began, and immediately afterward, the Kiev regime sent in armoured vehicles and aircraft against civilians in those regions of Ukraine that had not put up with the coup. And later, they sabotaged every one of our attempts to resolve the problem peacefully, even publicly, refusing to implement the Minsk Agreements.

So, who bears responsibility for the current tragedy? Those who drove the situation to this point, while completely ignoring Russia’s legitimate security interests. If anyone thinks they can treat the people of our country with such disregard, they should understand: Russia will never allow such a thing. We will never sit idly by, meekly watching as events unfold around us without any response. We will never allow this.

Olga Skabeyeva: Good evening. Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya television channel.

Some in Europe keep saying in increasingly louder voices and more often than before that our money – US$300 billion – should be taken away from us and given to Ukraine. There are, of course, old schoolers, who believe this would be a rather unseemly thing to do that is fraught with dangerous outcomes, but more people are pushing for and promoting the idea of stealing. What do you think about this?

I have one more important question about the special military operation. Mr President, is there any chance it will end soon? Do you have a sense that we are on the way to ending it?

Vladimir Putin: I will start with the second part, because it is of key importance.

Back in 2022, we proposed that the Ukrainian authorities treat with respect the choice of the people residing in southeastern Ukraine, withdraw their troops, and put an end to this conflict immediately. Admittedly, this proposal was not dismissed out of hand.

However, after we, complying with the urging of our Western European colleagues, withdrew troops from Kiev, the tables have turned, and we were told almost verbatim that from now on we would fight until either you twist our head off, or we do it to you. I am not sure I ever went public with that, but it sounded something like that, only in harsher language, but quite openly and, strangely enough, in a comradely manner: now it is either us, or you. This situation is still ongoing.

Nevertheless, if common sense ultimately prevails, an acceptable option for ending this conflict can be agreed upon. I operate on this belief.

All the more so, since we see the commitment and sincere desire of the current US administration led by President Trump to find a solution, not just to issue appeals. I think there is light at the end of the tunnel. We will see how it goes from here. If not, we will have to achieve the tasks set before us by military means.

Olga Skabeyeva: You did not answer my question about Europe trying to steal our money.

Vladimir Putin: We have covered the theft of money many times. I do not think I can add anything to it. You said, some people want to take it, some do not. The smarter ones do not want to take it. That is true, and I said this without irony and without any intention to take a swipe at those who are less intelligent.

Why? Because the smarter ones who deal with financial and economic matters know that this would ruin all principles of international economic and financial activity and would, without a doubt, devastate the global economy and global finance.

Because even now, alliances are being formed in many countries around the world that are trying to implement their own economic growth plans in individual regions, and in this case, such economic separatism will only intensify, and the overall financial and economic world order will be destroyed.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about the special military operation?

Vladimir Putin: About the special military operation? Go ahead, please.

Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon. Konstantin Kokoveshnikov, Zvezda TV.

Could you please share the latest update on the situation in the special military operation zone? What reports, if this is not a secret, do you receive from the front commanders? And overall, how much has the situation on the battlefield changed recently?

Vladimir Putin: All groups of the Russian Armed Forces are advancing in all directions. They are advancing successfully, at different paces, but virtually in all directions, I will not list them. Since you represent Zvezda TV, you know the names of these groups and the areas of their combat operations.

How does the enemy react? We can see that they are trying to “plug holes,” so to say, transferring the most capable units from one difficult sector to another, which they consider more critical. For example, if I recall correctly – we would need to double-check, since we are in Beijing and not Moscow – recently the 95^th Brigade was transferred from the Sumy direction to a different sector.

Does this mean it is easier for them in the Sumy area? No. They simply replaced the 95^th Brigade with a less combat-ready unit, sending the better formation where they thought it more important. And this is happening all along the line of contact. Of course, we cannot relax as this may indicate preparations for building up reserves somewhere for some larger-scale actions.

However, a preliminary analysis by our military specialists shows the Ukrainian Armed Forces do not currently have such capabilities. They are not capable of conducting large-scale offensive operations, and are only focused on holding their existing lines, precisely in the way I have just described.

This is not an isolated case: this is happening across almost the entire line of contact. It shows what both we and Western experts have noted: the Ukrainian Armed Forces are increasingly running out of reserves, with combat-ready units staffed at no more than 47–48 percent. The situation for them is already at a most critical point.

Nevertheless, combat operations remain difficult and cruel. Therefore, we should refrain from making predictions. But the analysis stands as I have just outlined it.

Please.

Igor Zhdanov: Good evening. Igor Zhdanov, RT.

Mr President, back to Alaska. You began talking with US President Donald Trump right after landing, literally on the red carpet. Then, after photos were taken, you got into a car with him and continued the conversation. Could you tell us what you discussed, and what language you spoke? Some details of that exchange, maybe.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we spoke English, though more broken English: just what little remains of my vocabulary. At the very beginning, I said what I had already mentioned at the news conference: “I’m very glad to see you, dear neighbour, healthy and alive.”

And while we were driving in the limousine – it was a 30-second drive – we exchanged only general phrases. That was all.

Remark: You talked with Prime Minister Modi for an hour in the car.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. There is no secret. I told him about the talks in Alaska.

Nikolai Ivanov: A cultural question.

Vladimir Putin: Everyone here is cultured; there are no uncultured ones among us.

Nikolai Ivanov: In addition to the economy and energy, our ties with China cover culture. The release of the Red Silk co-produced film is a cultural landmark of the year. You mentioned this to Xi Jinping during his visit to Moscow in May and in an interview with the Xinhua agency. Will there be more projects like this one?

If you had a chance to see the film, could you share your emotions?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The idea came from President Xi Jinping. During a joint event, I brought his attention to the fact that our film makers find it hard to enter the Chinese market. He gave me a sly smile and said, “Let us do movies together, and the market will open.”

This is true. Red Silk is the first such project. I have not seen this film, but I know it will be presented here literally tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow. The word I am getting is that the film enjoys popularity, and people like it. Of course, we have other plans. If you are interested, you can ask the Minister of Culture, Olga Lyubimova. She will have more to say about the plans.

As far as I know, work on other co-produced films is underway. This is really the way forward to access the enormous and attractive Chinese market.

Please go ahead.

Anastasiya Savinykh: Mr President, if I may, let us stick to the cinema. A film has been released in the West with you as one of the characters. The film is titled “The Wizard of the Kremlin.” Have you seen it? Have they shown you any frames? By the way, British actor Jude Law played you in this film. Have you met?

Vladimir Putin: No, I have not seen this film. This is the first time I am hearing about it. I cannot say anything about it, because I have not seen it.

Anastasiya Savinykh: Then, if I may, I will follow up on yet another topic. You just touched on the topic of health. Some footage accidentally made it to the air today where you and Chairman Xi discuss age, immortality, and organ transplantation.

Vladimir Putin: I did not focus on that. And?

Anastasiya Savinykh: Do you really think people can live to 150 and older?

Vladimir Putin: Ah, I get it. The President mentioned this on our way to the parade. Yes, Mr Berlusconi was big on this topic in his own time.

The latest health improvement techniques and medical means, and all kinds of surgical procedures, including organ transplantation, give humanity hope that active life will last longer than today, even though the average age varies across different countries, but nevertheless life expectancy will increase significantly.

You know, I am not sure about the year, but the UN data show that by 2050, I need to check the year, but by this year, I think by 2050, there will be more people over 65 on the planet than five- and six-year-old children. This will have social, political and economic consequences. We should certainly keep this in mind, too, when we talk about life expectancy.

Roman Sobol: Mr President, may I ask a question about the programme? Thank you.

Returning to the topic and the programme of your visit: this SCO summit is probably the largest in the history of the organisation. What role does this organisation play in the current turbulent world? And will the SCO be able to become a kind of political union that will more effectively counter the threats coming from the West?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: The SCO is not intended to confront anyone. We do not set such a task for ourselves. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that during the discussions and bilateral meetings, never, not once in these four days, did anything arise that could be described as confrontational.

All of us are focused on work, above all work among ourselves, with a constructive and positive approach. We are not thinking about how to outmanoeuvre or outplay someone, or about achieving results in the spirit of competition. No. We are focused on how to organise our own cooperation in the best way possible and achieve positive results by combining efforts.

This is the philosophy of the SCO.

Igor Baldin: May I ask a related question?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.

Igor Baldin: Mr President, now Europe is preparing the 19^th package of sanctions and is threating not Russia but Russia’s partners. How do we view this? You have spoken with a large number of SCO members and partners who could be seriously affected, in particular India and China. What do they think about this? How can we respond? And who, in your opinion, will suffer more?

Vladimir Putin: You know, oddly enough, we have mostly stayed away from this issue. Why? Frankly speaking, it does not concern us very much. Events in Ukraine are being used merely as a pretext for resolving economic issues with some countries whose economic ties and advantages do not suit someone.

For example, there is indeed a trade imbalance between the United States and India, or between the United States and China. But there is no such imbalance in economic relations between Brazil and the United States.

The deadline was set for August 8, and by August 6, additional duties had already been imposed against Brazil. What does Ukraine have to do with this? References were made to Ukraine, but what connection is there? None. The real issues lie elsewhere: in domestic politics, including tensions between the current authorities and former President Bolsonaro. Again, what does Ukraine have to do with this? Nothing at all. This is my first point.

Indeed, there are trade issues and imbalances. We believe they need to be addressed during the negotiating process. We have just held very long and detailed consultations with some of our partners. I will not talk about them now. With some of them, we have such imbalances that are not in our favour.

What are we striving to achieve? We want to come to an agreement with our partners on what they could supply to us, and what we could supply to them, and find solutions in the course of joint work. And it is coming together for us, by the way. With one of our partners, their supplies to our market are three times larger than our supplies to their market. Three times. So what? We stay patient and keep looking for a solution.

Second, after all, countries like India – almost 1.5 billion people, and China – 1.3 billion people boast powerful economies and live by their own domestic political laws. You know, when people from the outside say, “We are going to make things hard for you and punish you…” How are the leaders of these countries – large economic powerhouses which have lived through very rough periods in their history, periods of colonialism and attacks on their sovereignty over a long historical period – supposed to react to that?

Should any of them go soft, their political career will be over, just as is the colonial era. Talking to such partners in such a tone of voice is unacceptable. I think everything will fall into place and return to normal economic dialogue in the end.

Dmitry Peskov: The last question please.

Vladimir Putin: Let the ladies ask their question about talks. Which particular talks? We have had quite a few.

Olga Matveyeva: You said you were ready to raise the level of the negotiating group in contacts with Ukraine. Who could it be? Sergei Lavrov, your Aide, Mr Ushakov, or Defence Minister Belousov?

Are you satisfied with the outcomes of the talks held by the previous group, in particular, with Medinsky’s performance?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: I am satisfied with Medinsky’s performance. Should there arise the need to raise the level of talks to the political level, we are ready to accommodate. I would not go into details now and give any specific names, but we are ready to raise it to a truly high political level. The result is important.

Things that our negotiating group led by my Aide, Vladimir Medinsky, is doing now is a good example of restraint and professional approach.

Gleb Ivanov: May I ask you about another aide?

Vladimir Putin: Why do you not ask him about him?

Gleb Ivanov: The thing is that I want to talk with you about Steve Witkoff’s work.

The point is that now he has come under a barrage of tough criticism from the media and politicians in the West. He is accused of misunderstanding you at the talks, of wrongly conveying to President Trump the contents of his negotiations with you and of being too sympathetic with Russia. How could you assess his work?

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: This is not my task and not my business to assess the work of the US President’s aide. This is for his employer, namely, President Trump.

I am absolutely convinced that Mr Witkoff conveys in his contacts with me and other members of the Russian team the position of the US President and not of anyone else. Our talks in Anchorage have shown – it was clear from the context of our talks – that he conveys to President Trump the position of the Russian side quite correctly.

And the fact that he accurately and unbiasedly conveys this position, the position of the US leadership, became absolutely clear to me during the discussion in Anchorage. It is because what I and Mr Witkoff had discussed was reaffirmed in full before President Trump, and he did object that this was his position.

True, there are a lot of complex issues there. Yet I believe that the criticism against Mr Witkoff is voiced by those who do not like this position, but they do not like Mr Trump’s position either, that’s the reason.

Approaches to settlement may be different. Some say that the fight should go on till the last Ukrainian as some people in Europe are trying to present the situation, but there are those, who, like the current US administration and the President himself, are attempting to find a solution, using peaceful means at that. And now the first party, the war party, always attacks the other party, the party of peace, and all the rest are speculations and innuendos, attempts to secure their position, nothing than that.

Go ahead, please.

Yelena Mukhametshina: Today, even before the parade began, President Trump made a comment saying, “Many Americans died in China’s quest for victory and glory. I hope that they are rightfully honoured and remembered for their bravery and sacrifice.” And he had the following to write, sarcastically or not, “Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un, as you conspire against the United States of America.”

What can you say about this?

Vladimir Putin: The President of the United States has a sense of humour. It is clear, and everyone is well aware of it. I get along very well with him. We are on a first name basis.

I can tell you and I hope he will hear me, too: as strange as it may appear, but during these four days, during the most diverse talks in informal and formal settings, no one has ever expressed any negative judgment about the current US administration. This is my first point.

Second, all of my dialogue partners without exception – I want to emphasise this – all of them were supportive of the meeting in Anchorage. Every single one of them. And all of them expressed hope that the position of President Trump and the position of Russia and other participants in the negotiations will put an end to the armed conflict. I am saying this in all seriousness without irony.

Since I am saying this publicly, the whole world will see it and hear it, and this is the best guarantee that I am telling the truth. Why? Because the people whom I have spoken with for four days will hear it, and they will definitely say, “Yes, this is true.” I would have never said this if it were not so, because then I would have put myself in an awkward position in front of my friends, allies and strategic partners. Everything was exactly the way I said it.

I would like to follow up on what I told your colleague to my right. The activities of the SCO and activities of our partners, including strategic partners, are not aimed at antagonising anyone. They are aimed at finding the best ways to develop ourselves, our countries, our peoples, and our economies.

Please go ahead.

Olga Samsonova: Olga Samsonova, RIA Novosti.

Mr President, we heard all kinds of statements about Russia coming from Baku lately. We would like to know your assessment of the current state of relations between our countries. What happened between our countries, and how can we resume the dialogue?

Thank you

Vladimir Putin: You said you had a question and asked four instead. Can I give you short answers? Issues invariably arise between countries due to ongoing developments or political situation.

There are issues. Today, President Aliyev and I greeted each other. I greeted him and his wife, and we had a brief exchange. I believe that fundamental relations between Azerbaijan and Russia and mutual interest in promoting them will, in the end, set things straight.

Please, about the service members, please.

Valentin Alfimov: Valentin Alfimov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.

Mr President, we talked a lot about peace in Ukraine today and about agreements between countries, about what Europe is proposing, and what people in Ukraine are afraid of. I think we have not touched upon the most important issue.

Vladimir Putin: Each of you will come up with the most important one.

Vladimir Alfimov: You regularly receive reports from the battlefield, and we are aware that you regularly communicate with commanders and service members in the trenches. What are they saying about peace? Are they prepared to accept a ceasefire, these agreements, or are they insisting on fighting to the very end, the victorious end?

Vladimir Putin: The overwhelming majority of them, I want to emphasise this, the overwhelming majority of them are in favour of Russia achieving all of its goals that were outlined at the beginning of the special military operation. Everything else is of secondary importance.

How? It is better, of course, to do so by peaceful means. We have repeatedly offered this to the opposing side. Let us see how this process unfolds, including with the assistance of the current [Trump] administration.

Please go ahead.

Dmitry Peskov: Mr President, this may last for a long time.

Vladimir Putin: No, we are about to finish. Please go ahead.

Alyona Nefedova: Mr President, Alyona Nefedova, Izvestia newspaper.

At the summit in Anchorage, you invited Donald Trump to visit Moscow and hold a meeting there. Are preparations for this meeting underway? Are any agreements already in place, and perhaps even the approximate timeline of the meeting is known?

Vladimir Putin: The dates are unknown, and no preparations for the meeting are underway, but the invitation is on the table.

Please go ahead.

Lyudmila Aleksandrova: Lyudmila Aleksandrova, Moskovsky Komsomolets.

You say Russia and China advocate a fair world order based on the global majority. Please share with us what exactly is unfair in the current world system, in your opinion, and what mechanisms could be used to address this?

Vladimir Putin: Clearly, the unipolar world is what is unfair about it.

The fact is that we get together and build our relations not on the basis of the majority, that is, not on the quantity, but on the basis of an idea, we build our interaction based on ideological considerations.

The idea – I mentioned this earlier – is that the world should be multipolar, meaning that all participants in international communication should be equal, and more equal than others should not exist, and the unipolar world must cease to exist, including in the interests of those, at least in the interests of the peoples of those countries, whose leadership still upholds this moribund and, one might even say, already obsolete system.

Let us wrap it up. Thank you very much.