Transcription
Mr. President, thank you. On February 22, 2022, you addressed your country in a 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 surprise attack on our country. And to an American, that sounds paranoid. Tell us why you believe the United States might strike Russia.
It's not that America was going to launch a surprise attack on Russia; I never said that. Do we have a show here, or do we have a serious conversation? [Laughter]
This is a serious conversation. But since you have a historical education, as far as I understand, yes, then I will allow myself to give you just a 30-second or one-minute brief historical note. Do you mind?
Look, where did our relations with Ukraine begin? Where did it come from? Ukraine is a Russian state. The Russian state. The year 862, when the Novgorodians, there is such a city, Novgorod, in the northwest of the country, invited Prince Rurik from Scandinavia, from the Varangians, to rule. The year 862. In 1862, Russia celebrated the millennium of its statehood. In Novgorod, there is a monument. In 879, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, who performed, essentially performed the functions of regent for Rurik's underage son. Rurik died at this time. By this time, he had arrived in Kyiv, removed the two brothers from power, Svyatoslav, and began to develop. Having two centers in Kyiv and in Novgorod.
The next very significant date in Russian history is 988 – the Baptism of Rus'. When Prince Vladimir, Rurik's great-grandson, baptized Rus' and adopted Orthodoxy, the Eastern part of Christianity, Eastern Christianity. From this time on, a unified state began to strengthen. A unified territory, unified economic ties, one language, and after the Baptism of Rus', one faith. And the prince's power began to form a centralized Russian state. But for various reasons, after the introduction of the throne inheritance, ancient times, the Middle Ages, by Yaroslav the Wise, a little later, after his death, the throne inheritance was complicated. It was not passed directly from father to eldest son, but from the deceased prince to his brother, then to his sons along different lines. All this led to the fragmentation of Rus'. The unified state that began to form as a unified one, in fragmentation, there is nothing special about it. The same thing happened in Europe. But the fragmented Russian state became easy prey for that empire that was created by Genghis Khan and his successors. Khan Baty came to Rus', plundered almost all the cities, ruined them. The southern part, where Kyiv was, by the way, and some other cities, they simply lost their independence. And the northern cities, they retained part of their sovereignty. They paid tribute to the Horde, but retained part of their sovereignty.
And then, with the center in Moscow, a unified Russian state began to form. The southern part of the Russian lands, including Kyiv, began to gradually gravitate towards another magnet, towards the center that was forming in Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was even called the Lithuanian-Russian Principality because Russians constituted a significant part of this state. They spoke Old Russian, were Orthodox. But then the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Kingdom occurred. A few years later, another union was signed in the spiritual sphere, and part of the Orthodox priests submitted to the authority of the Pope of Rome. And thus, these lands ended up as part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. They engaged in Polonization of this part of the population, introduced their language, began to introduce the idea that they were not entirely Russian, that since they lived on the edge, they were Ukrainians. And initially, the word "Ukrainian" meant a person who lived on the outskirts of the state, at the edge, or was engaged in border service. Essentially, it did not mean a special ethnic group.
So, the Poles Polonized in every way, and in principle, they treated this part of the Russian lands quite harshly, if not cruelly. All this led to the fact that this part of the Russian lands began to fight for its rights and wrote letters to Warsaw demanding the observance of their rights, so that people would be sent here, including to Kyiv. This was in the 17th century. And I will now say what happened next and name the dates so that there is no confusion. And in 1654, even earlier, people who controlled power in this part of the lands, I repeat, with the demand that people of Russian origin and Orthodox faith be sent to them. And when Warsaw, in principle, did not answer them anything and practically rejected these demands, they began to turn to Moscow so that Moscow would take them.
So that you don't think I'm making anything up, I will give you these documents. These are documents from the archive, copies, where there are letters, letters from Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the person who controlled power in this part of the Russian lands, which we now call Ukraine. He sent them to Moscow with a request to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There is a copy of these documents. I will leave them for you as a keepsake. There is a translation into Russian, and then it will be translated into English.
Russia did not agree to accept them immediately because it proceeded from the fact that a war with Poland would begin. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Zemsky Sobor, which was a representative body of the ancient Russian state, made a decision. This part of the ancient Russian lands became part of the Moscow Tsardom. And, as predicted, a war with Poland began. It lasted 13 years, then a truce was concluded. And in total, after the conclusion of this act in 1654, after, I think, 30 years, peace was concluded with Poland, it was said forever. And these lands, all the left bank of the Dnieper, including Kyiv, went to Russia. And all the right bank of the Dnieper remained with Poland. Then, during the reign of Catherine II, Russia regained all its historical lands, including the south and west. All this continued until the revolution.
Yes, and before the First World War, using these ideas of Ukrainization, the Austrian General Staff very actively began to promote the idea of Ukraine and Ukrainization. Everything is clear why. Because on the eve of the world war, of course, there was a desire to weaken a potential enemy, there was a desire to create favorable conditions for oneself in the border region. The idea that this territory is not entirely Russian, that they are supposedly a special ethnic group, Ukrainians, began to be promoted by the Austrian General Staff. And theorists of Ukrainian independence emerged in the 19th century who spoke of the need for Ukrainian independence. But, true, all these pillars of Ukrainian independence said that it should have very good relations with Russia. They insisted on this.
Nevertheless, after the revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks tried to restore statehood. A civil war broke out, including with Poland. A peace treaty was signed with Poland in 1921, according to which the western part on the right bank of the Dnieper again went to Poland. In 1939, after Poland collaborated with Hitler – and Poland collaborated with Hitler, and Hitler offered, we have documents in the archives, offered Poland to conclude a peace treaty of friendship, an alliance, a corridor for Germany from Königsberg and East Prussia. And after the First World War, this part of the territory was given to Poland, and instead of Danzig, the city of Gdańsk appeared. Hitler persuaded them to give it up peacefully, the Poles refused, but nevertheless, they collaborated with Hitler and together they divided Czechoslovakia.
[Music]
Yes, I will tell you now. I am finishing this historical note now. It may be boring, but it explains a lot.
Well, excellent. Then I am very pleased that you appreciated it so much. Thank you very much. So, after, before the Second World War, when Poland collaborated with Germany, refused to fulfill Hitler's demands, but nevertheless participated with Hitler in the division of Czechoslovakia. But since they did not give up the Danzig corridor, they were nevertheless forced, the Poles were forced, they played too much and forced Hitler to start the Second World War precisely with them. That's why it started on September 1, 1939, precisely with Poland. It turned out to be unyielding to Hitler. He had no choice but to start with Poland in implementing his plans. By the way, the Soviet Union behaved, I read archival documents, it behaved very honestly. The Soviet Union asked Poland for permission to move its troops to help Czechoslovakia, but through the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, it was said that if even Soviet planes flew towards Czechoslovakia through Polish territory, they would be shot down on Polish territory. But it doesn't matter. What matters is that the war began, and now Poland itself became a victim of the policy it pursued towards Czechoslovakia. Because, according to the well-known Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, part of these territories went to Russia, including Western Ukraine. Russia, under the name of the Soviet Union, thus returned to its historical territories. After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, as we call it, the Second World War, all these territories were finally secured for Russia, for the Soviet Union. And Poland, as compensation, one might assume, received the western ancestral German territories, the western, eastern part of Germany, part of the lands, the western, western regions of Poland today. Well, naturally, they again got access to the Baltic Sea, again got Danzig, which was again called Polish. Yes, thus, this situation developed.
When forming the Soviet Union in 1922, the Bolsheviks began to form the USSR and created Soviet Ukraine, which until now, which until now, did not exist at all. At the same time, Stalin insisted that these republics that were formed should be included as autonomous entities. But for some reason, the founder of the Soviet state, Lenin, insisted that they have the right to secede from the Soviet Union. And also, for incomprehensible reasons, he endowed the newly formed Soviet Ukraine with lands that the people living in these territories, even if they were never called Ukraine before, for some reason, when forming it, all this was incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR. Including all of the Black Sea region, which was obtained during the reign of Catherine II and actually had no historical relation to Ukraine at all. Even if we go back to 1654, when these territories returned to the Russian Empire, there were three or four, three or four modern regions of Ukraine. There was no Black Sea region there, nothing to talk about. Yes.
So, Soviet Ukraine received a huge number of territories that had absolutely no relation to it at all, primarily the Black Sea region. When Russia obtained them as a result of the Russo-Turkish wars, they were called New Russia. But that's not important. So, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, created Ukraine exactly like this. And for many decades, within the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR developed. And the Bolsheviks, also for incomprehensible reasons, engaged in Ukrainization. Not only because there were people from Ukraine in the leadership of the Soviet Union, but in general, there was such a policy of "korenizatsiya" (indigenization). It concerned Ukraine and other republics. National languages, national culture, which in general, in principle, is not bad, but in this way, Soviet Ukraine was created. And after the Second World War, they received more. Ukraine received not only part of the Polish territories today, Western Ukraine, part of Hungarian territories, and part of Romanian territories. These lands were taken and became part of Soviet Ukraine and are still there. Therefore, we have every reason to say that in this sense, of course, Ukraine is, in a certain sense, an artificial state created by the will of Stalin. Well, I don't know about the borders of 1654, but everyone considers the period of Stalin's rule to be the Stalinist regime. Everyone talks about the fact that there were many human rights violations, violations of the rights of other states. So, in this sense, of course, it is quite possible. Well, if we don't talk about the fact that they have the right to return these lands to themselves, then at least it is clear. He never said, never once, did we even have any conversations with him on this matter. But I know for sure that the Hungarians who live there, they certainly want to return to their historical homeland. Moreover, I will tell you a very interesting story now, I will digress. This is a personal story. Somewhere in the early eighties, I drove by car from the then Leningrad, from Petersburg, just on a trip around the Soviet Union, through Kyiv. I stopped in Kyiv, and then I drove to Western Ukraine. I entered a city called Berehove. And all the names of cities and villages were in Russian and in a language I didn't understand, in Hungarian. I drive away from some village, near the houses, men are sitting in "troikas" (traditional Hungarian attire), in black suits, "troika" and in black top hats. I say, "What are artists?" They say, "No, these are not artists at all. These are Hungarians." I say, "What are you doing here?" All the names, in Soviet times, in the eighties, they retained, they preserve the Hungarian language, all the names, national costumes, they are Hungarians and feel like Hungarians. And of course, when now there is an infringement... Now, I understand that since my long dialogues, dialogues, they probably don't fit into such a genre, the genre of an interview, so I asked you at the beginning: will we have a serious conversation or a show? You said a serious conversation. So, please don't be offended by me.
Well, we have reached the point where Soviet Ukraine was created. Then, in 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union. And everything that Ukraine received as a gift from Russia, with a generous hand, it took with it. And in general, I am now approaching a very important moment of today. This collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, was initiated, in essence, by the leadership of Russia. I don't know what the leadership of Russia was guided by then, but I suspect that there were several components, several reasons. To think that everything would be fine. First, well, first of all, I think the leadership of Russia proceeded from the fact that the fundamental foundations of relations between Russia and Ukraine are practically the same language, over 90% spoke Russian, kinship ties, everyone has, every third person has some kinship ties, friendly ties, common culture, common history, finally, common religion, fundamental things, being part of a single state for centuries, all these are fundamental things. The economy is very closely interconnected. All this lies at the basis of the inevitability of our good relations. And second, very importantly, I want you, as an American citizen, for your listeners and viewers to hear about this too. The former Russian leadership proceeded from the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. No more dividing lines of an ideological nature exist. Russia voluntarily, voluntarily and proactively dissolved the Soviet Union and proceeds from the fact that this will be understood by the so-called, now in quotes, civilized West as an offer of cooperation, and the so-called collective West as a whole. There were intelligent people, including in Germany, Egon Bahr was such a prominent political figure of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted, personally in conversations with the Soviet leadership before the collapse of the Soviet Union, that a new security system should be created in Europe, that Germany should be helped to unite, but a new system should be created where the United States, Canada, Russia, other Central European countries would be included. But NATO should not expand. He said exactly this: if NATO expands, everything will be the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was an intelligent man. No one listened to him. No one listened. Moreover, he got angry, as it were, also in the archives, he said that the Americans are more afraid of China than of strong Russia, because Russia has 150 million people, and China has 1.4 billion, and China's economy is developing by leaps and bounds, 5-plus percent per year, it was even more, but this is enough for China. And therefore, the potential, Bismarck once said, the main thing is potential. China's potential is colossal. The first economy in the world today by purchasing power parity, by economic volume, has already surpassed the United States a long time ago, and the growth rates are increasing. But we won't talk about who is afraid of whom now. We won't talk in these categories. Let's talk about what happened after 1991. What else will they take into the fraternal family of civilized peoples? Nothing of the sort happened. You deceived us. When I say "you," I don't mean you personally, of course. The United States promised that there would be no expansion of NATO to the east, but it happened five times, five waves of expansion. Well, we endured everything, we persuaded, we said, "Don't do it, we are your own now." As the bourgeoisie say, market economy, Communist Party rule, let's negotiate. Moreover, I have also spoken about this publicly. Well, now, during the Yeltsin era, there was a moment when, as it were, when a gray cat ran between us. Before that, Yeltsin traveled to the USA, remember, spoke in Congress and said wonderful words. He even said that. These were signals. But when the events in Yugoslavia began, immediately after that, they praised him, praised him. As soon as the events in Yugoslavia began, and when he raised his voice for the Serbs, and we could not help but raise our voice for the Serbs in their defense, I understand there were complex processes, I understand, but Russia could not help but raise its voice for the Serbs, because the Serbs are also a special nation, close to us, Orthodox culture, and so on, a suffering people for generations. It doesn't matter. What matters is that he spoke out in support. What did the United States do? In violation of international law, the UN Charter, they began bombing Belgrade. The United States released this genie from the bottle. Moreover, when Russia objected and expressed its indignation, what was said? The Charter and international law are outdated. Now everyone refers to international law. But then they started saying that everything is outdated, everything needs to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed, because the balance of power has changed, that's true, but not in this way. But nevertheless. Yes, by the way, immediately Yeltsin began to be smeared with dirt, to be told that he is an alcoholic, doesn't understand anything, doesn't grasp anything. He understood everything and grasped everything, I assure you. Well, okay, I became president in 2000. I thought, "Okay, all this Yugoslavian theme has passed, but we need to try to restore relations." After all, to open this door through which Russia tried to pass. Moreover, I said publicly, I can repeat it, at a meeting here in the Kremlin with the outgoing president, Bill Clinton, here in the adjacent room, I asked him a question: "Listen, Bill, what do you think if Russia raised the issue of joining NATO?" I think he would have said yes. And in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said, "You know, I talked to my team. No, this is impossible now." You can ask him, I think our interview will hear him confirm it. I would never say such a thing if it hadn't happened. Well, it's impossible now. Listen, I asked the question, is it possible or not, and received the answer: no. If I were insincere in my desire to find out the position of the leadership... If he had said yes, the process of rapprochement would have begun, and in the end, it could have happened if we had seen a sincere desire from our partners to do so. But it didn't end there. But no, so be it. Okay, let's move on. You said that I feel bitterness from the answer. No, it's not bitterness, it's just a statement of fact. We are not bride and groom. Bitterness, resentment are not the substances that are relevant in such cases. It's just that we understood that we are not welcome there. That's all. Okay, fine. Let's build relations differently. Let's look for points of contact. Why did we get such a negative answer? You ask your leaders. I can't speak for them. I can only guess why. Too big a country with its own opinion, and so on. And the United States... Well, I saw how decisions are made in NATO. Here's another example. I'll give you one now concerning Ukraine. The US leadership decides, and all NATO members obediently vote, even if they don't like something. Now I'll say in this regard what happened with Ukraine in 2008. Although it's already being discussed here, I won't tell you anything new, nevertheless. Then, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. For example, there were events in the Middle East, in Iraq. We built relations with the States very softly and calmly. And I repeatedly raised the issue of the United States not supporting separatism and terrorism in the North Caucasus. But all the same, financial support, even military support, came from the States and their satellites towards terrorist formations in the Caucasus. I once asked my colleague, also the US president, I understood this issue. He said, "Well, it can't be. Do you have proof?" Yes, I was ready for this. It was so. I will quote. He said, "Well, I'll kick their asses." So we waited, waited for an answer. There was no answer. I said to the director of the FSB, "Well, write to the CIA, is there any result?" A conversation with the president. I wrote, one, two. Then we received an answer. We have the answer in the archive. An answer came from the CIA. "We worked with the opposition in Russia. We believe this is correct and will continue to work with the opposition." Funny. Well, okay, we understood that there would be no conversation. Of course, in this case, it meant separatists, terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus. That's who was meant. They called them, called them "opposition." This is the second point. The third very important point is the creation of the missile defense system. The US started it. And we persuaded them for a long time not to do this. Moreover, after I was invited by George W. Bush, the elder, to visit him at the ranch, a serious conversation with President Bush and his team. And I proposed that the US, Russia, and Europe create a joint missile defense system, which, as we believe, created unilaterally, threatens our security. Despite the fact that the United States officially stated that it was created against missile threats from Iran, this was the basis for creating missile defense. I proposed that we work together, Russia, US, Europe. It's very interesting. They asked me, "Are you serious?" I said, "Absolutely." I don't remember. This is easy to find on the internet. When I was in the US at the invitation of Bush Sr., it's even easier to find now. I will tell you from whom. Imagine, if we together solve such a global strategic task in the field of security, the world will change. We will probably have disputes, perhaps economic, even political, but we will fundamentally change the situation in the world. Yes, they asked me, "Are you serious?" I said, "Of course. We need to think about it." They told me, "Please." Then here, in this office where we are talking, the Minister of Defense Gates, former CIA director, and Secretary of State Rice came. They sat here at this table, opposite. You are eating this table. They sat on this side. I and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Defense of Russia, on the other side. They told me, "Yes, we thought about it, and we agree." I said, "Thank God, excellent. But with some exceptions." Exactly. Exactly. In the end, they sent us away. I will not go into details because I consider it inappropriate. It was a confidential conversation, but the fact that our proposal was rejected is a fact. I said, "Listen, but then we will be forced to take retaliatory measures. We will create strike systems that will undoubtedly overcome the missile defense system." The answer was: "We are not doing it against you, and you do what you want. We proceed from the fact that it is not against us, not against the US." I said, "Okay, fine." And we created hypersonic systems, moreover, of intercontinental range, and continue to develop them. We have now surpassed supersonic strike systems. We have surpassed all, including the United States and other countries. They are being improved every day. But it was not us who made the proposal to go another way. They pushed us away.
Now, regarding NATO expansion to the east. But they promised no NATO to the east, not an inch towards our borders. It was fixed. So, we will decide. Five decisions, and they pushed the Baltics there, and all of Eastern Europe, and so on. And now, it seems, we have reached the main point: Ukraine. In 2008, at the Bucharest summit, it was declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia were open to NATO. Now, regarding how decisions are made there. Germany, France, and some other European countries were against it, as I was told later, President Bush, he is a tough guy, a tough politician, he pressured us, and we were forced to agree. It's funny, like in kindergarten. What is this guarantee? Just that this is a kindergarten. Ukraine will not be in NATO. You know, I say, I don't know. I know that you agreed in 2008. Why won't you agree in the future? Well, then they pressured us. I say, why won't they pressure you tomorrow, and you'll agree again? Well, it's nonsense. Who can you talk to there? I just don't understand. We are ready for a conversation. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? No guarantees. I told you the history of how this territory developed, what relations were with Russia. Well, every second or third person there has some ties with Russia. It has always been so. And during the elections in independent, sovereign Ukraine, which gained independence as a result of the declaration of independence, by the way, it is written there that Ukraine is a neutral state. In 2008, suddenly, before it...
They opened the doors or gates to NATO. Here is the interesting movie. We did not agree to this. So, all the presidents who came to power in Ukraine, they relied on an electorate that, one way or another, had a good attitude towards Russia. This is the southeast of Ukraine, a large number of people. And to push this electorate, which has a positive attitude towards Russia, is difficult. So, Viktor Yanukovych came to power. Moreover, the first time he won after President Kuchma, they organized a third round, which is not provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup d'état. Imagine that someone in the US didn't like something. Well, there was an argument between... No, earlier, no, no, this was earlier. After President Kuchma, Yanukovych, Viktor Yanukovych, won the elections. But his opponents did not recognize this victory. The US supported the opposition and appointed a third round. What is this? This is a state coup. The US supported him, and he came to power as a result of the third round. Imagine that in the US, someone didn't like something, they organized a third round, not provided for by the US, but nevertheless, they did it there. Okay, Viktor Yushchenko came to power, who was considered a pro-Western politician. Well, we established relations with him too. He made visits to Moscow, we made visits to Kyiv, and I traveled, we met in an informal setting. Well, Western, so be it, Western. Let people work, let them think. Let the situation develop within Ukraine itself, independently. So, after he led the country, the situation worsened. Viktor Yanukovych still came to power. Perhaps he was not the best president and politician, I don't know, I don't want to give assessments. But the issue of association with the European Union arose. And we have always treated this very loyally. Please, for Ukraine, a free trade zone, open customs borders. And Ukraine, according to this association, was supposed to open its borders to Europe and the flow of everything to our market. We said then, "This won't work. We will then close our borders with Ukraine." Yanukovych began to calculate how much Ukraine would gain, how much it would lose, and announced to his people. Destructive actions by the opposition, supported by the West, began, and everything led to Maidan and the coup d'état in Ukraine. Well, of course, of course, of course. It's not even about trade volumes, although it's more about cooperative ties, on which the entire Ukrainian economy stood. Cooperative ties between enterprises were very close since the Soviet Union. There, one enterprise produced components for final assembly in both Russia and Ukraine, and vice versa. Very close ties. So, a coup d'état was carried out. Although, due to the United States, I won't go into details now, I consider it inappropriate, but it was still said: "You there, Yanukovych, on the path of political settlement." We said, "Okay, we agree, let's do it." Yanukovych did not use, as the Americans asked us, armed forces or police, but the armed opposition in Kyiv carried out a coup d'état. How should this be understood? Who are you, anyway? I wanted to ask the then leadership of the US, with the support of the CIA, of course, an organization in which, as I understand it, you once wanted to work. Perhaps it's a good thing they didn't hire you. Although it's a serious organization, I understand. My former colleagues, in the sense that I worked in the First Chief Directorate, which is the intelligence of the Soviet Union, they were always our opponents. They did the right thing, achieved what they wanted, changed the government. But from a political point of view, this is a colossal mistake. And here, of course, the political leadership did not work. They should have, the political leadership should have seen what this would lead to. So, in 2008, they opened the doors to NATO for Ukraine. In 2014, they carried out a coup d'état. Moreover, those who did not recognize the coup d'état, and this is a coup d'état, began to be persecuted. A threat was created for Crimea, which we were forced to take under our protection. A war was started in Donbas since 2014, using aviation and artillery against civilians. After all, it all started with this. The entire video recording, when planes strike Donetsk from above. They undertook one large-scale military operation, suffered another failure, and all this against the backdrop of the military development of this territory and the opening of doors to NATO. Well, how can we not express concern about what is happening from our side? It would be a criminal negligence. That's what it would be. Simply, the political leadership of the States pushed us to the line beyond which we could no longer step, because it destroyed Russia itself. And then we could not abandon our co-religionists and, in essence, part of the Russian people. So, under this military machine, the conflict was initially provoked. The conflict was provoked, the coup d'état in Ukraine. By the way, representatives of three European countries, Germany, Poland, and France, arrived and were guarantors of the signed agreement between Yanukovych's government, between Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed their signatures, put them down as guarantors. Despite this, the opposition committed a coup d'état, and all these countries pretended that they remembered nothing about being guarantors of a peaceful settlement. Thrown into the furnace immediately, not remembered. I don't know if the US knows anything about this agreement between the opposition and the authorities and about the guarantors, the three guarantors who, instead of returning this whole process to the political field, supported the coup d'état, although there would have been no sense in it. Believe me, because President Yanukovych had agreed to everything, he was ready for early elections, in which he had no chance of winning. Honestly, he had no chance. Everyone knew this. Why the coup d'état? Why the victims? Why the threats to Crimea? Why the start of the operation in Donbas at all? This is what I don't understand. This is the miscalculation of the CIA. They did their job in implementing the coup d'état. And in my opinion, one of the deputy secretaries of state said that they even spent a large sum, almost 5 billion. But it's a colossal political mistake. Why was it necessary to do this? Everything could have been done, in fact, the same way, only legally, without any victims, without starting military operations, and without the loss of Crimea. And we wouldn't have lifted a finger if it weren't for these events on Maidan. Because we agreed that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everything should be according to the borders of the union republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to the expansion of NATO, and even less so to Ukraine being in NATO. We did not agree to NATO bases being there without any discussion with us. We only pleaded for a decade: "Don't do this, don't do that." What became the trigger in the recent events? Firstly, today the leadership of Ukraine declared that the Minsk agreements, which were signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, where a plan for a peaceful settlement in Donbas was outlined, are not being fulfilled. No, today's leadership of Ukraine, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, everyone else, official persons, and then the president himself, stated that they don't like anything about these Minsk agreements and are not going to fulfill them. Former leaders of Germany and France, directly, said in our days, a year or a year and a half ago, directly, honestly, to the whole world, that yes, they signed these Minsk agreements, but they never intended to fulfill them. They were just leading us on. We have been talking about this constantly. We appealed to the leadership of the United States and European countries to stop this process immediately, to fulfill the Minsk agreements. Frankly, I didn't know how we would do it, but I was ready to fulfill them. They are complex for Ukraine, there are many elements of independence for Donbas, territory was provided for. Well, that's true, but I was absolutely sure. I will tell you now, I sincerely believed that if we managed to persuade the people who live in Donbas, they would still have to be persuaded to return to the framework of Ukrainian statehood, then gradually, gradually, the wounds would heal, gradually, gradually, when this part of the territory returned to economic life, to the common social environment, pensions would be paid, social benefits, everything would gradually, gradually grow together. No, no one wanted this. Everyone wanted to solve the issue only with military force. But we could not allow this. And it all led to this situation where in Ukraine they announced: "No, we will not do anything." They started preparing for military action. They started the war in 2014. Our country, and we did not start it in 2022. It is an attempt to stop it. No, we have not yet achieved our goals, because one of the goals is denazification, meaning the prohibition of all neo-Nazi movements. This is one of the problems we discussed during the negotiation process that ended in Istanbul last year. But it didn't end on our initiative, because the Europeans, in particular, told us: "It is imperative to create conditions for the final signing of documents." My colleagues in France and Germany said: "Well, how do you imagine they will sign an agreement with a gun to their head?" We have to withdraw troops from Minsk. Okay, we withdrew troops from Kyiv. As soon as we... Oh, excuse me, from Kyiv. As soon as we withdrew troops from Kyiv, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our agreements reached in Istanbul into the trash and prepared for a long armed confrontation with the help of the United States and its satellites in Europe. This is how the situation developed and this is how it looks now. Yes, yes. This is exactly what I want to talk about now. This is a very important issue. Denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as Western analysts say, for its identity. And it came up with nothing better than to put at the forefront of this identity such false heroes who collaborated with Hitler. I already said that at the beginning of the century, when the theorists of Ukraine's independence and sovereignty appeared, they proceeded from the fact that an independent Ukraine should have very good and friendly relations with Russia. But due to historical development, due to the fact that when these territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Ukrainians were quite brutally persecuted, their identity was suppressed, attempts were made to destroy it, they behaved very cruelly. All this remained in the memory, in the memory of the people. And when World War II began, part of this extremely, extremely nationalist, let's say, nationalist-minded elite began to cooperate with Hitler, believing that Hitler would bring them freedom. And the German troops, even the SS troops, did the dirtiest work of destroying the Polish population, the Jewish population, and handed it over to the collaborators who cooperated with Hitler. From here comes this brutal massacre of the Polish and Jewish population, and Russian as well. The leaders were people who are well-known, Bandera, Shukhevych. These are precisely the people who were made national heroes. That's the problem. And they constantly tell us, "Well, nationalism, nationalism, and neo-Nazism exist in other countries too." Yes, they exist. But we are suppressing them, and they are suppressed in other countries. But not in Ukraine. In Ukraine, they have been made national heroes. Monuments are erected to them. Their names are shouted by crowds with torches, like in Nazi Germany. These are people who destroyed Poles, Jews, and Russians. This practice and theory must be stopped. Of course, any nation grows, considers a part of people... We say that I say that this is part of the common Russian people. They say, "No, we are a separate people." Okay, fine. If someone considers themselves a separate people, they have the right to do so, but not on the basis of Nazism, right? Nazi ideology. Look, the President of France, the President... No, no, I'll finish now. You asked a question about neo-Nazism and denazification. So, the President of Ukraine came to Canada. This is well-known but hushed up. As the Speaker of Parliament said, he fought against Russians during World War II. But who fought against Russians during World War II? Hitler and his henchmen. It turned out that this man served in the SS troops. He personally killed Russians, Poles, and Jews. The SS troops, formed from Ukrainian nationalists, did this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood up with the entire Canadian Parliament and applauded this man. How can this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the way, listen to me. Your question is very subtle, and may I say what I think? You won't be offended. It seems subtle, but it's very disgusting. You say 80 years. So, but his work lives on. People who destroyed Jews, Russians, and Poles are alive. And the current President of Ukraine applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, standing ovation. Can we say that we have completely eradicated this ideology if what we see is happening today? This is what denazification means in our understanding. We need to get rid of those people who practice this theory, leave it in life, and try to preserve it. This is what denazification is. This is what we mean by it. And you know, as strange as it may seem, during the negotiations in Istanbul, we agreed that there is... it's all in writing... that there will be no neo-Nazism in Ukraine at the legislative level. Mr. We agreed on this. It turns out it can be done during the negotiation process. And there is nothing humiliating for Ukraine in this as a modern civilized state. Is any state allowed to propagate Nazism? No, right? That's all. They were, they were, they reached a very high stage of agreement on positions, a complex process, but they were practically completed. But after we withdrew troops from Kyiv, as I already said, the other side, namely Ukraine, threw all these agreements into the trash and, under the instructions of Western countries, European countries, and the United States, prepared to fight Russia to the victorious end. And moreover, the President of Ukraine legally banned negotiations with Russia. He signed a decree prohibiting everyone from negotiating with Russia. Well, how will we negotiate if he himself, he himself prohibited it and prohibited everyone? We know that some settlement ideas are put forward. But to agree on something, one needs to have a dialogue, doesn't it? Well, I no longer remember when I spoke with him. I don't remember. It can be looked up. I should remember. I have enough of my own affairs, domestic policy. Well, yes, he finances it. But when I spoke with him, it was before the start of the special military operation, naturally. By the way, I told him then: "I will not go into details, I never do. But I told him then: 'I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historical scale by supporting everything that is happening in Ukraine and by alienating Russia.'" I told him, and I told him repeatedly, by the way. Here, I think it will be appropriate. I will limit myself to this. You can ask him, please. It's easy for you, you are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask. It's not appropriate for me to comment on our conversations. No, don't rush. We have certain contacts. By the way, remember I told you about my proposal to work together on missile defense? Clear, yes? You can ask everyone. They are all, thank God, alive and well. And the former President of Canada is alive and well. And, I think, Mr. Gates, the current Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Mr. Burns, he was the ambassador to Russia then, perhaps a very successful ambassador. They are all witnesses to these conversations. Ask them the same thing. Here, if you are interested in what Mr. Biden, the President, answered me. Well, ask him. In any case, we spoke with him about... that everything is solved very... and that everything is solved very, very simply. We have, I repeat, contacts through various departments. And I will tell you what we say about this and what we convey to the leadership of the US: "If you really want to stop the hostilities, you need to stop supplying weapons. Everything will end within a few weeks." That's all. And then you can negotiate some conditions. Before you do that, and stop... What's simpler than that? Why should I call him? What to talk about? Or what are you going to ask him to do? "You are going to supply this and that weapon to Ukraine." "Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid, please don't supply it." What is there to talk about? In any case, they talk about this, and they try to intimidate their population with a fictitious Russian threat. This is obvious to thinking people, not ordinary people, but thinking people, analysts, those who are involved in real politics, simply smart people. They understand perfectly well that this is a fake. The Russian threat is inflated only in one case: if there is an attack on Russia from Poland. Because we have no interests in Poland, Latvia, or anywhere else. Why would we? We simply have no interests. Only threats. This is absolutely excluded. You don't need to be an analyst. It contradicts common sense to get involved in some global war. And a global war would put all of humanity on the brink of destruction. This is obvious. There are means of deterrence. They have been scaring everyone for a long time. "Well, tomorrow Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons. Tomorrow." "Well, it will use them the day after tomorrow." So what? These are just scare tactics for ordinary people to extract additional money from US taxpayers, from European taxpayers, for confrontation with Russia on the Ukrainian theater of military operations. The goal is to weaken Russia as much as possible, and a cheap provocation. I don't understand why American soldiers should fight in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States. The most mercenaries are from Poland, second place is mercenaries from the US, third is from Georgia. Well, if someone has the desire to send regular troops, it will undoubtedly put humanity on the brink of a very serious global conflict. This is obvious. Do the United States need this? Why? Why are you thousands of kilometers away from your national territory? You have nothing to do. You have problems at the border, problems with migration, problems with the national debt, over 33 trillion dollars. You have nothing to do. You need to fight in Ukraine. Isn't it better to negotiate with Russia? To negotiate, understanding the situation that is developing today, for your own interests to the end, and understanding this, to return to common sense, to start treating our country with respect, its interests, and to look for some solutions. It seems to me that this is much smarter and more rational. Do you personally, perhaps, have it? And you personally, but such an alibi does not exist. You know, I will not go into details. In such cases, they say, and who is interested. But in this case, one must look not only for who is interested, but also for who can do it. Because there may be many interested parties, but not everyone can dive to the bottom of the Baltic Sea and carry out this explosion. These two components must be combined: who is interested and who can. In war, propaganda is very difficult to defeat because it controls all world media, many European media. The ultimate beneficiaries of the largest European media are American funds. Is this not known to you? Therefore, to get involved in this work, it's possible, but it's what you call "more expensive for yourself." We can, we can simply expose our sources of information, and we will not achieve results. It is already clear to the whole world what happened, and even American analysts are saying this directly. The German Great. Why are they silent? Why are the Germans silent? Well, this also affects them. Well, today the German leadership is not guided by national interests, but by the interests of the collective West. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their actions or inaction. After all, it's not just about Nord Stream 2, which was blown up, Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2 was damaged, but one pipe is alive and well, and gas can be supplied through it to Europe. Germany is not opening it. We are ready, please. There is another route through Poland, and Europe is also called the "big flow," it can be carried out. Poland closed it, but Poland is pecking from the hand. Germans receive money from pan-European funds, and Germany is the main donor to these pan-European funds. Germany is being exploited. Why? I don't understand. Ukraine, to which the Germans are supplying weapons, giving money, the second sponsor after the United States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine is Germany. Two gas routes pass through the territory of Ukraine. They took one route and closed it. Simply, Ukrainians, open the second route and please receive, receive gas from Russia. They are not opening it. Why not say, "Listen, guys, my weapon, the valve, answer me, please, let gas from Russia pass for us. We are buying liquefied gas in Europe at three times the price. This is lowering our competitiveness, the economy as a whole, to zero. Do you want us to give you money? Well, give us a normal existence, let our economy earn. We are giving you money from there." No, they are not doing this. Why? Ask them. What is in their heads? It's all the same. Then, you know, people are very incompetent. Listen, you said the world is divided into two hemispheres. The head is divided into two hemispheres. One is responsible for one sphere of activity, the other is more creative, and so on. But it's still one head. The world needs to be united, security needs to be common. They are calculated for the "golden billion," and only in this case will the world be stable, sustainable, and predictable. And until the head is divided, it's like a disease. The world is going through this period of severe illness. But it seems to me that thanks to honest journalism, they work like doctors, perhaps it will be possible to somehow connect all this. You know, this is one of the gravest mistakes of the political leadership of the United States, the use of the dollar as an instrument of foreign policy struggle. The dollar is the foundation of the might of the US. I think everyone understands this perfectly well. No matter how many dollars they print, they fly all over the world. Inflation in the US is minimal. How much is there? About 3%, approximately 3.4%, something like that. This is absolutely acceptable for the US. And they print endlessly, of course. What does the debt of 33 trillion mean? It's also emission. Nevertheless, this is the main weapon for preserving the might of the US in the world. As soon as the political leadership made the decision to use the dollar as an instrument of political struggle, they dealt a blow to this American might. I don't want to use any non-literary expressions, but this is stupidity and a huge mistake. Look what is happening in the world. Even among US allies, dollar reserves are decreasing. Now everyone is looking at what is happening, starting to look for ways to protect themselves. But if the US applies such restrictive measures against some countries as restricting settlements, freezing assets... For the whole world, this is what happened to us. Approximately 80% before 2022, in Russia, 80% of our foreign trade settlements were in dollars and euros. At the same time, dollars accounted for about 50% in our settlements with third countries. And now, now, it seems, only 13% are left. They didn't ban the use of dollars. We didn't strive for this. The US decided to restrict our settlements in dollars. Complete madness, you understand, from the point of view of the interests of the US itself, the taxpayers of the United States, because this deals a blow to the US economy. Now, our settlements are in yuan. They were, by the way, about 3%. Now 34%. We settle in rubles, and about the same amount, 34% plus a little, in yuan. Why did the United States do this? I can only explain it by self-confidence. Look, other countries, including oil-producing countries, are starting to say, they are already settling for oil sales in yuan. Do you understand what is happening or not? Does anyone understand this in the United States? What are you doing? You are cutting off the very thing that... All experts, ask any smart person: what is the dollar for the US? It's its own. These scare tactics are well known to us. This is a scare tactic. We are neighbors with China. Neighbors, just like close relatives, are not chosen. We have a common border of 1000 kilometers with them. That's the first. Second, we are used to coexisting for centuries. Third, China's foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. It always seeks... China's foreign policy thought always seeks compromise, and we see this. We don't have this. The next point is this: they constantly tell us, and you will try to present this scare tactic in a mild form, but nevertheless, it is the same scare tactic. The volume of cooperation with China is growing. The growth rates of cooperation between China and Europe are greater and higher than the growth rates of cooperation between China and the Russian Federation. Ask Europeans, are they afraid? Maybe they are afraid, I don't know, but they try to get into the Chinese market at all costs, especially now when they are facing problems in the economy. Chinese enterprises are entering the European market. And what, are they trying to limit cooperation with China? You are doing yourself harm. You are doing yourself harm by limiting cooperation with China. You are causing yourself damage. This is a delicate sphere, and there are no simple linear solutions here, just like with the dollar. Therefore, before imposing any new sanctions, from the point of view of the UN Charter, one must think. The problems are with those who make decisions. I will say now, but to finish the previous question, we have 200 billion dollars. We set a task with my colleague, friend, Chairman Xi Jinping, that last year, this year, we were even supposed to reach 200 billion dollars in trade turnover with China. And we exceeded this threshold. According to our data, it's already 230 billion dollars. According to Chinese statistics, 240 billion dollars, if everything is counted in dollars. Our trade turnover with China is very important. It is balanced. This trade turnover complements each other in the high-tech sphere, in the energy sphere, and in the sphere of scientific development.
He is very balanced. Here. But as for BRICS as a whole, Russia became the chairman of BRICS from this year, so there, a BRICS country is developing at very rapid paces. Look, God grant me memory not to be mistaken, but in the year '92, I believe, the share of the G7 countries in the world economy was, well, 47%. That was in '92. And in 2022, it fell to, I believe, a little over 30%. The share of BRICS countries in '92 was only 16%, and now it exceeds the level of the G7. And this is not related to any events in Ukraine. The trends in the development of the world and the world economy are such, such as I have just described. This is inevitable, it will continue to happen, like the sun rises, it's impossible to prevent. One must adapt to it, just as the United States is adapting through force, sanctions, pressure, bombings, the use of armed forces. This is related to arrogance. People do not understand your political elites, that the world, the elite, that the world is changing due to objective circumstances, but to make the right decisions in a timely manner to preserve their level. Excuse me, even if someone wants a level of dominance, such crude actions, including against Russia, let's say, and other countries, lead to the opposite result. This is an obvious fact. Today it has become obvious. You asked me now, "What if another leader comes?" In the past, relations were, say, with Bush, and he was presented in the States as some kind of village guy who didn't understand much. I assure you, that's not the case. I believe that in relation to Russia, he also made enough, also made many mistakes. I told you about 2008 and the decision in Bucharest about opening the doors to NATO for Ukraine, and so on. But it was under him, he pressured the Europeans. But in general, on a human level, I had very kind and good relations with him. He is no less intelligent than any other American, Russian, or European politician. I assure you, he understood everything he was doing, just like others. I also had personal relations with Trump. It's not about the personality of the leader, it's about the mood of the elites. If in American society the idea prevails, including through силовые акции (forceful actions), then nothing will change, it will only get worse. And if, in the end, there comes an understanding that the world is changing due to objective circumstances and one must be able to adapt to them in a timely manner, using the advantages that the US still retains today, then perhaps something can change. And look, the economy of China, the first economy, its capabilities in volume have already surpassed the US long ago. Then the US, and then India, with billions of people. Then Japan is in fifth place. Russia. Russia became the first economy of Europe last year, despite all sanctions and restrictions. Is this normal from your point of view? Sanctions, restrictions, inability to pay in dollars, disconnection, sanctions against our ships carrying oil, sanctions against salt, sanctions everywhere. The largest number of sanctions in the world that are applied are applied against Russia, and we became the first economy of Europe during this time. The tools that the US uses do not work. But one must think about what to do. If this realization comes to the ruling elites, then yes, then the head of state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the people who make decisions at various levels expect from him. Then perhaps something will change. I don't know. America is a complex country, very complex. On the one hand, conservative, on the other hand, rapidly changing. It's not easy for us to understand who makes decisions in elections. Can you understand that when each state has its own legislation and each state regulates itself, can remove someone from elections at the state level? Yes. So, it's a two-stage electoral system, it's very difficult to understand. And of course, there are two parties that are dominant, Republicans and Democrats, and within this party system, the center that makes decisions, prepares decisions. Then look, why, in my opinion, after the collapse of the Union, was there such an erroneous, crude, completely unfounded policy towards Russia? Pressure, the policy of pressure, NATO expansion, support for separatists in the Caucasus, the creation of a missile defense system. These are all elements of pressure, pressure, pressure. Then dragging Ukraine into NATO, this is all pressure. Why do I think so, including because there were created, I speak with difficulty, production capacities during the struggle with the Soviet Union. Many centers were created, and specialists on the Soviet Union who knew nothing else. It seemed to them, they convinced the political leadership, we must continue to beat Russia, try to break it down, create several quasi-state formations on this territory, and then subordinate them to themselves in a divided form, use their combined potential for the struggle, for the future struggle with China. This is a mistake, including because of the excess potential of those who worked on the confrontation with the Soviet Union. We need to get rid of this. There must be new, fresh forces, people who look to the future and understand what is happening in the world. Look at Indonesia. How it is developing. 600 million people. Where can one go from this? Nowhere. One simply must proceed from the fact that Indonesia will enter, it is already entering the club of leading economies of the world, whether someone likes it or not. Yes, we understand, we are aware that in the United States, despite all the economic problems, the situation in the States is still normal, and there is decent growth. The economy is 2.5%, I believe, GDP is growing. But if the future is to be ensured, then what is changing, as I have already said, the world will change anyway, regardless of how the events in Ukraine end. The world is changing, and one must, understanding this, in the States themselves, experts write that gradually the states are changing their position in the world. Your own experts write, I read them. The only question is how. These are written by people who are not anti-American, who think, look ahead, can analyze and recommend some solutions at the political leadership level. We simply, I repeat again, we have repeatedly, repeatedly proposed to seek solutions to the problems that arose in Ukraine after the coup d'état of 2014 by peaceful means, but no one listened to us. Moreover, the Ukrainian leadership, which was under the full control of the US, suddenly declared that it would not fulfill the Minsk agreements, they didn't like anything there, and continued military activity in this territory. In parallel, this territory was being developed by NATO structures under the guise of various training centers, retraining of personnel. Essentially, they began to create bases. That's all. In Ukraine, they announced that Russians are not the titular nation, they adopted a law. And at the same time, they adopted laws that they gave away as a gift from the Russian people, all these southeastern territories. Suddenly they declared that Russians are not the titular nation in this territory. Normal. All this together caused, caused the decision to stop the war that the neo-Nazis started in Ukraine in 2014 by armed means. I don't know the details, it's hard for me to judge, of course, but I think there is, at least, it was. My father fought fascists, Nazis during World War II. I talked to him about it, said, "What are you doing? Why are you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today when your father fought fascism?" He was a front-line soldier. I won't say what he answered, that's a separate topic. I consider it incorrect. But as for freedom of choice, why not? He came to power on the expectations of the Ukrainian population that he would bring Ukraine to peace. He spoke about this, and he won the elections with a huge advantage because of this. Well, and then when he came to power, in my opinion, he understood two things: first, it's better not to quarrel with neo-Nazis and nationalists because they are very aggressive and active, you can expect anything from them. And second, the West, led by the United States, supports them and will always support those who fight against Russia. It's profitable and safe. So he took the appropriate position, despite his promises to his people to stop the war in Ukraine. He deceived his voters. Well, why not? He considers himself the head of state, won the elections. Although we in Russia believe that everything that happened after 2014, the primary source of power is the coup d'état, and in this sense, even today's government is flawed. But he considers himself president, and the United States, almost all of Europe, almost the entire rest of the world recognize him as such. Why not? We conducted negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul. We agreed. He knew about it. Moreover, the head of the negotiation group, Mr. Arakhamia, I believe, is his surname. He still heads the ruling party, the ruling party of the president in the Rada. He still heads the president's faction in the Rada, in the country's parliament. He's still there. He even put his preliminary signature on the document I'm talking about. But then he publicly declared to the whole world, "We were ready to sign this document, but Mr. Johnson, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, came and dissuaded us from it and said that it's better to fight with Russia, they will give us everything so that we can regain what we lost in the clash with Russia." And we agreed with this proposal. Well, look, his statement is published, he said it publicly. Can they return to this? So, it's a question of whether they want to or not. And after that, Mr. President of Ukraine issued a decree to negotiate with us. Well, let him cancel this decree and that's it. We have never refused negotiations. Here, we hear everywhere, "Russia is ready, ready." Yes, we have not refused. They publicly, publicly refused. Well, let him change his decree and start negotiations. We have never refused. And the fact that they submitted to the demand or persuasion of the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Johnson, well, it seems to me that it is absurd and very, how to say, sad, because, as Mr. Arakhamia said, "We could have stopped these hostilities, stopped this war a year and a half ago, but the British persuaded us, and we refused." Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues. Damn it, I don't understand. The general attitude was, for some reason, the illusion formed that Russia could be defeated on the battlefield. From arrogance and from a lack of intelligence, from a lack of pure heart, but not from great intelligence. You know, as I said, in 988, Prince Vladimir was baptized, he was baptized himself, following the example of his grandmother, Princess Olga, then he baptized his retinue, and then gradually, over several years, he baptized all of Rus'. It was a long process, from pagans to Christians, it took many years. But in the end, this Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, became deeply rooted in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia expanded and included other peoples, and they profess Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has always treated people who profess other religions very loyally. This is its strength. This is absolutely unambiguous. Yes, and the fact is that in all world religions, which I have just mentioned, which are traditional religions of the Russian Federation, the basic theses are essentially very similar, if not identical. This is all. And Russian authorities have always treated the culture and religious beliefs of the peoples who joined the Russian Empire very carefully. This, in my opinion, forms the basis of both security and stability of Russian statehood, because all the peoples inhabiting Russia are basically united. If, for example, people from Latin America move to you, or to Europe, an even clearer example, people come, but they came from their historical homeland to you, either European countries. And people who profess different religions in Russia consider Russia their homeland, their great homeland. And the traditional values are very similar. I said, it's one big family, but everyone has their own family. And this is the basis of our society. And if we say that homeland and family are very closely connected, then it is so, because it is impossible to ensure a normal future for your children, for your family, if we do not ensure a normal, stable future for the entire country, for the homeland. Why is patriotism so easy? Because we don't attack anyone. This is where the events in Ukraine began, with the coup d'état, with the beginning of hostilities in Donetsk, in Donbas. This is what we are defending our people, ourselves, our homeland, and our future. As for every day in Berlin, beating your head against the floor, it is in the heart, and we have such a culture, a human-oriented culture. And Dostoevsky, who is very well-known in the West as a genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, this is more pragmatic. A Russian person, a Russian person thinks more about the eternal, thinks more about moral, ethical values. I don't know, maybe you disagree with me, but still, Western culture is still more pragmatic, and this, in principle, I'm not saying it's bad, it allows this "golden billion" today to achieve good success in production, even in science, and so on. There is nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that we look the same, but the consciousness is structured a little differently, and this, of course, yes. No, honestly, I don't think so. I think that the world community is developing according to its own internal laws, and they are what they are, and there's no getting away from it. And it has always been this way in human history. Some peoples and countries rose, multiplied, strengthened, then they descended from the arena. In the quality to which they were accustomed. I probably don't need to give these examples, but starting with the same Horde conquerors, from Genghis Khan and then the Golden Horde, ending with the Roman Empire. In human history, it seems nothing else like the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually accumulated, accumulated, and under their blows, the Roman Empire collapsed because there were more of them, they began to develop well overall. Well, as we say now, economically they began to strengthen, and the regime that was imposed on the world by the empire collapsed. It collapsed for a long time, 500 years this process of decomposition of the Roman Empire lasted. 500 years. The difference in today's situation is that the processes of change today are much faster than in the time of the Roman Empire. I am delving into more and more complex questions. To answer them, one must, of course, be a specialist in the field of large numbers, in the field of artificial intelligence. Humanity has many threats. Research in genetics that can create a super-human, a special human, a warrior human, a scientist human, a sportsman human. Now they say the US, Elon Musk, has already implanted a chip in a person's brain. I think that Musk cannot be stopped. He will still do what he considers necessary. But one must somehow negotiate with him, one must find ways to convince him. It seems to me he is an intelligent person, that is, I am sure that he is an intelligent person. One must somehow negotiate with him that this is a process, a process that needs to be analyzed, subjected to some rules. Humanity, of course, must think about what will happen to it in connection with the development of these latest research technologies in genetics or artificial intelligence. One can predict approximately what will happen. So, when humanity felt a threat to its existence from nuclear weapons, everyone began to negotiate among themselves, the possessors of nuclear weapons, because they understood that their careless use could lead to complete, total destruction. When the understanding comes that the boundless, uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence, or genetics, or some other modern directions, which are impossible to stop, research will still happen, just as it was impossible to hide what gunpowder is from humanity, and it is impossible to stop research in one area or another, this research will still happen. But when humanity feels a threat to itself, humanity as a whole, then, I think, a period of negotiation will come at the intergovernmental level about how we will regulate this. [Music] [Music] We have made so many gestures of goodwill that it seems to me we have exhausted all limits. No one has ever responded to a gesture of goodwill with similar gestures. But we are, in principle, ready to say that we do not exclude, we do not exclude that we can do this with reciprocal movement from our partners. And when I say partners, I primarily mean representatives of special services. They are in contact with each other, they discuss this issue. We have no taboo on not solving this problem. We are ready to solve it, but there are certain conditions that are discussed through partner channels between special services. It seems to me that we can agree on this. Breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy, and everybody knows that, and he's being held hostage in exchange, which is true, with respect, it's true, and everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody else in exchange for. You know, you can say whatever you want, what is a spy, what is not a spy, but there are certain things provided for by law. If a person obtains secret information, does it on a clandestine basis, then it is called espionage. He was doing exactly that. He was obtaining classified secret information, and he was doing it on a clandestine basis. Maybe someone could have drawn him into this matter, maybe he did everything out of carelessness, on his own initiative, but in fact, it is called espionage. Therefore, everything is proven here. He was caught red-handed while obtaining this information. If it were some fabricated things, invented, unproven, then it would be a different story. He was caught red-handed when he was obtaining secret information on a clandestine basis. What is this again? I don't know. I don't know who he worked for, but I repeat, obtaining secret information on a clandestine basis is called espionage. He worked in the interests of American special services, some other structures. Monaco is unlikely. Monaco is not interested in obtaining this information. Well, this is something for the special services to agree on, you understand. There are certain developments, there are people who, in our opinion, are not connected with special services. Listen, I'll tell you. A person is sitting in one country, an ally of the United States, who, out of patriotic considerations, liquidated a bandit in one of the European capitals during the events in the Caucasus. Do you know what he did? I don't want to say, but nevertheless, I will say: he laid out our captured soldiers on the road, and then cars drove over their heads. What kind of person is this? Is he even a person? Well, a patriot was found who liquidated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he did it on his own initiative or not is another question. Well, yes, he's not just a journalist. I repeat again, this is a journalist who obtained secret information on a clandestine basis. Well, yes, that's a completely different story. I'm just talking about those people who are essentially under the control of the US authorities, wherever they are imprisoned, and there is a dialogue between the special services. This should be resolved quietly, calmly, at a professional level. Contacts exist. Let them work. I do not exclude that the person you mentioned, Mr. Shch., may end up in his homeland. Why not? It's more or less pointless to keep him in prison in Russia. Well, let our colleagues, our special service employees on the American side, also think about solving the problems that are facing the special services. For negotiations, moreover, these negotiations are ongoing, and there have been many cases when we reached agreements. We can reach an agreement now, but only if we negotiate. I would also like him to leave. I would also like him to go home eventually. I say this sincerely. Well, I repeat, the dialogue is ongoing. The more we publicize things of this kind, the harder it is to resolve them. Everything should be done. Listen, I already said, we have not refused negotiations. We are not refusing. It is the Western side, and Ukraine is an unconditional satellite of the United States today. Well, it's obvious. I don't want this to sound like an insult or an offense to anyone. But we understand, yes, what is happening. Financial support, how much? 72 billion given. Germany is in second place, other European countries. Tens of billions of dollars are going to Ukraine. A huge flow of weapons is coming. Well, of course. Therefore, therefore, well, tell the current leadership of Ukraine, listen, let's sit down, negotiate, cancel your stupid decree or order, don't sit down, negotiate. We have not refused. If the Zelensky administration in Ukraine refused negotiations, I proceed from the fact that they did it on instructions from Washington. Well, let them now, if they see in Washington that this is the wrong decision, let them abandon it, find some pretext, so as not to offend anyone. This is their decision, they made it. Let them abandon it. That's all. They made the wrong decision. Now we have to find a way out of this wrong decision, to cover their tails, to correct their mistakes. They made it, let them correct it. We are for the right thing. We achieved this. We created a compact, large document in Istanbul, which was initialed. It is worth it. Well, excerpts from this treaty, not the whole thing, but excerpts. He put his signature on it. And then he said, "We were ready to sign, and the war would have ended a long time ago, a year and a half ago, but Mr. Johnson came and dissuaded us from it, and we missed this chance." We missed it, we made a mistake. Let them return to it. That's all. But why should we fuss around and correct someone else's mistakes? I understand, one can say that our mistake was that we intensified this war, as I said, started in 2014 in Donbas. But I will take you even deeper. I have already spoken about this. We discussed this with you then. Let's return to 1991, when, you know, we were promised not to expand NATO. Let's return to 2008, when the gates to NATO were opened. Let's return to the declaration of independence of Ukraine, when it declared itself a neutral state, moving towards the fact that NATO bases began to appear on the territory of Ukraine, creating threats for us. Let's return to the fact that the coup d'état was carried out in Ukraine in 2014. Well, it's pointless, really. One can roll this ball back and forth endlessly, but they initiated the negotiations. A mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else? And I, I already said, I said that let them think about how to do it with dignity. There are options, but if there is a desire. So far, they have been making noise, shouting that Russia must be strategically defeated on the battlefield. Well, now, apparently, the realization is coming that this is not easy to do, if at all possible. In my opinion, it is impossible by definition, it will never happen. It seems to me that now this realization has come to those who control power in the West. But if this is the case, if this realization has come, then think about what to do next. We are ready for this dialogue. Moreover, well, that's already a subject of negotiations. That's a subject of negotiations that no one wants to conduct with us. Or rather, they simply want to. I know what they want. I don't just see it, I know that they cannot understand how to do it. Well, they figured it out, they brought it to the situation we are in. It wasn't us who brought it, but our partners, opponents brought it to this. Well, okay, now they will think about how to turn it around. We are not refusing. It would be ridiculous if it weren't so sad. And this endless mobilization in Ukraine, hysteria there, internal problems. Well, all this, sooner or later, we will agree. And what might sound strange in today's situation, relations will be restored. It will take a lot of time, but it will be restored. Completely unusual examples. On the battlefield, there is a battle, clashes. A specific example. A specific example. Ukrainian soldiers were surrounded. "Surrender, you will come out alive. Surrender." And suddenly, from there, in good Russian, they shout, "Russians do not surrender." And they all died. They feel themselves as Russians in this sense. What is happening is, to a certain extent, an element of civil war. And everyone thinks in the West that the hostilities have forever separated one part of the Russian people from another. No. Reunification will happen. It has not gone anywhere. Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Russian Orthodox Church? Because it unites not territory, but the soul. And no one will succeed in dividing it. Shall we finish, or something else? Thank you. Thank you.