Math 4 Wisdom. "Mathematics for Wisdom" by Andrius Kulikauskas.

Vladimir Putin Epistemology, Russia, Rusija

Currently, I am collecting materials such as transcripts of his speeches. I am using this material to make his epistemological portrait, systematizing how he figures things out.

Sources

Transcripts of the President of Russia

2024.02.09 Interview with Tucker Carlson

Vladimir Putin Top quotes of 2023

No references to the need to fight terror can be an argument for restricting human rights.
Nobody and nothing will stop Russia on the road to strengthening democracy and ensuring human rights and freedoms.
Our aims are absolutely clear: They are a high living standard in the country and a secure, free and comfortable life.
The democratic choice Russian people made in the early 90's is final.
The strengthening of our statehood is, at times, deliberately interpreted as authoritarianism.
The path towards a free society has not been simple. There are tragic and glorious pages in our history.
To pay more is the easy way. In fact, the solution possibilities to the problem are many.
We shall fight against them, throw them in prisons and destroy them.
You must obey the law, always, not only when they grab you by your special place.
Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle.
I think the American people should express their preferences and we'll accept their choice.
Yes, life in Chechnya so far looks more like a life after a natural disaster.

Part 2

Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.
Sometimes it is necessary to be lonely to prove you are right.
Those who fight corruption should be clean themselves.
I have a private life in which I do not permit interference, it must be respected.
My English is very bad.
Terrorism has no nationality or religion.
We shall fight against them, throw them in prisons and destroy them.
My personal position is that society must keep children safe.
Stalinism is linked with a cult or personality and massive violations of the law, with repression and camps. There is nothing like that in Russia, and I hope, will never again be.
One has to be insincere and promise something which you cannot fulfill. So you either have to be a fool who does not understand what you are promising, or deliberately be lying.
Everything will probably never be OK. But we have to try for it.
We need business to understand its social responsibility, that the main task and objective for a business is not to generate extra income and to become rich and transfer the money abroad, but to look and evaluate what a businessman has done for the country, for the people, on whose account he or she has become so rich.
I think the international community should unite to fight such inhuman phenomena as terror attacks adn the murder of totally innocent people.
I was brought up in a very ordinary family, in fact, a worker's family. Both my father and mother were ordinary citizens.
The centuries-old history of India, majestic architectural monuments and museums of Delhi, Agra and Mumbai have a unique attractive force.

we'll be glad to have any contact with the next president of the united states any person who gains the trust of the 20:58 american people can count on the fact that we 21:12 [Music] 21:23 when it comes to your tackling problems their openness because it allows them to unleash the 21:28 inner potential of their people and thanks to that america has attained such great results in developing their 21:35 country 21:41 russia had sputnik you were there before the united states 21:47 russia has extraordinary astrophysicists russia has extraordinary uh leaders in medicine 21:55 and in and science and in physics i mean do you hope that what you can do is 22:02 restore that leadership and create the same kind of innovation that you just admired america 22:09 for and how will you do that 22:21 we shouldn't lose what was created in the previous decades and we should create the very conditions 22:28 for showing the potential of our people because we're a very talented people we 22:33 have a very good basis which you mentioned you said that you love russian culture 22:38 i think that's a great basis for internal development 22:44 you've just mentioned our achievements in science and many other areas we must support that we must create 22:50 conditions for people to develop freely for them to feel confident that they're able to realize their potential 23:04 and i'm confident that we will have an effect on the consistent development of science of high-tech technologies 23:10 and of the economy in the country

when it comes to ukraine that's a separate issue it's our closest 24:36 neighbor we've always said that it's our brother country 24:44 it's not only the slobs our languages are very similar we have common history common culture 24:50 common religion and many things in common 24:57 what i believe is absolutely inadmissible is the resolution of internal political issues in the former 25:03 ussr republics through color revolutions through coup d'etat through unconstitutional 25:10 removal of power

i believe that the collapse of the ussr 37:28 was a huge tragedy of the 20th century you know why 37:34 because first of all in a single instant 25 million russian people 37:40 found themselves beyond the borders of the russian federation here they had been living within the 37:46 borders of a unified state and always traditionally the soviet union had been called 37:52 russia soviet russia well this was greater russia then all of 37:59 a sudden the ussr collapsed just overnight in fact right 38:07 and it's turned out that in former soviet republics there were people russian people numbering 25 million 38:14 they had been living in a single country and all of a sudden they turned out to be abroad 38:22 you can imagine how many problems arose first of all there were everyday 38:27 problems economic problems social problems the separation of families 38:34 you can't list them all do you think it's normal that 25 million people 38:39 russian people wound up abroad all of a sudden russians turned out to be the largest 38:45 divided nation in the world today is that not a problem well not for you but it's a problem for me 38:52 and what do you intend to do about it [Applause] what we want to do is use modern 38:59 civilized processes to preserve at least at a minimum the common humanitarian space 39:06 to make it so that these state borders do not get in the way so that people can communicate freely 39:13 among themselves so that we can develop our economies jointly we want to take advantage of those 39:19 benefits of the former ussr that we've inherited what are these benefits joint 39:25 infrastructure a unified railroad system a unified highway system 39:30 a unified energy system and finally if i dare say it the great russian language which unites 39:37 all former republics of the soviet union and which gives us evident competitive 39:42 advantages when promoting various integration projects in the territory of the post-soviet 39:48 space you've probably heard that we first 39:53 established the customs union and then we've transformed it into the eurasian economic union 40:00 so when people can communicate freely and move freely when workforces goods services and 40:06 capital move freely there are no state lines when we have our common rules and legal regulation 40:13 in the social sphere for example 40:18 then this is quite enough people must feel free 40:24 but do you have to use and show military force to accomplish that objective 40:32 no

what do you want your legacy to be 46:25 that russia should be effective competitive should have a sustainable economy with a developed 46:31 social and political system that is flexible both in regard to changes within 46:36 and around the country and should play a major role in the world 46:42 that it lives it should be competitive as i said 46:50 and should be in a position to defend its own interests and to influence those processes which are significant to it many say 46:58 you're all powerful here in russia many say you're all 47:03 powerful and they believe that you can have 47:08 anything you want anything what do you want 47:14 tell america tell the world what vladimir putin wants i want for russia to be as i've 47:22 just described it that's really my main desire i want people to be happy 47:28 and that our partners all over the world would want to and would strive to develop relations with russia thank you

0:00 / 47:42 Vladimir Putin Interviewed by Charlie Rose - 60 Minutes - September 2015

Transcript 0:12 the next day you'll speak to the united nations in a much anticipated address the first 0:18 time you've been there a number of years what will you say there is much 0:23 anticipation that you will speak about the threat of isis and that your 0:28 presence in syria is related to that 0:35 what is the purpose of the presence in syria and how does that relate to the 0:41 challenge of isis in regards to our as you said presence 0:47 in syria today it's expressed in the form of supplying weapons to the syrian government 0:52 training of the personnel rendering humanitarian assistance to the syrian people 1:10 we proceed from the un charter which means from the fundamental principles of international law 1:16 under which any assistance including military can and should be rendered exclusively 1:21 to a legitimate government of a country with their consent or at their request 1:26 or upon the decision of the u.n security council in this case we are dealing with a 1:31 request from the syrian government to render them military and technical assistance which we're 1:37 doing within the framework of lawful international contracts 1:46 secretary of state john kerry said the united states welcomes your assistance 1:52 in the battle against isis others have taken note of the fact that these are fighter planes 2:00 anti-aircraft systems uh and those are for use against the 2:05 conventional army 2:18 there is only one legitimate conventional army and that is the army of the president of syria bashar 2:24 al-assad and he's facing according to the interpretation of some of our international partners 2:30 the opposition but in fact really in real life the army of bashar al-assad 2:35 is dealing with terrorist organizations surely you know better than i about the hearings which have just taken place in 2:42 the senate if i'm not mistaken where the military the representatives from the pentagon 2:47 reported to the senators about what had been done by the united states in order to train the combat units of 2:53 the opposition forces they at first had the goal to train five or six thousand troops 2:59 then twelve thousand and then it turned out they had prepared and trained all of the troops 3:04 but the only number that were fighting were four or five men and all the others with american weapons 3:10 defected to isis that's the first point 3:16 secondly i believe that providing aid to illegitimate organizations is not in line with international law 3:22 and the charter of the united nations we support only legitimate government organizations 3:31 so you would like to join the united states in the fight against isis that's part of why you're there others 3:37 think that while that may be part of your goal you're trying to save the assad 3:43 administration because they've been losing uh ground and the war has not been going 3:50 well for them and you're there to rescue them 4:10 and i've already said it twice during our talk i'll repeat it for the third time we support the legitimate government of 4:16 syria and furthermore it's my deep conviction that any actions to the contrary 4:21 in order to destroy the legitimate governments will create a situation which you can witness now in the other 4:27 countries of the region or in other regions of the world for instance in libya where all the state institutions are 4:33 disintegrated we see a similar situation regrettably in iraq and there is no 4:39 other solution whatsoever to the syrian crisis than strengthening the existing legal 4:44 government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism but at the same time 4:49 urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational part of the opposition 4:54 and 5:06 as you know some of the coalition partners want to see president assad go first before they will support 5:17 him i'd like to advise them and recommend 5:25 [Music] they should send this wish to the syrian 5:31 people and not to assad it's only the syrian people inside the country who are entitled to decide 5:37 who should govern their country and how and by what principles i believe any advice from the outside is 5:43 inappropriate harmful and contrary to international 5:50 law here is what the washington post said in 5:56 an editorial today into the vacuum of american leadership the vacuum of american leadership has 6:03 stepped russian president vladimir putin who has dispatched troops and equipment to syria in an effort to force the world 6:10 to accept his solution to the war which is the creation of a new coalition to fight the islamic 6:16 state that includes in the coalition the assad government the interesting thing they are saying is 6:23 that you have moved into a vacuum of american leadership 6:32 the washington 6:47 well we're not filling the vacuum of american leadership we're trying to prevent the creation of 6:52 a vacuum in the government of syria in general because as soon as government agencies 6:57 are destroyed in a given state or a given country that's when a power vacuum occurs and at 7:03 that moment it will be instantly filled with terrorists that was the case in libya 7:08 and that was the case in iraq that was the case in some other countries in somalia and this was the case in afghanistan 7:21 for us there's no question of any fight with the american leadership at all well the vacuum for leadership it seems 7:28 to be in knowing you you have said that a strong centralized government is in the dna 7:35 of russia you know and and you have a huge fear 7:40 as you suggest in anarchy maybe in syria and in other places of no strong government 7:49 that's the fear that vladimir putin has 7:55 well i'm not saying that there's no strong government in the country i'm saying that if there is no government at all then there will be 8:02 anarchy and a vacuum and this vacuum and anarchy will rapidly transform into terrorism 8:10 them there was a well-known figure saddam 8:17 hussein whether he was good or bad you've probably forgotten that at some stage the u.s was cooperating very 8:24 actively with saddam when he was fighting iran you've helped him with arms the diplomatic support was accorded 8:31 political cover was provided etc 8:39 then for some reason you had a falling out and the u.s decided to eliminate saddam 8:44 but by eliminating saddam hussein the u.s eliminated the iraqi government and 8:49 thousands of people from the former bath party thousands of iraqi servicemen which were 8:54 a part of the sunni elite of the state were thrown out on the streets nobody thought about them 9:00 now they're filling the ranks of isil 9:10 we are not against some country showing its leadership somewhere we're against thoughtless actions that 9:16 result in such negative situations that are hard to correct 9:27 you have a popularity rating in russia that would make every 9:34 politician in the world envious why are you so popular 9:43 yes there's something that i have in common 9:48 with every citizen of russia the love of our motherland 10:00 while you're also popular as you know and forgive me but there are many people 10:06 who are critical of russia as you know they say that it's more autocratic 10:11 and less democratic they say that political opponents and journalists have been killed and imprisoned in russia 10:19 they say your power is unchallenged and they say that power and absolute 10:25 power corrupts absolutely what do you say to those people who 10:32 worry about the climate the atmosphere in russia 10:40 well there can be no democracy without implementation of the law and compliance with the law everyone must observe the 10:47 laws this is the most important thing which we must bear in mind no one must forget that 10:54 as for those tragic events such as the death of people including journalists unfortunately they do occur in all 11:00 countries of the world but if they happen in our country we do the utmost to find the criminals and to 11:06 punish them and we'll do this in all directions but the most important thing 11:12 is that we will continue to improve our political system so that people can feel what every 11:18 citizen can feel that they do influence the country and the society 11:23 so that the authorities would feel responsible with regard to those people who trust them during election campaigns 11:31 i mean as you well know if you as a leader of this country insist that 11:36 the rule of law be adhered to if you insist that justice be done if you 11:41 because of your power then it could go a long way to 11:46 eliminating that perception [Music] 11:54 well a lot can be done not everyone succeeds with everything from the very start 12:00 so here how long did it take the democratic process to develop in the united states since the very 12:05 beginning of the creation of the united states 12:23 but our task is to see all these problems and to react properly in due time 12:28 this is the same case in russia a lot of problems so the people who killed mr nemtsov 12:35 will be prosecuted to the fullest yes yes i said it right away 12:43 that this is a shameful page in our modern history today's history and criminals must be prosecuted and 12:50 punished 12:58 and finally in the end despite the fact that these investigations continue for quite a long time it concluded in a 13:06 due manner now you know that i admire russia and its culture very much 13:12 its literature its music it is a large country a big country and many people including 13:20 stalin have said russia needs a strong authoritative 13:25 figure they worship stalin said that kind of figure was stalin right 13:39 no he was wrong i don't remember him saying that so i can't confirm those quotes 13:44 russia as any other country in the world needs just principles for state structure rather than dictators russia needs these 13:51 principles which flexibly respond to these changes inside the country and outside the country that's what russia needs 14:00 is 14:09 but there is a tradition of strong leadership here of all those people who do you it wasn't 14:18 well you know in most european countries there's parliamentary democracy japan has it many countries have it but 14:26 for some reason the state structure of the us is quite different it's a quite rigid presidential republic each country 14:34 has its own special features its own traditions which are reflected in today 14:39 and will be reflected in the future we also have such traditions in russia but we're not talking about some strong 14:46 figure although of course such a figure is needed in the leadership but we need to find an explanation about 14:53 who this strong man is is it a dictator or is it just the leader who acts within his duties by the 14:59 law and for the sake of the interest of the major part of the population if he's acting consistently and in a 15:05 principled way this is a totally different situation so i believe that russia doesn't 15:24 a second class russia needs that much more than just dictator 15:35 as you know some have called you a czar 15:45 well whatever people call me different 15:52 names 16:06 what's important is what you yourself think about what you must do for the interests of the country which 16:12 has entrusted you with such a position with such a post as the head of the 16:20 russians are people in russia fearful of you 16:27 i think not uh 16:34 i proceed from the fact that most people trust me if they vote for me at the election 16:39 and this is the most important thing it places enormous responsibility colossal and i'm grateful to people for 16:46 this trust but at the same time i feel this huge burden of responsibility for doing what i do 16:53 and for the results of my work well as you know in america um you're much talked about in america 16:59 there's much conversation more so than anything maybe they have nothing else to do in america but to talk about 17:05 no no no no or maybe they're curious people or maybe you're an interesting character 17:11 maybe that's what it is but they see this first of all a strong leader 17:16 who presents himself in a strong way they know of a former kgb agent who came back and 17:23 got into politics in saint petersburg and became deputy mayor and then came to 17:28 moscow um and the interesting thing is they see 17:33 these images of you bare chested on a horse and they say there is a man who carefully cultivates 17:41 his image of strength 17:50 i'm convinced that a person who occupies my post must provide a positive example to people 17:56 and those areas where he can do this he's obligated 18:11 we had a very severe situation with the social sphere the social security system was destroyed 18:17 a lot of problems emerged that we still to this day cannot effectively resolve fully 18:24 in the sphere of health care in the development of sports and i think that a healthy lifestyle is 18:30 extremely important 18:35 and it's the foundation of the resolution of many crucial problems including the 18:47 it's impossible to solve the health care problems of millions of people only by using pills people need to have 18:54 the habits 19:09 ministries and legislators of the state duma when as today for example they participate in the two distance marathon 19:16 races when they attend soccer matches when they participate in sports competitions 19:23 themselves so this is well including from this is where the love of millions of people 19:29 of sports comes from 19:37 i think it's extremely important 19:44 are you curious about america more than simply another nation that you 19:50 have to deal with because they're curious about you as i suggested are you curious are you watching the 19:56 republican political debates 20:03 well i wouldn't say i watch them daily no but of course we're curious about what's going on in the u.s 20:09 it's a major world power an economic and military leader so of course america exerts great 20:16 influence on the situation in the world in general 20:31 i'd say more likely no yeah because if you watch that i mean it's 20:37 donald trump says he said you know who he is he said he would like to meet you because he thinks 20:42 you two of you would get along donald trump that they just like showed 20:52 we'll be glad to have any contact with the next president of the united states any person who gains the trust of the 20:58 american people can count on the fact that we 21:12 [Music] 21:23 when it comes to your tackling problems their openness because it allows them to unleash the 21:28 inner potential of their people and thanks to that america has attained such great results in developing their 21:35 country 21:41 russia had sputnik you were there before the united states 21:47 russia has extraordinary astrophysicists russia has extraordinary uh leaders in medicine 21:55 and in and science and in physics i mean do you hope that what you can do is 22:02 restore that leadership and create the same kind of innovation that you just admired america 22:09 for and how will you do that 22:21 we shouldn't lose what was created in the previous decades and we should create the very conditions 22:28 for showing the potential of our people because we're a very talented people we 22:33 have a very good basis which you mentioned you said that you love russian culture 22:38 i think that's a great basis for internal development 22:44 you've just mentioned our achievements in science and many other areas we must support that we must create 22:50 conditions for people to develop freely for them to feel confident that they're able to realize their potential 23:04 and i'm confident that we will have an effect on the consistent development of science of high-tech technologies 23:10 and of the economy in the country 23:20 overall ukraine you and i have talked about ukraine before um many believe that 23:29 as a result of what happened in ukraine and crimea the united states and the west impose 23:34 sanctions and those sanctions have hurt russia and that you believe by 23:40 re-emerging and in trying to be a positive force around the world and in syria 23:49 that it might somehow lessen the focus on ukraine 24:00 so do you mean that will help to somehow distract the attention from the ukrainian crisis 24:05 so our actions in syria are aimed at distracting is that what you mean 24:12 ukraine is a separate and major issue for us syria is a different issue and i told 24:17 you why we don't want the disintegration of syria we don't want the return of 24:24 terrorists and of those who engage in warfare coming back to russia so there's a whole 24:30 complexity of problems when it comes to ukraine that's a separate issue it's our closest 24:36 neighbor we've always said that it's our brother country 24:44 it's not only the slobs our languages are very similar we have common history common culture 24:50 common religion and many things in common 24:57 what i believe is absolutely inadmissible is the resolution of internal political issues in the former 25:03 ussr republics through color revolutions through coup d'etat through unconstitutional 25:10 removal of power [Music] 25:26 our partners in the united states have supported those who ousted yanukovych 25:34 you believed that the united states had something to do with the ousting of yanukovych 25:39 and he had to flee to russia 25:54 thousands of contacts with them we know where and when and who met with someone and who worked 26:00 with those who ousted yanukovych how they were supported how much they were paid how they were trained 26:07 where in which countries and who those instructors work 26:16 we know everything and our american partners don't try to conceal that anyway 26:22 they said yes well we did we did train and we spent that much money and it's 26:28 now it amounts to five billion dollars so there's no come on 26:36 yeah but i mean you're suggesting that nobody's even arguing against that do you respect the sovereignty of 26:42 ukraine 26:47 but we want other countries to respect the sovereignty of other countries 27:00 the removal of legitimate power 27:09 of legitimate power take place in your judgment how will that come about and what role 27:16 will russia play 27:24 [Music] 27:31 russia has not taken part and is not going to take part in any actions aimed at removing the 27:37 legitimate government 27:43 what i'm saying is that somebody does that the result is very difficult to deal with 27:48 in libya we've seen the disintegration of the state in iraq we've seen the territories been 27:53 filled with terrorists in syria the situation is unfolding the same way in afghanistan you very well know what 28:00 the situation 28:09 many citizens of ukraine did not have trust in yanukovych that's true but they should have gone to the 28:15 elections and elected a new leader not commit the removal of power but after the coup d'etat 28:21 somebody supported that somebody liked it but somebody did not and those who did not like it were 28:27 treated from the position 28:46 i believe russia and other international actors those who are more actively engaged in 28:51 the resolution of the ukrainian crisis i mean germany and france the so-called normandy iv 28:58 of course with the active engagement of the united states and in that direction we have 29:03 intensified our dialogue in this sphere we all should strive for full and unconditional implementation of the 29:10 minsk agreements the minsk agreements must be fulfilled 29:23 but that's exactly what john kerry said yesterday coming out of a meeting with the british 29:28 foreign minister he mentioned after syria ukraine and he said we have to have a full 29:34 implementation of the mixed agreements so you and john kerry are just like this you agree implement 29:42 the mental agreement in full info 29:48 could you please have enough patience and not interrupt me for two minutes and i ask you 30:01 can you do this do you have enough power to do this to present it without cuts 30:06 yes 30:20 i'll speak about the main point so that the situation in ukraine changes fundamentally 30:29 there should be political reform that's first there should be constitutional changes 30:34 that's what's set forth in the minsk agreements then most important the minsk agreements 30:42 state this should be done in coordination with donetsk and luhansk 30:48 it's and that is a matter of principle ukraine there are reforms introduced in 30:56 the constitution in the first week but there's been no coordination with luhansk and donetsk at all 31:02 and no one 31:13 it's stated in the minsk agreements that there should be the implementation of the law 31:19 the law was already passed in ukraine of the special self-governance status of those territories 31:31 they've adopted this law it's implementation has been postponed that means that the 31:37 minsk agreements are not fulfilled on this point 31:42 and third there should have been the amnesty law 31:48 how can one engage in a dialogue with people from donbass and luhansk and donetsk if they're all being prosecuted they're 31:56 all being brought legal charges against them that's why the minsk agreements say that a law 32:01 on amnesty must be adopted but it's not been adopted 32:14 and there are other points as well for example conducting local elections it's been written in the minsk 32:20 agreements to adopt a law on local elections upon coordination with donetsk and luhansk 32:26 ukraine 32:38 but nobody even talked to them 32:48 that's why i respect and love mr kerry he's an extremely experienced diplomat very experienced diplomat 32:57 he told me that he was against star wars back in the past and it was the right thing to do because 33:03 maybe if he was the one who adopted decisions on abm he probably wouldn't have any conflicts 33:08 on abm right now but if one side says we've done this that and that 33:14 we've complied with the minsk agreements that's not true because all these points must be 33:19 implemented in coordination with donetsk and 33:27 as for the implementation of the already adopted law on the special self-governance of these territories 33:33 the minsk agreements say within 30 days nothing has been done yet it's been 33:38 postponed the entering into force of this law has been postponed that's why we advocate the full and 33:45 unconditional implementation of the minsk agreements by both sides not as interpreted by one of the sides 33:51 but as it's written down in the minsk agreement you really believe that 33:58 there's nothing to believe actually it's written on paper you just need to read it it's written in 34:04 coordination with donetsk and luhansk read the document for yourself and i'm telling you there has been no 34:10 coordination at all it was written to adopt the law on the special status within 30 days 34:17 but the law has not been enforced so who's not implementing the minsk agreements you've mentioned the 34:22 secretary of state he also said that it's important not only to implement the minsk agreement 34:28 but also for separatists to give up the idea of independent elections 34:35 john kerry said that yesterday 34:41 well yes i know the position of our us friends and here's what i want to say in this regard 34:47 i just mentioned this i see i'm forced to repeat it the minsk agreements say that a law on 34:52 local elections must be passed in coordination with donetsk and luhansk 35:00 news so what happened in reality the kiev authorities did adopt the law on their own without 35:08 any coordination or negotiations with donetsk and lujan in spite of the fact that donetsk and 35:15 luhansk sent their draft three times there was no dialogue at all 35:20 they've adopted this on their own without any consultations moreover the law that was adopted by 35:26 kiev says that in these territories there will not be elections at all 35:32 how are we to understand this in fact they themselves have provoked the representative of donetsk and luhansk 35:38 to schedule their own elections that's all there is to it okay 35:48 but we need to prod both sides to implement what they've put their signatures together rather than to pass off as something 35:55 good what they've done on their own initiative i hear you but i wanted to repeat that because secretary kerry emphasized 36:01 separatist elections i did hear you here's what i think well he's being cunning 36:07 as secretary of state and as a diplomat he's being cunning it's it's quite normal for his 36:12 profession and for his work all diplomats are quite cunning so is he 36:19 you would never do that would you 36:24 no i would never do that i'm not a diplomat what are you how do you see yourself 36:33 i'm a human being i'm a citizen of the russian federation i'm a russian you also have said 36:40 that the worst thing that happened last century was the collapse of the soviet empire 36:46 there are those who look at ukraine especially ukraine and georgia and they believe that you do 36:53 not want to recreate the soviet empire but you do want to recreate 37:00 a sphere of influence which you think russia deserves because of the relationship 37:07 that is existed why are you smiling [Laughter] 37:16 you're making me happy because we're always suspected of some ambitions and they always try to distort 37:22 something or hint at something i indeed said that i believe that the collapse of the ussr 37:28 was a huge tragedy of the 20th century you know why 37:34 because first of all in a single instant 25 million russian people 37:40 found themselves beyond the borders of the russian federation here they had been living within the 37:46 borders of a unified state and always traditionally the soviet union had been called 37:52 russia soviet russia well this was greater russia then all of 37:59 a sudden the ussr collapsed just overnight in fact right 38:07 and it's turned out that in former soviet republics there were people russian people numbering 25 million 38:14 they had been living in a single country and all of a sudden they turned out to be abroad 38:22 you can imagine how many problems arose first of all there were everyday 38:27 problems economic problems social problems the separation of families 38:34 you can't list them all do you think it's normal that 25 million people 38:39 russian people wound up abroad all of a sudden russians turned out to be the largest 38:45 divided nation in the world today is that not a problem well not for you but it's a problem for me 38:52 and what do you intend to do about it [Applause] what we want to do is use modern 38:59 civilized processes to preserve at least at a minimum the common humanitarian space 39:06 to make it so that these state borders do not get in the way so that people can communicate freely 39:13 among themselves so that we can develop our economies jointly we want to take advantage of those 39:19 benefits of the former ussr that we've inherited what are these benefits joint 39:25 infrastructure a unified railroad system a unified highway system 39:30 a unified energy system and finally if i dare say it the great russian language which unites 39:37 all former republics of the soviet union and which gives us evident competitive 39:42 advantages when promoting various integration projects in the territory of the post-soviet 39:48 space you've probably heard that we first 39:53 established the customs union and then we've transformed it into the eurasian economic union 40:00 so when people can communicate freely and move freely when workforces goods services and 40:06 capital move freely there are no state lines when we have our common rules and legal regulation 40:13 in the social sphere for example 40:18 then this is quite enough people must feel free 40:24 but do you have to use and show military force to accomplish that objective 40:32 no if you have a military presence on the border of ukraine and some even argue that there have been russian 40:38 troops in ukraine 40:45 you have a military presence in europe the tactical nuclear weapons of the 40:50 united states are in europe let's not forget that what does that mean does it mean that 40:56 you've occupied germany or that you renounced the occupation of germany after world war ii and then you have only transformed 41:04 the occupation forces into nato forces one could put it that way but we're not putting it that way 41:12 and if we have our military forces on our border on our territory on the border with some 41:18 state 41:28 well in order to run these activities that i've told you about this economic humanitarian and social 41:33 integration military force would not be needed at all we've built our customs union the 41:39 eurasian economic union not with the use of force but through seeking a compromise 41:45 this is a complicated process a difficult long-standing process through negotiations and through the 41:52 search for a compromise on mutually beneficial and acceptable conditions 41:57 with the exception that we would create for our people and for our economies more effective 42:03 advantages in world markets and in the international arena in general that's why i'm 42:08 deeply convinced that we should abandon the phobias of the past we should look ahead and act based on 42:14 the international law to build good neighborly relations on an equal footing 42:20 and eliminate sanctions well if someone likes to work so much 42:25 through using sanctions go ahead you can do that but it's harmful it goes against international law as 42:32 i've mentioned first of all and secondly tell me where the policy of imposing sanctions has 42:38 been effective nowhere especially with regard to a country like russia even your friends worry about the 42:44 russian economy because of sanctions first but also declining oil prices you know is that a huge 42:53 challenge for you is that a troubling 43:02 you know as i said sanctions are illegal actions which violate the principles of the world economy the principles 43:08 of the wto the united nations because sanctions can be introduced only by the 43:14 decision of the u.n security council because unilaterally that is a violation 43:20 of international law well let's leave it aside of course sanctions are harmed 43:27 but they're not the main reason for the slump in the growth of the russian economy or other problems related to inflation 43:36 the main reason for us really is the drop in prices on the world market for our traditional export 43:42 commodities such as oil and gas and some other goods 43:54 when it comes to sanctions they add to the negative side they do have an influence one way or 43:59 another although they don't have a capital fundamental importance for our economy 44:19 do you know what the advantage is it's many things especially when it comes to high technologies 44:28 we used to prefer to buy them to use our petro dollars 44:34 but now since these sanctions are imposed we either can't buy these technologies or we fear 44:39 that something may be closed off to us and now we're forced to introduce entire programs 44:45 for developing our own high-tech economy in industry 44:58 but it was difficult for us before because our own domestic markets were flooded with 45:04 foreign goods so in the wto it was difficult to support our local 45:09 manufacturers but now that the sanctions have been imposed our partners have voluntarily 45:14 left our market now we have a chance for development 45:24 let me have two two more questions first of course you have the floor 45:34 you've been president prime minister president 45:39 how long do you want to serve and what do you want to be 45:44 your legacy one question 45:52 well how long that depends on two things first of all unquestionably there are regulations 45:58 provided for 46:03 [Music] but i'm not sure that i should fully exercise all these constitutional rights 46:11 that'll depend on the specific situation in the country and the world well on my own sentiments about it 46:18 and what do you want your legacy to be 46:25 that russia should be effective competitive should have a sustainable economy with a developed 46:31 social and political system that is flexible both in regard to changes within 46:36 and around the country and should play a major role in the world 46:42 that it lives it should be competitive as i said 46:50 and should be in a position to defend its own interests and to influence those processes which are significant to it many say 46:58 you're all powerful here in russia many say you're all 47:03 powerful and they believe that you can have 47:08 anything you want anything what do you want 47:14 tell america tell the world what vladimir putin wants i want for russia to be as i've 47:22 just described it that's really my main desire i want people to be happy 47:28 and that our partners all over the world would want to and would strive to develop relations with russia thank you 47:41 [Music]

if you ask my opinion now i'm telling you what it is the most important value in 11:56 international affairs is predictability and stability 12:02 i believe that on the part of our us partners this is something that we haven't seen in recent years 12:08 what kind of stability and predictability could there be if we remember the 2011 events in 12:15 libya where the country was essentially taken apart broken down what kind of stability and 12:21 predictability were there has been talk of a continued presence of troops 12:26 in afghanistan and then all of a sudden boom the troops are being withdrawn from afghanistan what is this predictability 12:32 and the stability again now the middle east events 12:38 is this predictability and stability what all of this will lead to or in 12:44 syria what is stable and predictable about this i've asked my u.s 12:49 counterparts you want assad to leave who will replace him what will happen 12:56 when somebody replaces him the answer is odd the answer is i don't know 13:01 well if you don't know what will happen next why change what there is it could be a second libya or another 13:07 afghanistan do we want this no let us sit down 13:12 together look for compromised solutions that are acceptable for all the parties 13:19 that is how stability is achieved it cannot be achieved by imposing one particular point of view the quote 13:27 unquote correct point of view whereby all the other ones are incorrect that is not how stability is achieved 13:32

NBC Exclusive: Full Interview With Russian President Vladimir Putin

0:08 three years i think thank you for your time there's a lot to discuss i hope we have time to get to 0:15 all of the issues but i want to begin with some news from 0:20 the u.s just today in the u.s it's reported that russia is preparing perhaps within months to 0:27 supply iran with an advanced satellite system enabling tehran to track military targets 0:35 is that true 0:42 would you mind what kind of facilities 0:49 no it's the report today is that russia is preparing to give 0:56 or to offer to iran uh satellite technology which will enable iran to target 1:03 uh military to make to make military 1:10 targets we don't have that kind of programs with iran 1:18 we it's just nonsense all over again yet again 1:30 military and technical cooperation and all of this fits the framework of the decisions 1:35 that were agreed upon in our program in regard to iran's nuclear program in the context 1:42 of u.n decisions together with our partners in the preparation of 1:48 the joint comprehensive plan of actions 1:56 including in the area of military and technical cooperation should be lifted from iran 2:06 do have certain programs they all concern conventional weapons if it gets that far however we haven't 2:12 even gone to that stage yet we don't even have any kind of real cooperation even in the conventional weapons area so if anybody 2:21 is making something up regarding modern space-based technology 2:26 this is just plain fiction this is just fake news at the very least i don't know anything about this kind of thing those 2:32 who are speaking about it probably know more about it it's just nonsense 2:39 so presumably you'd agree that giving iran satellite technology 2:44 that might enable it to target u.s service men and women in places like iraq or to share that information 2:52 with hezbollah or the houthi in yemen so they could target israel and saudi arabia that giving iran 3:00 that kind of satellite technology would be dangerous 3:10 why are we talking about problems that don't exist there is no subject for a discussion 3:19 has invented something has made something up maybe this is just a bogus story 3:24 in order to limit any kind of military and technical cooperation with iran i will say once again this is just some 3:32 fake information that i have no knowledge about solutions for the first time i'm hearing about 3:37 this information from you we don't have this kind of intentions and i'm not even sure 3:44 that iran is even able to accommodate this kind of technology this is like a separate subject a very 3:51 high tech subject yes indeed we don't rule out 3:57 that cooperation with many world nations and us is possible in space but probably 4:03 everybody knows very well our position in terms that we are categorically against space 4:09 militarization altogether we believe that space should be free 4:14 from any and all kinds of weapons located in uh near earth orbits that is why we 4:22 don't have this kind of plans or any plans especially concerning the transfer technology of the level that you have just 4:28 described so let's move on to your summit with 4:34 president biden at the context for the summit is that he is meeting with the g7 4:40 a group that you used to belong to with nato with european leaders president biden 4:47 has defined his first trip to europe as quote about rallying the world's democracies 4:54 he views you as a leader of autocrats who is determined to undermine 5:01 the liberal democratic order is that 5:08 true well i don't know somebody 5:14 presents it from a certain perspective someone else looks at the development of the 5:19 situation and at yours truly in a different manner all of this is 5:25 being offered to the public in a way that is found to be expedient 5:32 for the ruling circles of a certain country the fact that president biden has been 5:38 meeting up with his allies there is nothing unusual about it there is nothing unusual about a g7 meeting 5:45 we know what g7 is i have been there on numerous occasions i know what the values are in that forum 5:52 when people get together and discuss something it's always good it's better than not to get together and not to discuss 5:58 because even in the context of g7 there are matters that require ongoing attention and consideration because 6:04 there are differences strange as it may seem there may be differences in assessments of international events 6:10 on the international arena and among themselves very well then let them get together and discuss it as 6:16 far as nato i have said on many occasions this is a cold war relic it's something that was 6:22 born in the cold war era i'm not sure why it still continues to exist there 6:27 was a time and there was some talk that this organization would be transformed now it has been kind of forgotten we presume that it is 6:34 a military organization it is an ally of the united states every once in a while it makes sense to 6:39 meet up with your allies although i can have an idea how the discussion goes along there 6:47 clearly everything is decided by consensus however there is just one opinion that is correct whereas 6:54 the other opinions all of the other opinions are not quite that correct putting it in 7:00 careful terms well there we go allies are getting together what's so unusual about it i 7:05 don't see anything unusual about it as a matter of fact it's a sign of respect to the us allies before a summit 7:12 between the u.s and russian presidents take place probably it is being presented as desire to find out their 7:18 opinion on the key issues of their current agenda including those issues that president biden and i 7:24 will discuss however i'm inclined to think that despite 7:30 all of these niceties the united states as far as their relationship with russia 7:36 will be promoting what they consider important and necessary for themselves above all for themselves for their 7:43 economic and military interests however to hear what their allies have to say 7:49 about that probably never hurts this is a working procedure 7:56 so let's talk about your uh meeting uh with president biden the summit that will 8:02 happen after those meetings president biden asked you to meet with him 8:07 he didn't make any preconditions were you 8:17 we have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to what is the lowest 8:23 point in recent years however there are matters that need a certain amount of comparing 8:30 notes and identification and determination of mutual positions so that matters that our 8:37 mutual interest can be dealt with in an efficient and effective way in the interests of both the united 8:43 states and russia so there is nothing unusual about it in fact despite this seemingly harsh rhetoric 8:53 we did expect suggestions because the us domestic political agenda made it 8:59 impossible for us to restore the relationship at an acceptable level this meeting 9:05 should have taken place at some point 9:10 launched this initiative prior to that as you will know he had supported the 9:16 extension of the start treaty which of course was bound to meet with support from our side because we believe 9:23 that this is a treaty in the area of containment of strategic offensive weapons 9:29 it has been worked through and thoroughly and meets our interests and meets the u.s interests so this offer could be expected 9:40 will you go into the summit agreeing uh to begin more arms control talks 9:46 immediately after the summit because as you mentioned president biden has extended new start 9:52 by five years washington would like that to be the beginning not the end of that conversation 10:02 um 10:11 we understand these questions matters and problems we are prepared for this joint work yes we have 10:19 certain if not differences then different understandings of what pays at what pace and in what 10:25 directions we need to be moving we know what constitutes priorities for 10:31 the u.s side and generally speaking 10:36 this is a process that needs to be advanced at the professional level along the 10:43 lines of the foreign ministry and defense ministry on the russian side and pentagon and the state department on 10:48 the u.s side we are prepared for this work we've heard signals that the u.s side would like to see these negotiations 10:54 resumed at this expert level of professionals we will see if the conditions for this 11:00 have been created following the summit of course we're not saying no we are prepared to 11:06 do this work president biden wants predictability and 11:12 stability is that what you want no it's something well 11:21 these are the most important things this is the most important thing this is the most important value if you 11:26 will internationally sorry to interrupt you but he would say that you have caused a lot of instability and 11:32 unpredictability 11:50 and is different but if you ask my opinion now i'm telling you what it is the most important value in 11:56 international affairs is predictability and stability 12:02 i believe that on the part of our us partners this is something that we haven't seen in recent years 12:08 what kind of stability and predictability could there be if we remember the 2011 events in 12:15 libya where the country was essentially taken apart broken down what kind of stability and 12:21 predictability were there has been talk of a continued presence of troops 12:26 in afghanistan and then all of a sudden boom the troops are being withdrawn from afghanistan what is this predictability 12:32 and the stability again now the middle east events 12:38 is this predictability and stability what all of this will lead to or in 12:44 syria what is stable and predictable about this i've asked my u.s 12:49 counterparts you want assad to leave who will replace him what will happen 12:56 when somebody replaces him the answer is odd the answer is i don't know 13:01 well if you don't know what will happen next why change what there is it could be a second libya or another 13:07 afghanistan do we want this no let us sit down 13:12 together look for compromised solutions that are acceptable for all the parties 13:19 that is how stability is achieved it cannot be achieved by imposing one particular point of view the quote 13:27 unquote correct point of view whereby all the other ones are incorrect that is not how stability is achieved 13:32 let's get to some of those issues i want to just talk a little bit more about your relationship with president biden 13:38 um this will not be the helsinki summit uh president biden is is not president trump 13:44 uh you once described president trump as a bright person talented how would you describe 13:50 president biden 13:57 well even now i believe that former u.s president mr trump is an 14:03 extraordinary individual talented individual otherwise he would not have become a u.s president he's a colorful 14:09 individual and you may like him or not and he didn't come of course from the 14:14 u.s establishment he had not been part of big time politics before and some like it some don't like it but 14:20 that is a fact president biden of course is radically different from trump 14:26 because president biden is a career man he has spent virtually his entire 14:31 adulthood in politics he has been doing it for a great deal of years and i have already said that and 14:37 that is an obvious fact just think of the number of years you spent in the senate 14:43 and how many years he was involved in matters of uh international politics and disarmament 14:49 virtually at the expert level that is a different kind of person and it is my great hope 14:54 that yes there are some advantages some disadvantages but there will not be any knee-jerk 15:00 reactions on behalf of the sitting u.s president and that we will be able to comply with 15:05 certain rules of engagement certain rules of communications and will be able to find 15:10 points of contact and common points that's 15:15 about it and what will actually happen we will need to live and see based on the actual 15:22 practical policies and results thereof well president biden says uh one time 15:27 when you met you were inches away from each other close to each other 15:32 and he said to you i'm looking in your eyes and i can't see a soul and you said 15:40 we understand each other do you remember that exchange 15:46 i should do sri is now as far as soul i'm not sure one has to think about what 15:52 soul is but i do not remember this particular part of our conversations to be honest 15:59 with you i do not remember we all when we meet when we get together 16:05 when we talk when we work we strive and achieve for some solutions we all proceed from the 16:11 interests of our nations and our states and this is fundamental and is the bedrock 16:17 of all our actions and intentions and this is the 16:24 driving force and the motive for organizing meetings of this kind 16:29 and as far as soul goes that's something for the church 16:35 yeah you're a religious man president biden is saying he told you to your face you don't have 16:41 a song i do not remember this 16:49 he says it was about it was 10 years maybe there's something wrong he was vice president with my memory 16:56 well he probably has a good memory i i do not rule this out 17:04 but i don't remember this generally in personal encounters people try to act appropriately 17:11 i do not remember any inappropriate elements of behavior on the part of my counterparts i don't think that anything 17:17 like that has happened would you have felt that was an inappropriate thing to say 17:28 that depends on the context it depends on what form they're set in you know one can say it in different 17:35 ways it can be presented in different ways but generally people meet up in order to 17:41 establish a relationship and create an environment and conditions for joint work 17:47 with a view to achieving some kind of positive results if one is going to have a fight with 17:53 somebody else why bother and have a meeting to begin with one is better off looking into budget 18:00 and social policies domestically we have many issues that we have to 18:06 resolve what's the point then it's just a waste of time 18:14 of course one can present this for domestic political consumption which i 18:20 believe is what has been done in the united states in the last few years where the u.s russian 18:27 relationship was sacrificed for the sake of a fierce political strife inside the u.s 18:33 we can see that we know it well we have been accused of all kinds of things election interference 18:40 cyber attacks and so on and so forth and not once not once not one time 18:45 did they bother to produce any kind of evidence or proof just unfounded accusations i'm surprised 18:53 that we have not yet been accused of provoking the black lives matter movement 19:00 that would have been a good line of attack what do you think we did not do that what do you think of the black lives matter movement 19:09 i think that of course this movement was used by one of the 19:15 political forces domestically in the course of uh election campaigns but there are 19:22 some grounds for it let's remember colin powell 19:29 who was secretary of state and he was also in charge of the pentagon even he wrote 19:35 in his book that even he as a high-ranking official had felt some kind of injustice towards 19:42 himself his entire life as someone with a dark complexion even from the ussr days 19:49 and in russia we have always always treated with understanding the fight of 19:55 african americans for their rights and there are certain roots to it 20:01 there is a certain foundation for this but no matter how noble the goals that 20:08 somebody is driven by if it reaches certain extremes if it spills over into 20:16 extremism acquires elements of extremism we cannot approve this we cannot welcome 20:24 this so our attitude to this is 20:29 very simple we do support african americans fight for their rights 20:35 but we are against any types and kinds of extremism which unfortunately 20:42 sometimes regrettably we witness currently these days you mentioned cyber you 20:48 mentioned cyber attacks um and deny any involvement uh by russia uh but mr president there is now 20:56 a weight of evidence a long list of alleged state-sponsored cyber attacks 21:03 let me give you five there's a lot but it makes a point 21:09 the u.s intelligence community says russia interfered with the 2016 election 21:14 election security officials said russia tried to interfere with the 2020 election cyber security 21:21 researchers said government hackers targeted covid vaccine researchers hacking for coveted vaccines in april 21:28 the treasury department said the solar winds attack was the world's worst with including not 21:33 with targets including nine federal agencies and just before your summit microsoft 21:39 says it's discovered another attack with targets including organizations that have criticized you 21:45 at mr putin mr president president are you waging a cyber war against america 21:56 take you have said that there is a weight of evidence of uh cyber attacks 22:03 by russia and then you went on to list those official 22:08 u.s agencies that have stated as much is that what you did well i'm telling 22:15 i'm giving you information about who said it so you can answer that right 22:23 you are conveying information to me as to who said that but where is evidence that this was 22:28 indeed done i will tell you that this person has said that and that person has said this 22:35 but where is the evidence where is proof there are charges 22:40 like that without evidence i can tell you you can take your complaint to the international league of sexual reform 22:46 will you be happy about it this is a conversation that has no subject whatsoever at least put 22:53 something on the table so that we can look and respond but there isn't anything like that 22:59 the latest thing as far as i know one of the latest attacks was against a pipeline 23:06 system in the us right yes so what this is you'll mention just just 23:14 just a moment as far as i know the shareholders of this company made a 23:22 decision to pay the ransom they paid off the cyber gangsters 23:29 if you have listed an entire set of u.s special services powerful respectable global after all 23:34 they can't find whoever the ransom was paid too 23:40 once they do that i hope they will realize that russia has nothing to do with it now there's some kind of a cyber attack 23:53 they will say there was an attack against some easter eggs it's becoming farcical like an ongoing 23:59 farcical thing a never-ending farcical thing plenty of evidence but you haven't cited 24:06 any proof yet again but this is an empty conversation a pointless conversation 24:12 what exactly are we talking about 24:18 you've moved on to this question of uh ransomware and criminals 24:24 uh russian-speaking criminals is the allegation are targeting the american way of life 24:31 food gas water hospitals transport why would you let russian speaking 24:39 criminals disrupt your diplomacy wouldn't don't you want to know who's responsible 24:51 the simplest thing to do would be for us to sit down calmly and agree 24:58 on joint work in cyberspace and we did suggest that to mr obama's 25:04 administration we started in september 25:10 during his last year in office they didn't say anything then in 25:16 november they came back to us and said that yes it was interesting then the election was lost we restated this proposal to 25:22 mr trump's administration the response was that it is interesting it didn't come to the 25:29 point of actual negotiations there are grounds to believe that we can 25:36 build an effort in this area with the new administration we hope that the domestic political situation in the united states 25:42 will not prevent this from happening but we have proposed to do this work together let's agree on the principles 25:49 of mutual work let's find out what we can do together let's agree on how we will structure 25:56 counter efforts against this process that is gaining momentum we here in the 26:01 russian federation have a cyber crime that has increased many times over 26:08 in the last few years we're trying to respond to it we're looking for cyber criminals if we find them we 26:13 punish them we are willing to engage with international participants including the 26:18 united states you are the ones who have refused to engage in joint work what can we do we cannot 26:24 build this work we cannot structure this work unilaterally 26:32 well i'm not the government mr putin i'm just a journalist asking i understand questions but if you 26:39 you clearly want to negotiate you must have something to negotiate with 26:44 you you don't ask for a truce unless you're fighting in a war 26:53 you know as far as the war nato officially i'd like to draw your 26:59 attention to that nato has officially stated that it considers 27:04 cyberspace a battlefield an area of military action and conducts 27:12 military exercises and you're involved in that battlefield russia is fighting on that battlefield 27:20 correct no no no really 27:27 that is not correct really if we wanted to do that nato did say 27:35 that it considers cyberspace an area of combat and it prepares and even 27:40 conducts exercises what stops us from doing the same if you do that we will do the same thing 27:46 but we don't want that just like we don't want space militarized in the same manner we don't want 27:52 cyberspace militarized and we have suggested on many occasions agreeing on mutual work 27:57 in this cybersecurity area but your government refuses to isn't 28:04 i saw your proposal from from september from just in september isn't what you're proposing that 28:11 if you can come to an agreement over hacking and election interference 28:17 then you'll call off the hacking and the election interference if america agrees not to comment on your 28:24 elections and your political opponents 28:36 what we count on is that nobody should interfere in domestic processes in other countries 28:42 neither the us and ours or we in the usa or any other nations all nations of the 28:48 world should be given a chance to develop calmly even if there are crisis situations they have to be resolved by 28:54 the people domestically without any influence or interference from the outside but i don't think that this called by 29:00 the u.s administration is worth anything it appears to me that the us government 29:06 will continue to interfere in political processes in other countries i don't think that 29:12 this process can be stopped because it has gained a lot of momentum however 29:17 as far as joint work in cyberspace to prevent some unacceptable actions 29:25 on the part of cyber criminals that definitely is something 29:32 that can indeed be agreed upon and it is our great hope that we will be able to establish this process with our u.s 29:38 partners if you were in america what would you 29:44 fear might happen next the lights being switched off the way they were in western ukraine in 2015 30:01 would i be afraid of if i were an american or or what what what should americans worry 30:10 what might happen next if there's no agreement on cyber no it 30:19 wasn't it 30:28 this is a very dangerous area at some point in the past in order to achieve something in the 30:34 nuclear area in terms of confrontation in the area of nuclear weapons the ussr and the united states did agree 30:40 to contain this particular arms race cyberspace is a very sensitive area 30:47 as of today a great deal of human endeavors rely upon digital 30:53 technologies including the functioning of government and of course interference in these processes can 31:00 cause a lot of damage and a lot of losses and everybody understands that and i'm 31:06 repeating for the third time let's sit down together and agree on joint work and how to achieve security 31:11 in this area that is all what is bad about it i don't even understand 31:19 i'm not asking you i'm not trying to put you on the spot but for me as an ordinary citizen 31:26 it would not be clear and understandable why is it that your government refuses to do it 31:32 accusations keep coming including up to interference and involvement in a cyber attack 31:37 against some kind of a meat processing plant but in the meantime our proposal to 31:42 start negotiations in this area are being turned down this is some kind of nonsense but that's exactly what's 31:48 been happening i repeat one more time it is my hope that we will be able to start 31:56 engaging in positive work in this area in terms of what's to be afraid of 32:01 why is it that we suggest agreeing on something because what people can be afraid of in america 32:07 the very same thing can be a danger to us us is a high-tech country nato has declared 32:14 cyberspace an area of combat that means they are planning something 32:20 they are preparing something so obviously this cannot but worry us do you fear 32:28 that american intelligence is deep inside russian systems and has the ability 32:35 to do you a lot of damage in cyber i'm not afraid but i bear in mind that 32:42 it is a possibility let me ask you about uh human rights an 32:49 issue that president biden will raise uh mr president 32:54 he'll raise the uh issue of alexi navalny targeted for assassination now in a 33:00 russian jail mr president why are you so threatened by opposition 33:08 who says that i feel threatened by opposition or we're threatened by opposition who told you who who told you that 33:14 what a russian court has well well i rush excuse me i'm sorry a russian court 33:19 has just outlawed organizations connected to mr navalny literally every non-systematic 33:25 opposition figure is facing criminal charges in journalism and meduza and v times have been hit 33:31 with foreign agent labels and face collapse mr president it's as if dissent is simply not 33:38 tolerated in russia anymore 33:46 you are presenting it as dissent and intolerance towards dissent in russia 33:52 we view it completely differently you have mentioned the law on foreign agents but that's not something 33:58 that we invented that law was adopted back in the 1930s 34:03 in the united states the law and foreign agents and that law is much harsher than ours 34:10 and it is intended among other things at preventing interference in the domestic political affairs of the united states 34:29 what about this what about that it's a way of not answering the question let me ask you a direct question did you 34:37 did you did you let me i will i will look let me answer 34:42 i will look no let me answer you've asked me a question you're not 34:48 liking my answers so you're interrupting me right away this is inappropriate so there we go in the united states 34:56 this law was adopted a long time ago it's working and sanctions under that 35:07 imprisonment yes yes yes correct again you're not letting me but i i will 35:12 revert to us do not worry i will go back to us i will not remain focused on u.s problems 35:20 exclusively because i will reverse the president and go back and comment comment on what's happening your belief 35:26 was that nations shouldn't intervene in other countries domestic 35:32 correct shouldn't correct on other countries politics but there you are doing it 35:37 again no no no if you muster some patience and let me 35:45 finish saying what i mean to say everything will be clear to you but you are not liking my answer you don't want my 35:52 answer to be heard by your audience that is the problem you're shutting me down is that free 35:57 expression or is that free expression the american way please answer thank you 36:04 so thank you thank you very much here we go the u.s adopted this law 36:13 we passed this law only very recently in order to protect our society against outside interference 36:23 in the us if a foreign observer approaches a polling station the 36:28 prosecutor says come a few feet closer and you'll go to jail is that normal is that democracy in the modern world 36:35 but that is an actual practice in some of the states we don't have anything like that when i 36:42 talk about these laws about non-interference or attempts at interference what do i mean 36:49 as applied to russia many entities of the so-called 36:56 civil society the reason i say so-called is because many of those 37:02 entities are funded from abroad specific relevant action programs are 37:08 prepared their core members are trained abroad and when our official authorities see 37:14 that then in order to prevent this kind of interference in our domestic affairs 37:21 we make relevant decisions and adopt relevant laws and they're more lenient than yours 37:29 you have we have a saying don't be mad at the mirror if you're ugly it it has nothing to do 37:37 with your person but if somebody blames us for something 37:43 what i say is why don't you look at yourselves you will see yourselves in the mirror 37:48 not us there is nothing unusual about it as far as 37:53 political activities and the political system it is evolving we have 44 registered parties well 38:00 34 i think and 32 are about to participate in various electoral processes across 38:07 the entire country in september we only have a limited amount of time 38:13 there is also non-systemic opposition you have said that some people have been detained some people 38:20 are in prison yes that is all true you mentioned certain names yes yes i i will i will talk about it i 38:27 will not leave any of your questions unattended can i ask you can i just ask you a direct 38:33 question did you order alexey navalny's assassination 38:40 of course not we don't have this kind of habit of assassinating anybody that's one 38:46 number two is i want to ask you did you order the assassination of the woman who walked 38:52 into the congress and who was shot and killed by a policeman do you know that 450 individuals were 38:58 arrested after entering the congress and they didn't go there to steal a laptop they came with political demands 450 39:07 people have been detained you're talking about the capital they're looking at jail time between 15 and 39:14 25 years and they came to the congress with political demands isn't that persecution 39:21 for political opinions some have been accused of plotting to take over government power some are 39:29 accused of robbery they didn't go there to rob the people 39:34 the individuals whom you mentioned yes they were convicted for violating their status of individuals who had been 39:42 previously convicted and given suspended sentences twice an individual was given 39:50 suspended sentences essentially it was a warning not to violate the russian laws 39:58 completely ignored the requirements of the law the court went on and turned the conviction into real jail 40:04 time thousands and thousands of people ignore requirements of the law and they have nothing to do with political activities 40:11 in russia every year and they go to jail if somebody is actually using political 40:17 activities as a shield to deal with their own issues including to achieve their commercial goals then 40:23 it's something that they have to be held responsible for 40:31 there you go again mr president what about america when i've asked you about russia let me ask you you mentioned congress 40:38 let me ask you another direct question that you can answer and it's an allegation that has been made an 40:44 accusation that has been made again and again now in the united states the late john 40:50 mccain in congress called you a killer when president trump was asked uh was told 40:58 that you are a killer he didn't deny it when president biden was asked whether he believes you are 41:04 a killer he said i do mr president are you a killer 41:12 look over my tenure i've gotten used to attacks 41:19 from all kinds of angles from all kinds of directions under all kinds of 41:24 pretexts and reasons and of different caliber and fierceness and none of it surprises me people with 41:31 whom i work and with whom i argue on the international arena we're not 41:36 bride and groom we don't swear everlasting love and friendship we are partners and in some areas we are rivals 41:44 as far as harsh rhetoric i think that this is an expression of overall u.s 41:49 culture of course in hollywood because we did mention hollywood at the beginning of our conversation 41:56 there are some deep things that undoubtedly can be referred to 42:02 as works of cinematic art but more often than not its macho behavior and that is also 42:10 part of us culture including political culture and it is considered normal by the way not here it is not considered 42:16 normal here if this rhetoric is followed by a suggestion to meet and discuss bilateral issues and matters 42:23 of international policies i see it as desire to engage in joint work if this desire is serious we are 42:29 prepared to support it i don't i don't think i heard you answer 42:35 the question the direct question uh mr president i did answer i did i will add if you let me i have heard 42:42 dozens of such accusations especially during the period of some grave events during our 42:49 counter-terrorism efforts in north caucasus and when it happens 42:55 i'm always guided by the interests of the russian people and the russian state and sentiments in terms of who calls 43:01 somebody what what kind of labels this is not something i worry about in the least 43:11 let me give you some names and anna polikovskaya shot dead alexander litvinienko poisoned by 43:17 polonium uh sergey magninsky allegedly beaten and died in prison boris nemtsov shot moments from the 43:23 kremlin moments from here uh mikhail lesson had died of blunt trauma in washington dc 43:29 are all of these a coincidence mr president 43:40 i don't want to come across as being rude but this looks like some kind of 43:45 indigestion except that it's verbal in digestion you mentioned many individuals who 43:51 indeed suffered and perished at different points in time for various reasons at the hand of different 43:58 individuals you've mentioned lesson lesson used to work in my administration i liked him very much 44:04 he perished in the united states died or perished i'm not sure which we should ask you how 44:10 exactly he perished i regret to this day that he is not with us anymore in my opinion he's a very decent individual as far as 44:18 the others we found some of the criminals who committed those crimes and some are in prison 44:27 and we are prepared to continue to work in this mode and along this 44:33 avenue identifying everybody who violated the law and by their actions 44:40 damage including to the image of the russian federation 44:47 however just piling everything together is meaningless inappropriate 44:54 and baseless one sees this as a line of attack 45:02 then very well let me listen to it one more time but i repeat i have heard 45:08 it many times but this doesn't baffle me i know which direction to move in in 45:15 order to secure the interests of the russian state 45:23 let's move on to belarus and ukraine two issues that will certainly come up 45:28 in your summit with president biden did you have prior knowledge 45:34 that a commercial airliner would be forced to land in belarus and that a journalist would be arrested 45:47 i did not know about this i didn't know about any airliner i didn't know about the individuals who 45:53 were detained there subsequently i found out about it from the media i didn't know i didn't 45:59 have a clue about any detainees i don't know it is of no interest to us you appeared to 46:04 approve of it judging by your meeting with president lukashenko soon 46:12 afterwards 46:23 i said recently in one of my conversations with a european colleague i told him about the version 46:29 of mr lokashenko who told me about it he said that information had been given to them that 46:35 there was an explosive device on board the plane they informed the pilot without forcing the pilot to land 46:40 and the pilot made a decision to land in minsk that is off can you believe that 46:47 why should i not believe him ask the pilot it's the simplest thing ask the chief 46:53 pilot as the commander of the aircraft did you ask him if he was 46:58 forced to land because i have not heard or seen an interview with the aircraft commander that landed 47:05 in minsk why not ask him why not ask him if he was forced to land 47:11 why don't you ask him it's actually even odd everybody accuses lukashenko but the 47:17 pilot hasn't been asked you know i cannot but recall another 47:22 similar situation where the plane of the president of bolivia was forced to land 47:29 in vienna at the orders of the u.s administration air force one 47:35 presidential plane was forced to land the president was led out of the aircraft they 47:41 searched the plane and you don't even recall that do you think it was normal 47:47 so that was good but what lukashenko did was bad look 47:53 let us speak the same language and let us use the same concepts 48:02 if well lukashenko is a gangster how about the other incident then was it 48:09 good in bolivia at the time it was seen as humiliation of the entire country but 48:16 everybody kept mom in order to not aggravate the situation nobody's recalling that by the way 48:24 of this kind with respect you're recalling it but so if it is if that means you gave him an 48:30 example talking about a commercial flight shouldn't people be able to take a commercial 48:37 flight across europe without fear of being shot down like in the case of mh17 or forced down 48:45 so that a dictator can arrest a journalist 48:55 i will tell you one more time what president told me i don't have any 49:02 reason not to believe him for the third time i'm telling you ask the pilot why don't you ask the pilot was he being scared 49:09 was he being forced the fact that information appeared that there was a bomb on the plane that 49:15 individuals people had nothing to do with politics or any kind of domestic conflicts 49:23 could perceive it negatively could worry about it of course that's a 49:29 bad thing there is nothing good about this and obviously we condemn everything that has to do with this 49:35 and international terrorism and the use of aircraft and so on of course we're against this 49:42 and you've told me that the landing of the aircraft of the president of bolivia is a completely different matter yes it 49:47 is different except that it is ten times worse than what was done if anything was done in belarus but you just won't 49:54 acknowledge it you are ignoring it and you want millions of people around the world to either not notice it or forget about it 50:00 tomorrow you won't get away with it it won't happen in the case of neighboring ukraine 50:06 earlier this year the european union said you had more than a hundred thousand troops 50:12 on the ukrainian border was that an attempt to get washington's attention 50:24 look 50:33 and i think is still doing that it kept bringing personnel and military 50:39 equipment to the conflict area in the southeast of ukraine donbass that's one two is that we conducted 50:45 exercises in our territory and not just in the south of the russian federation but 50:50 also in the far east and in the north and in the arctic simultaneously 50:57 military exercises were being held in different parts of the russian federation at the very same time the us was 51:04 conducting military exercises in alaska do you know anything about it 51:09 probably not but i'll tell you that i do know and that is in direct proximity to our borders but 51:16 that's in your territory on your land we didn't even pay attention to it what is happening now 51:21 now at our southern borders there is a war game defender europe 40 000 personnel 51:28 15 000 units of military equipment part of them have been airlifted from 51:35 the us continent directly to our borders did we airlift 51:40 any of our military technology to the us borders no we did not many of those why you 51:46 any of those exercises are our response to your actions mr president do you worry 51:53 that your opposition to nato has actually strengthened it for six years nato has 51:59 spent more on defence 52:07 some defense during the ussr era gorbachev who is still thank god with us 52:12 you can ask him got a promise a verbal promise however it was a promise that there would be 52:18 nato expansion to the east where are those promises two waves where is that 52:23 where is that written down where is that promise written down don't do that 52:30 right right right right right right well done well done correct you've got a point got you good 52:38 well congratulations of course everything should be sealed and written on paper 52:43 but what was the point of expanding nato to the east and bringing this infrastructure to our borders 52:49 and all of this before saying that we're the ones who have been acting aggressively why on what basis 52:56 did russia after the ussr collapsed present any threat to the united states or european countries we voluntarily 53:03 withdrew our troops from eastern europe leaving them just on empty land our people there 53:08 military personnel lived there for decades in what was not normal conditions including their children 53:14 we went to tremendous expenses and what did we get in response we got in response infrastructure next 53:20 to our borders and now you're saying that we're threatening to somebody we're conducting war games on a regular 53:26 basis including sometimes surprise military exercises why should it worry the nato partners i just 53:34 don't understand this we will you commit now not to send any 53:41 further russian troops into ukrainian sovereign territory 53:50 look did we say that we were planning to send our armed formations 53:57 anywhere we conducted war games in our territory 54:03 how can this not be clear i'm saying it again because i want your audience to hear it 54:08 i want your listeners to hear it both on the screens of their television sets and on the internet we conducted 54:15 military exercises in our territory imagine if we sent our troops into direct proximity to your borders 54:22 what would have been your response we didn't do that we did it in our territory you conducted war games in alaska god 54:27 bless you but you had crossed an ocean brought thousands of personnel and thousands of units of 54:34 military equipment close to our borders and yet you believe that we are acting aggressively and 54:40 somehow you're not just look at that pot calling the kettle black 54:49 moving on the button administration has said that in your at your summit they will bring up 54:54 uh the case of two u.s prisoners in russia um paul whelan and trevor reed 55:01 uh they are two former marines uh trevor reed uh is uh 55:08 suffering from uh kovid in prison uh why don't you release them ahead of 55:13 the summit wouldn't that show goodwill 55:19 i know that we have certain u.s citizens who are in prison have been convicted 55:26 but if one considers the number of russian federation citizens who are in u.s prisons then these numbers don't even 55:32 compare the united states in recent years has made a habit 55:38 of catching russian federation citizens in third countries and taking them in violation of all 55:44 international legal matters unless we can have more time i'm very happy to have to keep going for another 55:51 30 minutes i control the time here so don't worry about time 55:56 your guy the marine he's just a drunk and a troublemaker uh what they say here he got himself 56:04 shit-faced on vodka and started a fight among other things he hit a cop 56:09 it's nothing it's just a common crime there's nothing to it as far as possible negotiations on this 56:17 subject sure it can be talked about obviously we'll raise the matter 56:23 of our citizens in prison in the united states yes it can be a specific conversation sure 56:28 we're happy to do it although it doesn't seem that the us administration has raised that matter but we're prepared 56:33 to talk about that our pilot yaroshenko has been in prison 56:39 in the us for a good i don't know how many years 15 maybe 20 years 56:47 and there the problem also seems to be a common crime we could and should talk about it but we haven't been talking 56:53 about this but we could if the u.s side is prepared to discuss it so are we 57:00 so his family will find that incredibly distressing to hear you talk about him that way it does sound though as if you would 57:06 consider some kind of a prisoner swap 57:12 there is there is nothing offensive about it he got drunk on vodka and started a fight 57:18 he fought a cop there is nothing offensive about it these things happen in life there is nothing horrible about 57:23 it somebody gulps down some vodka and 57:30 starts a fight so you violate the law you go to prison what would have happened if you 57:36 fought a cop in your country he would have been shot dead on the spot and that's the end of it isn't that the case 57:43 and on the prisoner swap question is that something that you would consider are you looking to negotiate 57:50 you're meeting with the president yes yes of course of course even better would be a discussion of the 57:57 possibility of entering into an agreement on 58:02 extradition of individuals who are in prison this is a standard international 58:07 practice we have such agreements with several countries we are prepared to enter into such an agreement with the united 58:13 states and just to be clear so we hear it from 58:19 you which russian prisoners in the u.s would you be hoping to bring back to 58:24 russia by name well we have a whole list 58:31 i've just mentioned our pilot a pilot named yaroshenko who was taken to the u.s from a third country 58:37 and was given a rather lengthy sentence he has some serious health issues but the 58:43 prison administration is not paying attention to this you have mentioned that your citizen has 58:48 coronavirus but nobody's paying attention to the health issues of our citizen we are prepared to 58:54 discuss these issues moreover makes sense as you correctly said 59:01 and i completely agree with you there are matters of humanitarian nature and why not discuss them as long 59:08 as they pertain to the health and life of specific individuals and of their families of course sure 59:13 thing just quickly before i move on on the 59:18 subject of prisons again with alexi navalny will you commit that you will personally ensure that 59:25 alexi navalny will leave prison alive 59:34 such decisions in this country are not made by the president they're made by the court whether or not 59:39 to set somebody free as far as the health all individuals who are in prison 59:46 that is something that the administration of the specific prison or penitentiary establishment is responsible for and 59:54 there are medical facilities in penitentiaries that are perhaps 1:00:00 are far from the best condition and they're the ones whose responsibility it is 1:00:07 and i hope that they do it properly but to be honest i have not visited such 1:00:13 places for a long time i did visit one in petersburg some time 1:00:19 ago and there was a very great impression that was made on me by the medical facilities 1:00:25 in a prison but since then i hope some things have been done to improve the situation 1:00:31 and i proceed from the premise that the person that you have mentioned the same kind of measures will apply not 1:00:38 in any way worse than to anybody else who happens to be in prison 1:00:44 that can be said for sure his name is alexey navalny people will 1:00:51 note that you i don't care i don't care he would leave 1:01:03 his name can't be anything he's one of the individuals who are in prison 1:01:08 for me he is one of the citizens of the russian federation has been found guilty by a russian court of law and is in 1:01:14 prison there are many citizens like that by the way our so-called prison 1:01:20 population the people who are in prison in the last few years has been reduced by almost 50 percent 1:01:27 which i consider a big victory for us and a major sign of the fact that our 1:01:34 legal system is becoming more humane so he will not be treated any worse than 1:01:40 anybody else nobody should be given any kind of special treatment it would be wrong everybody should be in 1:01:48 an equal situation this is called the most favored nation treatment not worse than anyone else 1:01:54 and the individual that you have mentioned that applies to him as well 1:02:00 i appreciate the extra time mr president the team has been in quarantine for almost two weeks so this interview is very important to 1:02:07 us i want to ask you about china china is working on its fourth 1:02:13 aircraft carrier it has two russia has one and it's not in in service at the 1:02:19 moment uh china refused to take part in arms control talks last year you complain so much 1:02:28 about nato to your west why did you never complain about china's militarization to your east 1:02:43 the first thing i want to say is that over the last few years the last few 1:02:48 decades we have developed 1:02:54 a strategic partnership relationship between russia and china that previously 1:02:59 had not been achieved in the history of our two nations a high level of trust and cooperation 1:03:04 and in all areas in politics in the economy in technology and in the area of 1:03:11 military and technical cooperation we do not believe that china is a threat 1:03:17 to us that's one china is a friendly nation 1:03:22 it has not declared us an enemy as the united states has done china hasn't been don't you 1:03:30 don't you know anything about this so that's number one number two is that china is a huge 1:03:38 powerful country one and a half billion people in terms of purchasing power parity the 1:03:45 chinese economy has exceeded the size of the us economy 1:03:50 and in terms of trade for the previous year last year 1:04:02 whereas the us dropped to the second position do you know about this 1:04:09 china has been developing and i understand that what's beginning to happen 1:04:17 is a certain well certain kind of confrontation with china 1:04:24 everybody understands it we can see it why hide from this or be scared by these 1:04:31 issues however we're not alarmed by it including among other things the fact that our defense 1:04:39 efficiency as we call it is at a very high level including because of this but the most important thing is the 1:04:46 nature and level of our relationship with china you said china will have four aircraft 1:04:51 carriers how many does the united states have a lot more 1:04:59 there you go that's my point why would we worry about the chinese 1:05:05 aircraft carriers on top of everything else we have a vast border with china but 1:05:10 it's a land border what do you think the chinese aircraft carriers 1:05:16 will be sent to cross our land border into our territory this is just a 1:05:21 meaning meaningless conversation but you also have a pacific coast but you're right there will be four of them 1:05:28 yes there will be four of them coast well the coast is huge but the bulk of 1:05:35 the border between us and china is a land border and yes you're right that there will be four of them because one 1:05:40 needs to be in maintenance one it needs to be on combat duty one needs to be in repairs there is 1:05:46 nothing excessive here for china that is why what you said that china 1:05:53 won't engage in negotiations arms control it refuses to negotiate reductions 1:05:59 in nuclear offensive weapons you should ask the chinese about it whether it's good or bad it's up to them 1:06:07 but their arguments are simple and they're understandable the level both in terms of the 1:06:14 amount of ammunition and warheads and delivery vehicles the united states 1:06:21 and russia are far far ahead of china 1:06:27 and the chinese justly asked why would we make reductions if we are 1:06:33 already far behind what you have or do you want us to freeze our level of nuclear deterrence 1:06:42 why should we freeze why we a country with a billion and a half population 1:06:48 cannot at least set the goal of achieving your levels these are all debatable issues that 1:06:54 require thorough consideration but making us responsible for china's position 1:07:00 is just comical 1:07:05 what do you think of china's treatment of the week is in xinjiang 1:07:22 it's always possible to find individuals who criticized the central authorities 1:07:31 i have met wiggers on my trips to china and i assure you at the very least 1:07:38 from what i heard with my own ears that on the whole they welcome the policies of the chinese 1:07:44 authorities in this area they believe that china has done a great deal for people 1:07:50 who live in this part of the country from the perspective of the economy raising the cultural level and so on and 1:07:56 so forth so why should i offer assessments looking at the situation indeed 1:08:05 you know you know there are many uh uyghurs who do not say that and that america has accused 1:08:12 china of genocide the secretary of state has accused china of genocide over the uyghurs there 1:08:19 is the accusation of a million uyghurs in so-called concentration camps 1:08:24 is that your message to the muslim communities in the former soviet union you don't think anything wrong is happening there 1:08:40 muslim community in russia i need to give a message to it through the policies 1:08:48 of the russian authorities muslims in the russian federation that is how i need to give a 1:08:55 message to the muslim community in the russian federation russia is an observer in the organization of islamic conference about 1:09:02 10 percent of our population perhaps a little more are muslims they are citizens of the russian federation 1:09:08 who do not have another fatherland they are making a colossal contribution to the development of this country 1:09:15 and that pertains to both clerics and ordinary citizens why should i speak 1:09:21 to and build a relationship with this segment of our population by reference 1:09:29 to the situation in china without understanding thoroughly what is happening there i think 1:09:36 you're better off asking about all these problems the foreign minister of the 1:09:43 chinese people's republic or the state department 1:09:49 it's just a question of whether you are prepared to criticize china china for example abstained on 1:09:56 crimea at the security council china's biggest banks have not contravened american sanctions 1:10:02 against russia do you think you get a hundred percent support from china 1:10:10 wasn't it no you know we are neighboring countries 1:10:27 as it has evolved over the last few decades and we cherish it just like our chinese friends cherish it which we can see 1:10:34 why are you trying to drag us into some kind of issues that you evaluate as you see 1:10:43 fit for building your relationship with china i will tell you completely honestly can 1:10:49 i be completely honest we can see attempts at destroying the relationship between 1:10:56 russia and china we can see that those attempts are being 1:11:01 made in practical policies and your questions too have to do with that i have 1:11:10 set forth my position for you i believe that this is sufficient and i am confident that the chinese 1:11:17 leadership being aware of the totality of these matters including the part of their population 1:11:23 who are uyghurs will find the necessary solution to make sure that the 1:11:28 situation remains stable and benefits the entire multi-million strong chinese people 1:11:36 including its uighur part 1:11:42 you understand of course i'm just trying to question you about russia's position in 1:11:48 relation to china and the united states let me ask you yeah let me ask you in a different way 1:11:53 are you splitting off from the u.s space program and moving forward with china 1:12:02 no no why would you say that we are prepared to work with the us in space and i think recently 1:12:11 the head of nasa said that he could not imagine development of space programs without 1:12:18 his partnership with russia we welcome this statement and can we 1:12:25 just explain because the head of the russia space agency has threatened uh leaving the 1:12:31 international space program in 2025 and specifically talked about sanctions 1:12:38 in relation to that threat 1:12:45 well honestly i do not think that mr rogazin which is the name of the head of 1:12:52 ross cosmas has threatened anyone in this regard i've known him for many years and i 1:12:58 know that he is a supporter of expanding the relationship with the united states in this area in space recently as i said 1:13:06 the head of nasa spoke in the same vein and i personally fully support this and we have been working with great pleasure 1:13:12 all of these years and we're prepared to continue to work for technical reasons though and that is a different matter is that 1:13:19 the international space station is coming to an end of its service life and maybe in this regard 1:13:24 ross cosmos does not have plans to continue their work however based on what i heard from our u.s 1:13:29 partners they too are looking at future cooperation in this particular segment 1:13:35 in their own way but on the whole the cooperation 1:13:40 between our two countries in space is a great example of a situation where despite any kinds of 1:13:46 problems in political relationships in recent years it is an area where we have been able to maintain and preserve the partnership and both 1:13:53 parties cherish it i just think that you misunderstood the head of our space 1:13:58 agency we are interested and i assure you in continuing to work with the us in this direction and we will continue to 1:14:04 do so if our u.s partners don't refuse to do that it doesn't mean that we need to work 1:14:10 exclusively with the us we have been working and will continue to work with china 1:14:16 which applies to all kinds of programs including exploring deep space 1:14:23 and i think there is nothing but positive information here frankly i don't see any contradictions here 1:14:35 let me let me ask you one more way just to understand the relationship between china russia and the 1:14:40 america if the people's liberation army made a move on taiwan how would russia respond to that 1:14:56 are you aware of china's plans to militarily solve the taiwan problem 1:15:03 i don't know anything about that as we frequently say 1:15:10 politics do not require the subjunctive mood the subjunctive mood is inappropriate in 1:15:16 politics there is no could be and would be in politics i cannot comment on anything 1:15:24 that is not a current reality of the modern world please bear with me don't be 1:15:32 upset with me but i think that this is a question about nothing this is not happening has china stated that it 1:15:39 intends to solve the taiwan problem militarily it hasn't happened 1:15:45 so far for many years china has been developing its relationship with taiwan 1:15:51 there are different assessments china has its own assessment the us has a different assessment taiwan may have his 1:15:56 different assessment of the situation but fortunately it hasn't come to a military clash 1:16:05 i'm being told to wrap up but if i could just uh ask you a couple more questions sure please go ahead our own and our 1:16:12 our own andrea mitchell uh saw just this month uh the last border crossing into syria 1:16:18 uh where supplies literally keep people alive you're threatening to close that crossing in july 1:16:25 [Music] at the security council why would you do that knowing that it will cause the 1:16:31 death of refugees 1:16:42 unfortunately there are already a great deal of tragedies there 1:16:49 all our actions in their totality need to be geared at stabilizing the situation and bringing 1:16:54 it into a normal course of events and with support of russia syria 1:17:01 the syrian authorities have been able to bring back under their control over 90 percent of the syrian territory what needs to be 1:17:08 set up now is humanitarian assistance to people irrespective of any kind of political 1:17:13 context however our partners in the west in the west in general both the united states 1:17:20 and uh the europeans have been saying that they're not going to give any help 1:17:25 to assad what does assad have to do with it help people who need that assistance just the 1:17:32 most basic things they won't even lift restrictions on supplies of medications and medical equipment even in the context of 1:17:39 the coronavirus infection but that is just inhumane 1:17:44 and this kind of cruel attitude to people cannot be explained in any way as far as the water crossings 1:17:52 for delivery of humanitarian assistance there is the idlib area where combatants are still robbing people 1:17:58 killing people raving people there is the al tanf zone which by the 1:18:03 way is controlled by the us military recently we caught there a group of gangsters 1:18:11 who had come from there and they directly said that they had specific goals as far as russian 1:18:18 military facilities as far as border crossings our 1:18:23 position is such that assistance needs to be given just as it should be 1:18:28 done in the entire world and as it is provided for in the 1:18:35 rules of international humanitarian law through the central government that is how assistance should be given 1:18:41 and it should not be discriminated against and if there are grounds to believe that the central government of syria will 1:18:47 plunder something will steal something well set up observers on the part of the international red cross and red crescent 1:18:54 who will oversee everything i don't think that anybody in the syrian government is interested in stealing some part of this 1:19:01 humanitarian assistance it just needs to be done through the central government and in this sense we support president assad 1:19:07 because a different mode of behavior would be undermining the sovereignty of the 1:19:12 syrian arab republic and that's all as far as the idlib zone the turkish troops there 1:19:18 effectively controlled the border between turkey and syria and convoys cross the border without any 1:19:24 restrictions on their numbers in both directions mr president you extended the constitution so that you could be 1:19:31 president of russia until 2036. do you worry that the longer you are in 1:19:37 power and without any sign of someone to replace you 1:19:44 the more instability there may be when you finally do choose to leave office 1:19:55 what will collapse overnight if we look at the situation in which russia was in 1:20:00 the year 2000 where it was balancing on the brink of preserving its territorial integrity and sovereignty 1:20:09 and the number of individuals living below the poverty line was colossal it was catastrophic 1:20:15 the gdp level had dropped below anything that's acceptable 1:20:21 our effects on gold reserves were 12 billion whereas our foreign debt was 120 billion if we counted 1:20:28 in dollars now the situation is different there are many problems but the situation is completely different of 1:20:33 course somebody will come and replace me at some point why would all of this collapse we've 1:20:40 been fighting international terrorism we have nipped it in the bud is it supposed to come back to life i do not 1:20:45 think so another matter is that on the political arena different people 1:20:50 may emerge with different points of view well great very good you know i have linked 1:20:57 my 1:21:06 to such an extent that there isn't a more meaningful goal in my life than the strengthening of russia 1:21:15 if anybody else and if i see the person even if that person is critical of some areas of what i have 1:21:21 been doing if i can see that this is an individual who has constructive views 1:21:27 that he or she is committed to this country and is prepared to sacrifice his entire life to this country not just 1:21:33 a number of years no matter his personal attitude to me i will make sure i will do everything to make sure that 1:21:39 such people will get support it is a natural biological process at 1:21:46 some point naturally someday we will all be replaced 1:21:51 you will be replaced where you are i will be replaced where i am but i am confident that the 1:21:57 fundamental pillar of the russian economy and statehood and its political system will be such 1:22:03 that russia will be firmly standing on its feet and looking to the future confidently 1:22:12 and would you look from that person for some kind of protection the same way 1:22:18 that you offered to boris yeltsin when you took over 1:22:28 i'm not even thinking about that these are third tier issues the most important 1:22:36 thing the single most important thing is the fate of this country and the fate of its people 1:22:44 very good thank you very much for your time mr president we've gone over and i really appreciate 1:22:50 it it was a really interesting conversation so thank you

Interview to Tucker Carlson.

Tucker Carlson: Mr. President, thank you.

On February 24, 2022, you addressed your country in your nationwide address when the conflict in Ukraine started and you said that you were acting because you had come to the conclusion that the United States through NATO might initiate a quote, “surprise attack on our country.” And to American ears that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: It's not that the United States was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia, I didn't say so. Are we having a talk show or a serious conversation?

Tucker Carlson: That was a good quote. Thank you, it’s formidably serious!

Vladimir Putin: You were initially trained in history, as far as I know?

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: So if you don’t mind I will take only 30 seconds or one minute of your time to give you a brief historical background.

Tucker Carlson: Please. Interview to Tucker Carlson. Part 1

Vladimir Putin: Let’s look where our relationship with Ukraine started from. Where does Ukraine come from?

The Russian state started to exist as a centralized state in 862. This is considered to be the year of creation of the Russian state because this year the townspeople of Novgorod (a city in the North-West of the country) invited Rurik, a Varangian prince from Scandinavia, to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the 1000th anniversary of its statehood, and in Novgorod there is a memorial dedicated to the 1000th anniversary of the country.

In 882, Rurik's successor Prince Oleg, who was, actually, playing the role of regent for Rurik’s young son because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted two brothers who, apparently, had once been members of Rurik's retinue. So, Russia began to develop with two centres of power, in Kiev and in Novgorod.

The next, very significant date in the history of Russia, was 988. This was the Baptism of Russia, when Prince Vladimir, the great-grandson of Rurik, baptized Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From this time the centralized Russian state began to strengthen. Why? Because of a single territory, integrated economic ties, one and the same language and, after the Baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince. A centralized Russian state began to take shape.

Back in the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the order of succession to the throne, but after he passed away, it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the prince who had passed away to his brother, then to his sons in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special about it, the same was happening then in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely, Batu Khan, came to Rus, plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other cities, simply lost independence, while northern cities preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute to the Horde, but they managed to preserve some part of their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to take shape with its centre in Moscow.

The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kiev, began to gradually gravitate towards another “magnet” – the centre that was emerging in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian-Russian Duchy because Russians were a significant part of its population. They spoke the Old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later, another union was signed, but this time already in the religious sphere. Some of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus, these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.

For decades, the Poles were engaged in the “Polonization” of this part of the population: they introduced their language there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe (u kraya) they were “Ukrainians.” Originally, the word ‘Ukrainian’ meant that a person was living on the outskirts of the state, near the fringe, or was engaged in border service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group.

So, the Poles were trying in every possible way to polonize that part of the Russian lands and actually treated it rather harshly, not to say cruelly. All that led to the fact that that part of the Russian lands began to struggle for their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that their rights be observed and that people be commissioned there, including to Kiev… Interview to Tucker Carlson. Part 2

Tucker Carlson: I beg your pardon, can you tell us what period… I am losing track of where in history we are.

Vladimir Putin: It was in the 13th century.

Now I will tell what happened next and give the dates so that there is no confusion.

Then in 1654, even a bit earlier, the people who were in control of the authority over that part of the Russian lands, addressed Warsaw, I repeat, demanding their rights be observed that they send to them rulers of Russian origin and Orthodox faith. When Warsaw did not answer them and in fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that Moscow took them under its rule.

So that you don't think that I am inventing things… I'll give you these documents…

Tucker Carlson: It doesn’t sound like you are inventing it, but I am not sure why it’s relevant to what’s happened two years ago.

Vladimir Putin: But still, these are documents from the archives, copies. Here are letters from Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the man who then controlled the power in that part of the Russian lands that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld, and after being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow asking to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. Here are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your good memory. There is a translation into Russian, you can translate it into English later.

Russia did not agree to admit them straight away, assuming that would trigger a war with Poland. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of power of the Old Russian state, made the decision: those Old Russian lands became part of the Tsardom of Muscovy.

As expected, the war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, and then a truce was concluded. In all, after that act of 1654, 32 years later, I think, a peace treaty with Poland was concluded, “the eternal peace,” as it said. And those lands, the whole left bank of the Dnieper, including Kiev, reverted to Russia, while the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained in possession of Poland.

Under the rule of Catherine the Great, Russia reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the south and west. This all lasted until the Revolution. Before World War I, the Austrian General Staff, relying on the ideas of Ukrainianization, started to actively promote the ideas of Ukraine and the Ukrainianization. Their motive was obvious. Just before World War I, they wanted to weaken the potential enemy and secure themselves favourable conditions in the border area. So this idea which had emerged in Poland that people residing in that territory were allegedly not really Russians, but rather belonged to a special ethnic group, the Ukrainians, started to be promoted by the Austrian General Staff too.

As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however, claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917 Revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood, and the Civil War began, including the hostilities with Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed, and under that treaty, the right bank of the Dnieper River once again was given back to Poland.

In 1939, after Poland cooperated with Hitler — it did collaborate with Hitler, you know —Hitler offered Poland peace and a treaty of friendship and alliance (we have all the relevant documents in the archives), demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War I this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdansk emerged. Hitler asked them to give it amicably, but the Poles refused. Still they collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia.

Tucker Carlson: May I ask… You are making the case that Ukraine, certain parts of Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, in fact, has been Russia for hundreds of years. Why wouldn’t you just take it when you became President 24 years ago? You have nuclear weapons, they don’t. It’s actually your land. Why did you wait so long?

Vladimir Putin: I’ll tell you. I’m coming to that. This briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it explains many things.

Tucker Carlson: It’s not boring.

Vladimir Putin: Good. Good. I am so gratified that you appreciate that. Thank you.

So, before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler and although it did not yield to Hitler’s demands, it still participated in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler. As the Poles had not given the Danzig Corridor to Germany, and went too far, they pushed Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on September 1, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing else to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.

By the way, the USSR — I have read some archival documents — behaved very honestly. It asked Poland’s permission to transit its troops through the Polish territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes head to Czechoslovakia, they would be downed over the territory of Poland. But that doesn’t matter. What matters is that the war began, and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against Czechoslovakia, as under the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of that territory, including western Ukraine, was to be given to Russia. Thus Russia, which was then named the USSR, regained its historical lands.

After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call World War II, all those territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently in compensation, the western lands which had originally been German: the eastern parts of Germany (these are now western lands of Poland). Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic sea, and Danzig, which was once again given its Polish name. So this was how this situation developed.

In 1922, when the USSR was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never existed before.

Tucker Carlson: Right.

Vladimir Putin: Stalin insisted that those republics be included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR. And, again for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the lands together with people living there, even though those lands had never been called Ukraine; and yet they were made part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands included the Black Sea region, which was received under Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection with Ukraine whatsoever.

Even if we go as far back as 1654, when those lands returned to the Russian Empire, that territory included three or four regions of modern Ukraine, with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the question.

Tucker Carlson: In 1654?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly.

Tucker Carlson: You have, I see, encyclopaedic knowledge of that region. But why didn’t you make this case for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn’t a real country?

Vladimir Putin: The Soviet Ukraine was given a great deal of territory that had never belonged to it, including the Black Sea region. At some point, when Russia received them as an outcome of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called “New Russia,” or Novorossiya. But that does not matter. What matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet State, established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR, and for unknown reasons again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in Ukrainianization. It was not merely because the Soviet leadership was composed to a great extent of those originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This involved promoting national languages and national cultures, which is not bad in principle. That is how the Soviet Ukraine was created.

After World War II, Ukraine received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously belonged to Hungary and Romania (known today as Western Ukraine). So Romania and Hungary had some of their lands taken away and given to the Ukraine and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin’s will.

Tucker Carlson: Do you believe Hungary has a right to take back its land from Ukraine? And that other nations have a right to go back to their 1654 borders?

Vladimir Putin: I am not sure whether they should go back to the 1654 borders, but given Stalin’s time, the so-called Stalin’s regime — which, as many claim, saw numerous violations of human rights and violations of the rights of other states. In this sense it is quite possible, of course, to claim back those lands, if we are not talking about their having the right to do that, it is at least understandable…

Tucker Carlson: Have you told Viktor Orban that he can have a part of Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Never. I have never told him that. Not a single time. We have not even had any conversation on that, but I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there wanted to return to their historical homeland.

Moreover, I would like to share a very interesting story with you, I'll digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80's, I went on a road trip in a car from then-Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) across the Soviet Union through Kiev, made a stop in Kiev, and then went to Western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovo, and all the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in a language I didn't understand – in Hungarian. In Russian and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian – in Russian and in Hungarian.

I was driving through some kind of a village and there were men sitting next to the houses and they were wearing black three-piece suits and black cylinder hats. I asked, “Are they some kind of entertainers?” I was told, “No, they're not entertainers. They're Hungarians.” I said, “What are they doing here?” — “What do you mean? This is their land, they live here.” This was during the Soviet time, in the 1980’s. They preserve the Hungarian language, Hungarian names, and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement….

Tucker Carlson: And there’s a lot of that though, I think. Many nations feel upset about — there are Transylvanians as well as you, others, you know — but many nations feel frustrated by their re-drawn borders after the wars of the 20th century, and wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you mention, but the fact is that you didn’t make this case in public until two years ago in February, and in the case that you made, which I read today, you explain at great length that you thought a physical threat from the West and NATO, including potentially a nuclear threat, and that’s what got you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you said?

Vladimir Putin: I understand that my long speeches probably fall outside of the genre of an interview. That is why I asked you at the beginning: “Are we going to have a serious talk or a show?” You said — a serious talk. So bear with me please.

We are coming to the point where the Soviet Ukraine was established. Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. And everything that Russia had generously bestowed on Ukraine was “dragged away” by the latter.

I’m coming to a very important point of today's agenda. After all, the collapse of the Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.

First, I think that the then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine were: in fact, a common language — more than 90 percent of the population there spoke Russian; family ties — every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties; common culture; common history; finally, common faith; co-existence within a single state for centuries; and deeply interconnected economies. All of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relations inevitable.

The second point is a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed, voluntarily and proactively, to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believed that this would be understood by the so-called (now in scare quotes) “civilized West” as an invitation for cooperation and associateship. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so-called collective West as a whole.

There were smart people, including in Germany. Egon Bahr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should also be established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, and other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said: if NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once (we have a record of this conversation in our archives): “If, he said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow again.” He was frustrated with the Soviet leadership. He was right, everything happened just as he had said.

Tucker Carlson: Well, of course, it did come true, and you’ve mentioned it many times. I think, it’s a fair point. And many in America thought that relations between Russia and the United States would be fine after the collapse of the Soviet Union, at the core. But the opposite happened. But have never explained why you think that happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia. But we have a strong China that the West doesn’t seem to be very afraid of. What about Russia, what do you think convinced the policymakers to take it down?

Vladimir Putin: The West is afraid of a strong China more than it fears a strong Russia because Russia has 150 million people, and China has a 1.5 billion population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds — over five percent a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismark once put it, potentials are most important. China's potential is enormous — it is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States, quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a fast clip.

Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom, let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of “civilized nations,” nothing like that happened. You tricked us (I don't mean you personally when I say “you,” of course, I'm talking about the United States), the promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times, there were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that, we were trying to persuade them, we were saying: “Please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are, we are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate.”

Moreover, I have also said this publicly before (let's look at Yeltsin's times now), there was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States, remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good words: “God bless America.” Everything he said were signals — let us in.

No. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia. Before that Yeltsin was lavished with praise, as soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes underway there, I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law and the UN Charter it started bombing Belgrade.

It was the United States that let the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law, but at that time they started saying that everything is outdated, everything has to be changed.

Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed, it's true, but not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything, I assure you.

Well, I became President in 2000. I thought: okay, the Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. And moreover, I've said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked him, “Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen?” Suddenly he said: “You know, it's interesting, I think yes.” But in the evening, when we had dinner, he said, “You know, I've talked to my team, no-no, it's not possible now.” You can ask him, I think he will watch our interview, he'll confirm it. I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay, well, it's impossible now.

Tucker Carlson: Were you sincere? Would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: Look, I asked the question, “Is it possible or not?” And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership's position was…

Tucker Carlson: But if he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?

Vladimir Putin: If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might have happened if we had seen some sincere desire on the part of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no, okay, fine.

Tucker Carlson: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know, you’re clearly bitter about it. I understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?

Vladimir Putin: You said I was bitter about the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We're not the bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kinds of matters in such circumstances. We just realised we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay, fine. But let's build relations in another manner, let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leader. I can only guess why: too big a country, with its own opinion and so on. And the United States – I have seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.

I will give you another example now, concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they do not like something. Now, I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed, I’m not going to open a secret to you, say anything new. Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were building relations with the United States in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner.

I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continued to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial support, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.

I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the President of the United States. He says, “It’s impossible! Do you have proof?” I said, “Yes.” I was prepared for this conversation and I gave him that proof. He looked at it and, you know what he said? I apologise, but that's what happened, I'll quote. He says, “Well, I’m going to kick their ass.” We waited and waited for some response – there was none.

I said to the FSB Director: “Write to the CIA. What is the result of the conversation with the President?” He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied: “We have been working with the opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right thing to do and we will keep on doing it.” Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realised that it was out of the question.

Tucker Carlson: Forces in opposition to you? Do you think the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, they meant in that particular case the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That's who they called the opposition. This is the second point.

The third moment, a very important one, is the moment when the US missile defense (ABM) system was created. The beginning. We tried for a long time to persuade the United States not to do it. Moreover, after I was invited by Bush Jr.’s father, Bush Sr. to visit his place on the ocean, I had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his team. I proposed that the United States, Russia and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that, we believe, if created unilaterally, threatens our security, despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran. That was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together – Russia, the United States and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, “Are you serious?” I said, “Absolutely.”

Tucker Carlson: May I ask what year was this?

Vladimir Putin: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet, when I was in the USA at the invitation of Bush Sr. It is even easier to learn it now from a person I’ll name.

I was told it was very interesting. I said, “Just imagine if we could tackle such a global, strategic security challenge together. The world would change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world.” He says, “Yes.” And asks: “Are you serious?” I said, “Of course.” “We need to think about it,” I was told. I said, “Okay.”

Then Secretary of Defense [Robert] Gates, former Director of the CIA, and Secretary of State [Condoleezza] Rice came here, to this cabinet. Right here, at this table, they sat on this side. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense Minister – on that side. They said to me, “Okay, we have thought about it, we agree.” I said, “Thank God, great.” – “But with some exceptions.”

Tucker Carlson: So, twice you've described US presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their agency heads. So, it sounds like you're describing a system that is not run by the people who are elected, in your telling.

Vladimir Putin: That's right, that's right. In the end they just told us to get lost. I am not going to tell you the details, because I think it is incorrect, after all, it was a confidential conversation. But our proposal was declined, that’s a fact.

It was right then when I said: “Look, but then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.” The answer was: “We are not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States.” I said, “Okay.”

Very well, that’s the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems, with intercontinental missiles, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone – the United States and other countries – in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day.

But it wasn’t us, we proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back.

Now, about NATO's expansion to the East. Well, we were promised, no NATO to the East, not an inch to the East, as we were told. And then what? They said, “Well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand.” There were five waves of expansion, the Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on.

And now I come to the main thing: they have come to Ukraine ultimately. In 2008 at the summit in Bucharest they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open.

Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seemed to be against it as well as some other European countries. But then, as it turned out later, President Bush, and he is such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, “He exerted pressure on us and we had to agree.” It's ridiculous, it's like kindergarten. What are the guarantees? What kind of kindergarten is this, what kind of people are these, who are they? You see, they were pressed, they agreed. And then they say, “Ukraine won't be in NATO, you know.” I say, “I don't know, I know you agreed in 2008, why won't you agree in the future?” “Well, they pressed us then.” I say, “Why won't they press you tomorrow? And you'll agree again.”

Well, it's nonsensical. Who's there to talk to, I just don't understand. We're ready to talk. But with whom? What are the guarantees? There are none.

So, they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed, what kind of relations there were with Russia. Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia. And during the elections in already independent, sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the Declaration of Independence, and, by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2008 suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on! This is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they've relied on the electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or another. This is the south-east of Ukraine, this is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to dissuade this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia.

Viktor Yanukovych came to power, and how: the first time he won after President Kuchma – they organised a third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d'état. Just imagine, someone in the United States wouldn’t like the outcome…

Tucker Carlson: In 2014?

Vladimir Putin: No, before that. This was before that. After President Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory, the US supported the opposition and the third round was scheduled. What is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US, something was not to someone’s liking and the third round of election, which the US Constitution does not provide for, was organized, Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko who was considered a pro-Western politician, came to power. Fine, we have built relations with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits, we visited Kiev. I visited it too. We met in an informal setting. If he is pro-Western, so be it. It’s fine, let people do their job. The situation should develop inside the independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma’s leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all.

Maybe he wasn’t the best president and politician. I don’t know, I don’t want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. We have always been lenient to this: suit yourself. But when we read through that treaty of association it turned out to be a problem for us, since we had a free-trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine which, under this association, had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market.

We said, “No, this is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then”. The customs borders, that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners: “I need more time to think before signing.” The moment he said that, the opposition began to take destructive steps which were supported by the West. It all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.

Tucker Carlson: So, he did more trade with Russia than with the EU? Ukraine did…

Vladimir Putin: Of course. It’s not even the matter of trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the matter of cooperation ties which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation ties between enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa. There used to be very close ties.

A coup d’état was staged, although, I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate, the US told us, “Calm Yanukovych down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold according to the scenario of a political settlement.” We said, “Alright. Agreed. Let’s do it this way.” As the Americans requested us, Yanukovych did use neither the Armed Forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition staged a coup in Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? “Who do you think you are?”, I wanted to ask the then US leadership.

Tucker Carlson: With the backing of whom?

Vladimir Putin: With the backing of the CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. Maybe we should thank God they didn’t let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis-à-vis, in the sense that I served in the First Main Directorate – Soviet Union’s intelligence service. They have always been our opponents. Work is work.

Technically they did everything right, they achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from a political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership’s miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into.

So, in 2008 the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup, they started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup, they created a threat to Crimea which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbass in 2014, using aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it started. There is a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO’s doors.

How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence – that’s what it would have been. It’s just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself. Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith and, in fact, a part of Russian people, in the face of this “war machine.”

Tucker Carlson: So, that was eight years before the current conflict started. What was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?

Vladimir Putin: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict.

By the way, back then the representatives of three European countries – Germany, Poland and France – arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the Government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition staged a coup and all these countries pretended that they didn’t remember that they were guarantors of a peaceful settlement. They just threw it in the stove right away and nobody recalls that.

I don’t know if the US know anything about that agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup. Although, it was meaningless, believe me. Because President Yanukovych agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold early election which he had no chance to win, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that.

But then why the coup, why the victims? Why threaten Crimea? Why launch an operation in Donbass? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. The CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the Deputy Secretaries of State said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5 billion dollars. But the political mistake was colossal! Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn’t been for the bloody developments on Maidan.

Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union our borders should be along the borders of former Union’s republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO’s expansion and moreover we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we kept urging them: don’t do this, don’t do that.

And what triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014, in Minsk, where the plan of a peaceful settlement in Donbass was set forth. But no, the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then President himself said that they don’t like anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they were not going to implement them. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.

Tucker Carlson: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call the US President, Secretary of State and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, we are going to act?

Vladimir Putin: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States’ and European countries’ leadership to stop these developments immediately, to implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn’t know how we were going to do this but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine; they included lots of elements of those Donbass territories’ independence. That’s true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I am saying this to you now: I honestly believed that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbass – and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood – then gradually the wounds would start to heal. When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common economic, social environment, when the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place.

No, nobody wanted that, everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen.

And the situation got to the point, when the Ukrainian side announced: “No, we will not implement anything.” They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think you have stopped it now? I mean have you achieved your aims?

Vladimir Putin: No, we haven't achieved our aims yet, because one of them is denazification. This means the prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation process, which ended in Istanbul early last year, and it was not our initiative, because we were told (by the Europeans, in particular) that “it was necessary to create conditions for the final signing of the documents.” My counterparts in France and Germany said, “How can you imagine them signing a treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be pulled back from Kiev.” I said, “All right.” We withdrew the troops from Kiev.

As soon as we pulled back our troops from Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared for a longstanding armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the situation has developed. And that is how it looks now.

Tucker Carlson: What is denazification? What would that mean?

Vladimir Putin: That is what I want to talk about right now. It is a very important issue.

Denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to build this identity upon some false heroes who collaborated with Hitler.

I have already said that in the early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an independent Ukraine should have very good relations with Russia. But due to the historical development, these territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth – Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite brutally and were subjected to cruel behaviour. There were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this remained in the memory of the people. When World War II broke out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler's collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the Polish and Jewish population. Hence this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population as well as the Russian population too. This was led by the persons who are well known – Bandera, Shukhevich. It was these people who were made national heroes – that is the problem. And we are constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exist in other countries as well. Yes, there are seedlings, but we uproot them, and other countries fight against them. But Ukraine is not the case. These people have been turned into national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to these people have been erected, they are displayed on flags, their names are shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi Germany. These were the people who exterminated Poles, Jews and Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent the dissemination of this concept.

I say that Ukrainians are part of the one Russian people. They say, “No, we are a separate people.” Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.

Tucker Carlson: Would you be satisfied with the territory that you have now?

Vladimir Putin: I will finish answering the question. You just asked a question about neo-Nazism and denazification.

Look, the President of Ukraine visited Canada. This story is well known but is silenced in the Western countries: The Canadian parliament introduced a man who, as the speaker of the parliament said, fought against the Russians during World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians during World War II? Hitler and his accomplices. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews. The SS troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, is a Jew by nationality.

Tucker Carlson: Really, my question is: What do you do about it? I mean, Hitler has been dead for eighty years, Nazi Germany no longer exists, and it’s true. So, I think, what you are saying, you want to extinguish or at least control Ukrainian nationalism. But how do you do that?

Vladimir Putin: Listen to me. Your question is very subtle.

And can I tell you what I think? Do not take offense.

Tucker Carlson: Of course!

Vladimir Putin: This question appears to be subtle, it is quite pesky.

You say Hitler has been dead for so many years, 80 years. But his example lives on. People who exterminated Jews, Russians and Poles are alive. And the President, the current President of today's Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing ovation! Can we say that we have completely uprooted this ideology if what we see is happening today? That is what denazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid of those people who maintain this concept and support this practice and try to preserve it – that is what denazification is. That is what we mean.

Tucker Carlson: Right. My question is almost specific, it was, of course, not a defense of Nazism. Otherwise, it was a practical question. You don't control the entire country, you don’t seem like you want to. So, how do you eliminate that culture, or an ideology, or feelings, or a view of history, in a country that you don’t control? What do you do about that?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as strange as it may seem to you, during the negotiations in Istanbul we did agree that – we have it all in writing – neo-Nazism would not be cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited at the legislative level.

Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that. This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation process. And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to promote Nazism? It is not, is it? That is it.

Tucker Carlson: Will there be talks? And why haven’t there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine? Peace talks.

Vladimir Putin: They have been. They reached a very high stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side (Ukraine) threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end.

Moreover, the President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he is putting forward some ideas about this settlement. But in order to agree on something, we need to have a dialogue. Is not that right?

Tucker Carlson: Well, but you would not be speaking to the Ukrainian president, you would be speaking to the American president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?

Vladimir Putin: I cannot remember when I talked to him. I do not remember, we can look it up.

Tucker Carlson: You do not remember?!

Vladimir Putin: No, why? Do I have to remember everything? I have my own things to do. We have domestic political affairs.

Tucker Carlson: But he is funding the war that you are fighting, so I think that would be memorable?

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him before the special military operation, of course. And I said to him then, by the way – I will not go into details, I never do – but I said to him then: “I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away.” I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way. I think that would be correct if I stop here.

Tucker Carlson: What did he say?

Vladimir Putin: Ask him, please. It is easier for you, you are a citizen of the United States, go and ask him. It is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.

Tucker Carlson: But you haven’t spoken to him since before February of 2022?

Vladimir Putin: No, we haven't spoken. Certain contacts are being maintained though. Speaking of which, do you remember what I told you about my proposal to work together on a missile defense system?

Tucker Carlson: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: You can ask all of them. All of them are safe and sound, thank God. The former President, Condoleezza [Rice] is safe and sound, and, I think, Mr. Gates, and the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Burns, the then Ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, a very successful Ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them.

Same here, if you are interested in what Mr. President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I talked to him about it.

Tucker Carlson: I am definitely interested. But from the other side it seems like it could devolve, evolve into something that brings the entire world into conflict, and could initiate a nuclear launch, and so why don’t you just call Biden and say, “Let’s work this out”?

Vladimir Putin: What's there to work out? It's very simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies. I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what we are conveying to the US leadership: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree on some terms before you do that, stop.”

What's easier? Why would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg him for what? “You're going to deliver such and such weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm so afraid, please don't do that.” What is there to talk about?

Tucker Carlson: Do you think NATO was worried about this becoming a global war or nuclear conflict?

Vladimir Putin: At least that's what they're talking about. And they are trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact. And thinking people, not philistines, but thinking people, analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart people understand perfectly well that this is fake. They are trying to fuel the Russian threat.

Tucker Carlson: The threat I think you were referring to is Russian invasion of Poland, Latvia – expansionist behaviour. Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to Poland?

Vladimir Putin: Only in one case: if Poland attacks Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.

Tucker Carlson: Well, the argument, I know you know this, is that, well, he invaded Ukraine – he has territorial aims across the continent. And you are saying unequivocally, you don’t?

Vladimir Putin: It is absolutely out of the question. You just don't have to be any kind of analyst, it goes against common sense to get involved in some kind of global war. And a global war will bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. It's obvious.

There are, certainly, means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all along: tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, tomorrow Russia will use that, no, the day after tomorrow. So what? These are just horror stories for people in the street in order to extort additional money from US taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with Russia in the Ukrainian theatre of war. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible.

Tucker Carlson: One of our senior United States senators from the State of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian effort or US soldiers, citizens could wind up fighting there. How do you assess that?

Vladimir Putin: This is a provocation, and a cheap provocation at that.

I do not understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. The biggest number of mercenaries comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States in second place, and mercenaries from Georgia in third place. Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops, that would certainly bring humanity on the brink of a very serious, global conflict. This is obvious.

Do the United States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from your national territory! Don't you have anything better to do? You have issues on the border, issues with migration, issues with the national debt – more than 33 trillion dollars. You have nothing better to do, so you should fight in Ukraine?

Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an agreement, already understanding the situation that is developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its interests to the end. And, realizing this, actually return to common sense, start respecting our country and its interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational.

Tucker Carlson: Who blew up Nord Stream?

Vladimir Putin: You, for sure. (Laughter.)

Tucker Carlson: I was busy that day. I did not blow up Nord Stream.

Vladimir Putin: You personally may have an alibi, but the CIA has no such alibi.

Tucker Carlson: Do you have evidence that NATO or the CIA did it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I won't get into details, but people always say in such cases: “Look for someone who is interested.” But in this case we should not only look for someone who is interested, but also for someone who has capabilities. Because there may be many people interested, but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two components should be connected: who is interested and who is capable of doing it.

Tucker Carlson: But I am confused. I mean, that’s the biggest act of industrial terrorism ever and it’s the largest emission of CO₂ in history. Okay, so, if you had evidence and presumably, given your security services, your intel services, you would, that NATO, the US, CIA, the West did this, why wouldn’t you present it and win a propaganda victory?

Vladimir Putin: In the war of propaganda it is very difficult to defeat the United States because the United States controls all the world’s media and many European media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European media are American financial institutions. Don't you know that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the spotlight on our sources of information, and we will not achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts talk about it directly. It's true.

Tucker Carlson: Yes. But here is a question you may be able to answer. You worked in Germany, famously. The Germans clearly know that their NATO partner did this, that they damaged their economy greatly – it may never recover. Why are they being silent about it? That is very confusing to me. Why wouldn’t the Germans say something about it?

Vladimir Putin: This also confuses me. But today's German leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than its national interests, otherwise it is difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction. After all, it is not only about Nord Stream-1, which was blown up, and Nord Stream-2 was damaged, but one pipe is safe and sound, and gas can be supplied to Europe through it, but Germany does not open it. We are ready, please.

There is another route through Poland, called Yamal-Europe, which also allows for a large flow. Poland has closed it, but Poland pecks from the German hand, it receives money from pan-European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain extent. And they closed the route to Germany. Why? I don't understand.

Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and give money. Germany is the second sponsor after the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route, the Ukrainians. Open the second route and get gas from Russia. They do not open it. Why don't the Germans say: “Look, guys, we give you money and weapons. Open up the valve, please, let the gas from Russia pass through for us.

We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe, which brings the level of our competitiveness, and economy in general down to zero. Do you want us to give you money? Let us have a decent existence, make money for our economy, because this is where the money we give you comes from.” They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. (Knocks on the table.) That is what it is like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.

Tucker Carlson: Well, maybe the world is breaking into two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without it. And I want to ask you that, if we are now a multipolar world, obviously we are, can you describe the blocs or alliances? Who is on each side, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Listen, you have said that the world is breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into two hemispheres: one is responsible for one type of activities, the other one is more about creativity and so on. But it is still one and the same head. The world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than meant for the “golden billion.” That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and predictable. Until then, while the head is split into two parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is a period of a severe disease that the world is now going through.

But I think that, thanks to honest journalism — this work is akin to work of the doctors, this could somehow be remedied.

Tucker Carlson: Well, let’s just give one example — the US dollar, which has, kind of, united the world in a lot of ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is that going away as the reserve currency, the universally accepted currency? How have sanctions, do you think, changed the dollar’s place in the world?

Vladimir Putin: You know, to use the dollar as a tool of foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is the cornerstone of the United States' power. I think everyone understands very well that, no matter how many dollars are printed, they are quickly dispersed all over the world. Inflation in the United States is minimal. It is about 3 or 3.4 percent, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But they won't stop printing. What does the debt of 33 trillion dollars tell us about? It is about the emission.

Nevertheless, it is the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its power across the world. As soon as the political leadership decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid thing to do, and a grave mistake.

Look at what is going on in the world. Even the United States' allies are now downsizing their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United States applies restrictive measures to certain countries, such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the whole world.

What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80 percent of Russia's foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars and euros. US dollars accounted for approximately 50 percent of our transactions with third countries, while currently it is down to 13 percent. It was not us who banned the use of the US dollar, we had no such intention. It was the decision of the United States to restrict our transactions in US dollars. I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of the interests of the United States itself and its taxpayers, as it damages the US economy, undermines the power of the United States across the world.

By the way, our transactions in yuan accounted for about 3 percent. Today, 34 percent of our transactions are made in Rubles, and about as much, a little over 34 percent, in Yuan.

Why did the United States do this? My only guess is self-assurance. They probably thought it would lead to a full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United States realize this? What are you doing? You are cutting yourself off… all experts say this. Ask any intelligent and thinking person in the United States what the dollar means for the US? You are killing it with your own hands.

Tucker Carlson: I think that is a fair assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power? Is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese economy? In a way that is not good for their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?

Vladimir Putin: We have heard those bogeyman stories before. It is a bogeyman story. We are neighbours with China. You cannot choose neighbours, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of several thousand kilometres with them. This is number one.

Second, we have a centuries-long history of coexistence, we are used to it.

Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive, its idea is to always look for compromise, and we can see that.

The next point is as follows. We are always told the same bogeyman story, and here it goes again, though in a euphemistic form, but it is still the same bogeyman story: the cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation. Ask Europeans: aren’t they afraid? They might be, I do not know, but they are still trying to access China's market at all costs, especially now that they are facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also exploring the European market.

Do Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes, the political decisions are such that they are trying to limit their cooperation with China.

It is to your own detriment, Mr Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China, you are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter, and there are no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.

So, before introducing any illegitimate sanctions — illegitimate in terms of the Charter of the United Nations — one should think very carefully. I think, those who make decisions have a problem with that.

Tucker Carlson: So, you said a moment ago that the world would be a lot better if it were not broken into competing alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the reasons you don’t have that is because the current American administration is dead set against you. Do you think if there was a new administration after Joe Biden that you would be able to re-establish communication with the US government? Or does it not matter who the President is?

Vladimir Putin: I will tell you. But let me finish the previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend President Xi Jinping, set a goal to reach 200 billion dollars of mutual trade with China last year. We have exceeded this level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with China totals already 230 billion, and the Chinese statistics says it is 240 billion dollars.

One more important thing: our trade is well-balanced, mutually complementary in high-tech, energy, scientific research and development. It is very balanced.

As for BRICS, where Russia took over the presidency this year, the BRICS countries are, by and large, developing very rapidly.

Look, if memory serves me right, back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy amounted to 47 percent, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I think, a little over 30 percent. The BRICS countries accounted for only 16 percent in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This is due to the trends of global development and world economy that I mentioned just now, and this is inevitable. This will keep happening, it is like the rise of the sun — you cannot prevent the sun from rising, you have to adapt to it.

How do the United States adapt? With the help of force: sanctions, pressure, bombings, and use of armed forces. This is about self-conceit. Your political establishment does not understand that the world is changing (due to objective circumstances), and in order to preserve your level — even if someone aspires, pardon me, to the level of dominance — you have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia and, say, other countries, are counterproductive. This is an obvious fact; it has already become evident.

You just asked me if another leader comes and changes something. It is not about the leader, it is not about the personality of a particular person. I had a very good relationship with, say, Bush. I know that in the United States he was portrayed as some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I assure you that is not the case. I think he made a lot of mistakes with regard to Russia, too. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO’s doors for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his presidency. He actually exerted pressure on the Europeans.

But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good relationship with him. He was no worse than any other American, or Russian, or European politician. I assure you, he understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such personal relationships with Trump as well.

It is not about the personality of the leader, it is about the elites’ mindset. If the idea of domination at any cost, based also on forceful actions, dominates the American society, nothing will change, it will only get worse. But if, in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has been changing due to objective circumstances, and that one should be able to adapt to them in time, using the advantages that the US still has today, then, perhaps, something may change.

Look, China's economy has become the first economy in the world in purchasing power parity; in terms of volume it overtook the US a long time ago. The USA comes second, then India (one and a half billion people), and then Japan, with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and restrictions. Is this normal, from your point of view: sanctions, restrictions, impossibility of payments in dollars, being cut off from SWIFT services, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against airplanes, sanctions in everything, everywhere? The largest number of sanctions in the world which are applied – are applied against Russia. And we have become Europe's first economy during this time.

The tools that the US uses don't work. Well, one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from this person. Then maybe something will change.

Tucker Carlson: But you are describing two different systems. You say that the leader acts in the interests of the voters, but you also say that these decisions are not made by the leader – they are made by the ruling classes. You have run this country for so long, you have known all these American presidents. What are those power centres in the United States, do you think? And who actually makes the decisions?

Vladimir Putin: I don't know. America is a complex country, conservative on the one hand, rapidly changing on the other. It's not easy for us to sort it all out.

Who makes decisions in the elections – is it possible to understand this, when each state has its own legislation, each state regulates itself, someone can be excluded from the elections at the state level. It is a two-stage electoral system, it is very difficult for us to understand it.

Certainly there are two parties that are dominant, the Republicans and the Democrats, and within this party system, there are centres that make decisions, that prepare decisions.

Then, look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an erroneous, rough, completely unjustified policy of pressure was pursued against Russia? After all, this is a policy of pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in the Caucasus, creation of a missile defense system – these are all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure.

Then, dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure, pressure. Why? I think, among other things, because excessive production capacities were created. During the confrontation with the Soviet Union, there were many centres created and specialists on the Soviet Union, who could not do anything else. It seemed to them, they convinced the political leadership: it is necessary to continue “chiselling” Russia, to try to break it up, to create on this territory several quasi-state entities and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their combined potential for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is necessary to get rid of this, there should be new, fresh forces, people who look into the future and understand what is happening in the world.

Look at how Indonesia is developing! 600 million people. Where can we get away from that? Nowhere, we just have to assume that Indonesia will enter (it is already in) the club of the world's leading economies, no matter if someone likes or dislikes it.

Yes, we understand and are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation is still normal with the economy growing decently, the GDP is growing by 2.5 percent, if I am not mistaken.

But if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end. The world is changing. In the United States themselves, experts write that the United States is nonetheless gradually changing its position in the world, it is your experts who write that, I just read them. The only question is how this would happen – painfully and quickly or gently and gradually. And this is written by people who are not anti-American; they simply follow global development trends. That's it.

And in order to assess them and change policies, we need people who think, look forward, can analyse and recommend certain decisions at the level of political leaders.

Tucker Carlson: I just have to ask. You have said clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you were all made in the 1990s. It is a threat to your country. Right before you sent troops into Ukraine the Vice-President of the United States spoke at the Security Conference and encouraged the President of Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into military action?

Vladimir Putin: I repeat once again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that arose in Ukraine after the 2014 coup d’état through peaceful means. But no one listened to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian leaders who were under the complete US control, suddenly declared that they would not comply with the Minsk agreements, they disliked everything there, and continued military activity in that territory.

And in parallel, that territory was being exploited by NATO military structures under the guise of various personnel training and retraining centres. They essentially began to create bases there. That's all.

Ukraine announced that the Russians were (a law was adopted) a non-titular nation, while passing laws that limit the rights of non-titular nations in Ukraine. Ukraine, having received all these southeastern territories as a gift from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the Russians were a non-titular nation in that territory. Is it normal? All this put together led to the decision to end the war that neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014.

Tucker Carlson: Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to negotiate the settlement to this conflict?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know the details, of course it’s difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has, in any case, he used to have. His father fought against the fascists, Nazis during World War II, I once talked to him about this. I said: “Volodya, what are you doing? Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, while your father fought against fascism? He was a front-line soldier.” I will not tell you what he answered, this is a separate topic, and I think it’s incorrect for me to do so.

But as to the freedom of choice – why not? He came to power on the expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine to peace. He talked about this, it was thanks to this that he won the election overwhelmingly. But then, when he came to power, in my opinion, he realized two things: firstly, it is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists, because they are aggressive and very active, you can expect anything from them, and secondly, the US-led West supports them and will always support those who antagonize with Russia – it is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant position, despite promising his people to end the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters.

Tucker Carlson: But do you think at this point – as of February 2024 – he has the latitude, the freedom to speak with you or government directly, which would clearly help his country or the world? Can he do that, do you think?

Vladimir Putin: Why not? He considers himself head of state, he won the elections. Although we believe in Russia that the coup d’état is the primary source of power for everything that happened after 2014, and in this sense, even today’s government is flawed. But he considers himself the president, and he is recognized by the United States, all of Europe and practically the rest of the world in such a capacity – why not? He can.

We negotiated with Ukraine in Istanbul, we agreed, he was aware of this. Moreover, the negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia is his last name, I believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the party of the President in the Rada. He still heads the Presidential faction in the Rada, the country’s parliament, he still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I am telling you about. But then he publicly stated to the whole world: “We were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from doing this saying it was better to fight Russia. They would give us everything we needed to return what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed with this proposal.” Look, his statement has been published. He said this publicly.

Can they return to this or not? The question is: do they want it or not?

Further on, President of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us. Let him cancel that decree and that’s it. We have never refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time: is Russia ready? Yes, we have not refused! It was them who publicly refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into negotiations. We have never refused.

And the fact that they obeyed the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous and very sad to me. Because, as Mr. Arakhamia put it: “We could have stopped these hostilities, this war a year and a half ago already. But the British persuaded us, and we refused this.” Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues.

Tucker Carlson: That is a good question. Why did he do that?

Vladimir Putin: Hell knows. I don't understand it myself. There was a general starting point. For some reason, everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure heart, but not because of great intellect.

Tucker Carlson: You have described the connection between Russia and Ukraine; you have described Russia itself, a couple of times as Orthodox – that is central to your understanding of Russia. What does that mean for you? You are a Cristian leader by your own description. So what effect does that have on you?

Vladimir Putin: You know, as I already mentioned, in 988 Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga, and then he baptized his retinue, and then gradually, over the course of several years, he baptized all Rus. It was a lengthy process – from pagans to Christians, it took many years. But in the end, this Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself in the consciousness of the Russian people.

When Russia expanded and absorbed other nations who profess Islam, Buddhism and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to those people who profess other religions. This is its strength. This is absolutely clear.

And the fact is that the main postulates, main values are very similar, not to say the same, in all world religions I’ve just mentioned and which are the traditional religions of the Russian Federation, Russia. By the way, Russian authorities were always very careful about the culture and religion of those peoples who came to join the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of the Russian statehood – all the peoples inhabiting Russia basically consider it their Motherland.

If, say, people move over to you or to Europe from Latin America – an even clearer and more understandable example – people come, but yet they have come to you or to European countries from their historical homeland. And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their Motherland, they have no other Motherland. We are together, this is one big family. And our traditional values are very similar. I’ve just mentioned one big family, but everyone has his/her own family, and this is the basis of our society. And if we say that the Motherland and a specific family are connected with each other, it is indeed the case, since it is impossible to ensure a normal future for our children and our families unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire country, for the Motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment is so strong in Russia.

Tucker Carlson: Can I say, the one way in which religions are different is that Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion. Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek,” “don’t kill,” and so on. How can a leader who has to kill, of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?

Vladimir Putin: It is very easy: when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We don’t attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d’état and the hostilities in Donbass began, that’s when they started. And we are protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.

As for religion in general. You know, it’s not about external manifestations, it’s not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart. And our culture is so human-oriented. Dostoevsky, who is very well known in the West as the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.

After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don’t know, maybe you won’t agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all.

I’m not saying this is bad, it makes it possible for today’s “golden billion” to achieve good success in production, even in science, and so on. There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that we kind of look the same, but our minds are built a little differently.

Tucker Carlson: So do you see the supernatural at work? As you look out across what’s happening in the world now, do you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself: these are forces that are not human?

Vladimir Putin: No, to be honest, I don't think so. My opinion is that the development of the world community is in accordance with the inherent laws, and those laws are what they are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind. Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more numerous, and then left the international stage, losing the status they were accustomed to. There is probably no need for me to give examples, but we could start with Genghis Khan and the Horde conquerors, the Golden Horde, and then end with the Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind.

Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians were getting stronger and began to develop economically, as we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans. However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all the processes of change are happening at a much faster pace than in Roman times.

Tucker Carlson: So when does the AI empire start do you think?

Vladimir Putin: (Laughing.) You are asking increasingly more complicated questions. To answer them, you need to be an expert in big numbers, big data and AI.

Mankind is currently facing many threats. Due to genetic research, it is now possible to create a superhuman, a specialized human being – a genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military man.

There are reports that Elon Musk has already had a chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.

Tucker Carlson: What do you think of that?

Vladimir Putin: Well, I think there’s no stopping Elon Musk, he will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you need to find some common ground with him, search for ways to persuade him. I think he’s a smart person, I truly believe he is. So you need to reach an agreement with him because this process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain rules.

Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest developments in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized that negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.

It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other fields, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.

Tucker Carlson: I appreciate all the time you’ve given us. I just want to ask you one last question and it’s about someone who is very famous in the United States, probably not here. Evan Gershkovich who is the Wall Street Journal reporter, he is 32 and he’s been in prison for almost a year. This is a huge story in the United States and I just want to ask you directly without getting into details of your version of what happened, if as a sign of your decency you’ll be willing to release him to us and we’ll bring him back to the United States?

Vladimir Putin: We have done so many gestures of goodwill out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner. However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps.

When I say “partners,” I, first of all, refer to special services. Special services are in contact with one another, they are talking about the matter in question. There is no taboo to settle the issue. We are willing to solve it, but there are certain terms being discussed via special services channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.

Tucker Carlson: So, typically, I mean, this stuff has happened for, obviously, centuries. One country catches other spy within its borders and trades it for one of its own intel guys in other country. I think what makes it, and it’s not my business, but what makes it different is that this guy is obviously not a spy, he is a kid, and maybe he was breaking a law in some way but he is not a superspy, and everybody knows that and he has been held hostage and exchange, which is true, with respect, it’s true and everyone knows it’s true. So maybe he is in a different category, maybe it’s not fair to ask for somebody else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades Russia to do that.

Vladimir Putin: You know, you can give different interpretations to what constitutes a “spy,” but there are certain things provided by law. If a person gets secret information, and does that in a conspiratorial manner, then this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he had been implicated in that, someone could have dragged him into that, maybe he did that out of carelessness, or on his own initiative. Considering the sheer facts, this is qualified as espionage. The fact has been proven, as he was caught red-handed when he was receiving this information. If it had been some far-fetched excuse, some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a different story then. But he was caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information. What is it, then?

Tucker Carlson: But are you suggesting he was working for the US government or NATO? Or he was just a reporter who was given material he wasn’t supposed to have? Those seem like very different, very different things.

Vladimir Putin: I don’t know who he was working for. But I would like to reiterate that getting classified information in secret is called espionage, and he was working for the US special services, some other agencies. I don’t think that he was working for Monaco, as Monaco is hardly interested in getting that information. It is up to the special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not connected with special services.

Let me tell you a story about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of the US. That person, due to patriotic sentiments, eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he [bandit] was doing? I don’t want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was laying our soldiers, taken prisoner, on the road and then he drove his car over their heads. What kind of a person is that? Can he be even called a human? But there was a patriot who eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did that of his own volition or not, that is a different question.

Tucker Carlson: Evan Gershkovich, that’s a completely different, I mean, this is a thirty-two year old newspaper reporter.

Vladimir Putin: He committed something different.

Tucker Carlson: He is just a journalist.

Vladimir Putin: He is not just a journalist, I reiterate, he is a journalist who was secretly getting confidential information.

Yes, it is different, but still, I am talking about other people who are essentially controlled by the US authorities wherever they are serving a sentence. There is an ongoing dialogue between the special services. This has to be resolved in a calm, responsible and professional manner. They are keeping in touch, so let them do their work.

I do not rule out that the person you referred to, Mr. Gershkovich, may return to his homeland. By the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep him in prison in Russia. We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to talk. Moreover, the talks are underway, and there have been many successful examples of these talks crowned with success. Probably this is going to be crowned with success as well, but we have to come to an agreement.

Tucker Carlson: I hope you’ll let him out. Mr. President, thank you!

Vladimir Putin: I also want him to return to his homeland at last. I am absolutely sincere. But let me say once again, the dialogue continues. The more public we render things of this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them. Everything has to be done in a calm manner.

Tucker Carlson: I wonder if that’s true with the war though also, I mean, I guess I want to ask one more question which is, and maybe you don’t want to say so for strategic reasons, but are you worried that what’s happening in Ukraine could lead to something much larger and much more horrible and how motivated are you just to call the US government and say, “let’s come to terms”?

Vladimir Putin: I already said that we did not refuse to talk. We are willing to negotiate. It is the Western side, and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for a strong word or an insult, but we both understand what is happening.

The financial support, 72 billion dollars, was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European countries come. Dozens of billions of dollars are going to Ukraine. There is a huge influx of weapons.

In this case you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and come to the negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We did not refuse.

Tucker Carlson: Well, sure, you have already said it — I didn’t think you meant it as an insult — because you have already said, correctly, it's been reported that Ukraine was prevented from negotiating peace settlement by the former British prime minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration. Of course, it's our satellite, big countries control small countries, that's not new. And that is why I asked about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which is making these decisions, not president Zelensky of Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Well, if the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume that they did it under the instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be the wrong decision, let it abandon it, let it find a delicate excuse so that no one is insulted, let it come up with a way out. It was not us who made this decision, it was them, so let them go back on it. That is it.

However, they made the wrong decision and now we have to look for a way out of this situation, to correct their mistakes. They did it so let them correct it themselves. We support this.

Tucker Carlson: So, I just want to make sure I am not misunderstanding what you are saying — and I don't think that I am — I think you are saying you want a negotiated settlement to what's happening in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin: Right. And we made it, we prepared a huge document in Istanbul that was initialled by the head of the Ukrainian delegation. He affixed his signature to the extract from the treaty, not the whole treaty but the extract. He put his signature and then he himself said: “We were ready to sign it and the war would have been over long ago, eighteen months ago. However, Prime Minister Johnson came, talked us out of it and we missed that chance.” Well, they missed it, they made a mistake, let them get back to that, that is all. Why do we have to bother ourselves and correct somebody else’s mistakes?

I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases, British bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?

Tucker Carlson: Do you think it is too humiliating at this point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two years ago Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: I said let them think how to do it with dignity. There are options if there is a will.

Up until now there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Now they are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to achieve, if possible at all. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it is never going to happen. It seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue.

Tucker Carlson: Would you be willing to say, “Congratulations, NATO, you won?” And just keep the situation where it is now?

Vladimir Putin: You know, it is a subject for the negotiations no one is willing to conduct or, to put it more accurately, they are willing but do not know how to do it. I know they want. It is not just that I see it but I know they do want it but they are struggling to understand how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point where we are at. It is not us who have done that, it is our partners, opponents who have done that. Well, now let them think how to reverse the situation. We are not against it.

It would be funny if it were not so sad. This endless mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic problems – sooner or later it all will result in an agreement. You know, this will probably sound strange given the current situation but the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal.

I will give you very unusual examples. There is a combat encounter on the battlefield, it is a specific example: Ukrainian soldiers got encircled (this is an example from real life), our soldiers were shouting to them: “There is no chance! Surrender yourselves! Come out and you will be alive!” Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were shouting back in Russian, perfect Russian: “Russians never surrender!” and all of them perished. They still identify themselves as Russians.

What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian people have been split by hostilities forever. No. They will be reunited. The unity is still there.

Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it unites not the territory, it unites our souls. No one will be able to disunite them.

Shall we end here or there is something else?

Tucker Carlson: Thank you, Mr. President. Publication status