Vladimir Putin Live | Vladimir Putin Drops Huge Bombshell | Russia Ukraine War | Iran | Trump | US

of the enemy within the framework of the special military operation. As for the provocative statements, those decisions were made, of course, much earlier than all the statements you referred to as provocative. Regarding those statements, we responded to them. As you know, initially the Ministry of Defense made a certain statement. It is well known that in the event of an attempt to disrupt our festive events, we would be forced to deliver retaliatory strikes, massive missile strikes on the center of Kiev. What is unclear about that? That was precisely what was envisioned as retaliatory action.

We did not stop there. That was followed by a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Those are already documents, not merely statements. But we did not end there either. We began working with our main partners and friends first and foremost with our friends from the People's Republic of China, from India, and with some other countries, including beginning work with the administration of the United States of America. What kind of work? We simply outlined for our friends, colleagues, and partners the picture that could take shape. We have no desire to aggravate or worsen relations with anyone. And that could have happened bearing in mind that all centers of command and decision making in Kiev are in close proximity to the diplomatic missions of a whole range of countries. There are several dozen of them there. That is the point.

And when we began such a dialogue with the administration of the United States of America, we warned them about this, showed them the possible consequences, and asked them to do everything necessary to ensure the security of their country's diplomatic mission. As a result of all these discussions, the initiative of the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, emerged for an additional 2 days of ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during those two days. We immediately agreed to this, especially since, in my view, it is a justified proposal dictated by considerations of respect for our common victory over Nazism and clearly of a pronounced humanitarian character.

Incidentally, a few days earlier on the 5th, we had also submitted a proposal to Ukraine for an exchange and sent Ukraine a list of 500 Ukrainian servicemen held in Russia. Initially, the reaction was that they needed to look more carefully, perhaps not all 500, perhaps 200. And then they dropped off the radar entirely and said outright that they were not ready for this exchange, that they did not want it. Therefore, when the proposal of President Trump of the United States was put forward, we of course immediately supported it and we hope that in this case the Ukrainian side will nonetheless respond to the proposal of the president of the United States. No proposals have so far reached us unfortunately.

As for the bilateral meetings and what was central in those negotiations, the central matter was the event that stands at the center of attention for both Russia and all the friendly countries as we say in this case those whose representatives came to Moscow for the festive events. At the center of discussion was precisely victory day, our shared result in the struggle against Nazism and a conversation about how to ensure that the memory of the heroes of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War is preserved and serves as a foundational basis so that nothing of the sort ever happens again in the future. Of course, we spoke about bilateral relations here. Naturally, our relations with our closest allies and partners come to the fore. These are Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan.

But with Belarus, you heard a $50 billion turnover. A country of just over 10 million people. Quite a turnover, isn't it? There is much to discuss and many real issues. The same applies to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Fast growing economies, we have good plans including of an investment nature. With Kazakhstan, we also have shared interests within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. And with other countries I met with as well. Laos for example is also an important partner for us. The volumes there are very modest in dollar terms but the prospects are good and the country is well situated in ASEAN, a region important to us. So in each specific case there was something to discuss and everything was very substantive and pragmatic in nature.

As for Armenia's plans, the Armenian leadership, you know, we did not formally invite anyone to these events. These are not jubilee events, but nonetheless, we sent information to everyone saying that we would be happy if anyone came. We are not forbidding anyone from coming. There is no official invitation. So, not only Armenia, many other countries, our good neighbors and fine partners and friends were not here today. I see nothing unusual in that. Although those who did come certainly showed a degree of personal courage because they came to know of certain agreements, including those initiated by President Trump, regarding the extended ceasefire days, the exchanges, and so on, only after they had already arrived and not knowing about it, they nonetheless made the decision to be here. That deserves particular respect. But I repeat, the fact that some are absent, we see nothing particularly unusual in that.

As for Armenia's plans to join the European Union, that of course requires special consideration. We have discussed this with Prime Minister Pashinian on more than one occasion and we see nothing particularly unusual in it. In fact, and he will confirm this, I have already told him several times and I can now repeat it publicly. We will support whatever is beneficial to the Armenian people. We have a special relationship with the Armenian people spanning centuries. And if a particular decision benefits the Armenian people, please, we will not object. But of course, we must keep in mind certain circumstances that are important both for us and for our partners. What do I have in mind? For example, our trade turnover with Armenia. It has declined somewhat now in the past year. In the year before last, it was considerably higher, but it is still $7 billion as of 2025. Bearing in mind that the country's GDP is 29 billion, that is a significant figure and Armenia receives substantial advantages within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. This applies to agriculture, to processing industries, to customs and other duties and so on and so forth. It applies to the migration sphere.

And in my view, it would be right both toward the population, the citizens of Armenia, and toward us as the main economic partner to reach a decision as early as possible. For example, hold a referendum. It is not our place to say, but in principle, it would be entirely logical to hold a referendum and ask the citizens of Armenia what their choice will be. In accordance with that, we too would draw the appropriate conclusions and proceed along the path of a soft, refined, and mutually beneficial separation. You understand what we are living through now in everything happening on the Ukrainian front. But what was it that started it all? The accession or the attempt at accession of Ukraine to the EU. That was the first stage. Just the first stage.

We were already then discussing it with the Europeans. We told them, 'Look, the phytosanitary standards are completely different in your countries, in the EU and in Russia. Incidentally, ours are considerably stricter. But it is impossible for your products to enter the Russian market via Ukrainian territory. We cannot allow that.' And at that time, we had open borders and free trade zones with Ukraine. We would be forced to close them. The same applies to a whole range of industrial goods. Frankly, I was surprised by such a rigid, blunt position on the part of the Europeans. They dug in hard on not a single point would they yield in the end. Even then, President Yanukovych read more carefully, weighed things up, and said, 'No, perhaps I am not ready for this yet because the economic damage to Ukraine would be too great.' He did not refuse accession. He said, 'I need to return to this and analyze everything once more.' All of that then led to the coup, to the Crimea episode, to the position of southeastern Ukraine, and to armed conflict. That is what all of that led to. This is a serious matter.

So there is no need to push things to extremes. One must simply say in time, this is what we will do. There is nothing unusual about that. Everything needs to be calculated. The Armenian side needs to calculate and we need to calculate. As I answer this now, I'm thinking one could quite reasonably raise this matter at the next Eurasian Economic Union summit. Right now, the boss will give the order then me.

First, regarding the ceasefire, during my last phone call with the president of the United States, Mr. Trump, a conversation arose about May 9th, and incidentally, he spoke about it very fittingly in my view. He recalled our alliance in the common struggle against Nazism. I told him that I plan to announce the 8th and 9th of May. Why May 8th? Because in the west May 8th is the day Ukraine has now joined them in that. I believe they also now consider May 8th their victory day. But that is not the point. The point is that President Trump actively supported it and literally the next day we announced it. But as soon as we announced it, there was no reaction from anyone.

After I don't know, a day or two, when evidently Kiev had thought it over and clearly realized that this was being supported by the administration of the United States, they apparently saw it as beneficial to respond. But how to respond? Simply agreeing with our proposal was apparently seen as disadvantageous for them. And so they came up with a different proposal from the 6th. You know, for us, for Russia, May 9th is not a comedy show with keyboard instrument performances. For us, it is a sacred day because every family of ours suffered. If you consider that 27 million lives were sacrificed on the altar of victory by the Soviet Union, then the RSFSR, that is today's Russian Federation, bore almost 70% of that. According to postwar documents, the RSFSR accounted for almost 70% of losses, 69 something percent. Calculate if total losses were 27 million then Russia's losses come to how much? Almost 19 million people. Of course for us this is an event that touches every citizen of the Russian Federation. Every one of our families. We play no games here of any kind. We proposed two days, no reaction followed and then suddenly some sort of games began around it. We do not play those games.

But since the proposal emerged from the president of the USA for also conducting an exchange which we ourselves had proposed on the 5th, you can ask Ushakov. He will not hide it. We sent an entire list, 500 people. Of course, we welcomed it and were ready to do it and extended the ceasefire by two more days in the hope of conducting the exchange, hoping that we would ultimately accomplish it. And the second part of the question, ah, the message. Yes, Mr. Fico told me about it, spoke of his meeting, but there was essentially no particular message. I simply heard once again that the Ukrainian side, Mr. Zelensky, is ready to hold a personal meeting. Yes, I heard that. But this is not the first time we are hearing it. Well, what can one say in this context? We have never refused. I have not refused. I am not the one proposing this meeting, but if someone is proposing it, please let whoever wants to meet come to Moscow and we will meet. A meeting in a third country is also possible, but only in the event that final agreements on a peace treaty have been reached. A treaty designed to last on a long historical horizon. In order to participate in such an event or to sign something, but it must be a final point. Not the negotiations themselves because we know what negotiations are. I personally went through this at length in Minsk during the drafting of the Minsk agreements that can go on for hours endlessly, day and night to no end. Specialists need to do the work, get everything done. So it is clear to both sides that the agreements are fully coordinated. In that case, a meeting can happen anywhere to put a signature or to be present at the signing.

Listen, this concerns first and foremost Russia and Ukraine. If someone wants to help us and is doing so and we see that the current US administration and the president of the United States are sincerely, I want to emphasize this, sincerely striving toward a settlement. They clearly do not need this conflict. They have many other priority tasks. Then we are only grateful to them for that. But this is first and foremost the business of Russia and Ukraine.

What is the west? It is the so-called, I think, globalist wing of western elites. It is waging war against us using Ukrainians as its instrument. They have arranged things rather comfortably for themselves. They provoked this conflict. I already said what it started with. I did not invent anything about the original starting point. Strange as it may seem, it was about whether Ukraine would join the EU or not. By all means let them have joined. But it came to armed conflict. Why? Because no one cared in the slightest about Russia's interests. Moreover, in their desire to use Ukraine as a tool for achieving their geopolitical goals, these figures in the West were deceiving everyone. People are openly saying this now. They began deceiving us regarding NATO's expansion eastward as early as the beginning of the 1990s. 'NATO will not take a single step eastward.' That is what we were told then. And what happened? Where is it now? All of this combined in aggregate provoked today's situation. So they are waging war against us. But I repeat, it has become clear to everyone that they are doing it with Ukrainian hands.

Just recently I was talking with colleagues recalling how all of this unfolded. After all, we did reach an agreement with the Ukrainians in 2022 in Istanbul and initialed an agreement. Then one colleague, well, there is no point in hiding it, Mr. Macron called me and said that Ukraine cannot sign such documents, historical ones, with a gun to its head. That is a direct quote. We have a recording of the conversation. I said, 'What needs to be done? Will the troops should be pulled back from Kiev?' So, we pulled them back. Right away, another representative of show business arrived, the then prime minister of the United Kingdom. And what did he say? This agreement cannot be signed. It is unfair. But who decides what is fair or not? If the representative of the negotiating group on the Ukrainian side initialed those documents, what is unfair about it? Who decides that? Well, everything was wonderful. They promised assistance and began ramping up the confrontation with Russia, which has continued to this day. I think the situation is heading toward a conclusion, but it is still a serious matter. The question arises, what was it all for? First, they expected the shattering defeat of Russia. We know it well. The collapse of statehood within a few months. It is not working out. And then they got stuck in this glue and cannot get themselves out. That is the problem. Although there are certainly intelligent people there, there are those who without doubt understand the essence of the events unfolding.

I hope that these political forces will gradually return to power or will take power into their own hands with the support of the overwhelming majority of European countries. Regarding Iran and the USA, a very heavy and complex conflict and it puts us in a difficult position because we have good relations with Iran and genuinely friendly relations with the countries of the Persian Gulf without any exaggeration and we continue to maintain contact with both sides. We hope that this conflict can be stopped as quickly as possible. In my view, there are no longer any interested parties in continuing this confrontation. Of course, we understand that agreements must be reached in the interests of all the peoples and all the states of that region. There are various options. I would not want to go into details now. We have a sense of what they might be and in general they can be achieved. Conversely, if things move toward an escalation of the situation, toward a heightening of confrontation, everyone will be a loser.

For me personally, the preferable choice would be the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Schröder. Otherwise, let the Europeans choose such a leader, one they trust, who has not said nasty things about us. Please, we have never been closed to negotiations. Never. It was not we who refused. They refused. Please.

There you have answered that question yourself. It must be ensured that no one threatens us. That is all. That is what we will strive for. As for the technologies they are being given in Europe and equipment partially assembled there, we know they are playing an escalation game. But judging by what was just said, they are nonetheless already seeking contact with us. They understand that this escalation game can prove very costly.

You know, I will share some secrets with you, but they are relatively secret secrets. We not only made the offer, we already did this once in 2015 and Iran trusts us fully and not without reason because first of all, we have never violated any agreements. Second, we continue to pursue peaceful nuclear programs in Iran. We have already built Bushehr which is operating and we continue to build further. We continue our work and our cooperation in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy is not subject to current fluctuations. We did this in 2015 and at the time it formed the basis for the conclusion of an agreement between all interested countries and Iran. That is to say, it played a very positive role. That experience exists. And I said even now that we are ready to repeat that experience and initially, and this is the secret so to speak, everyone agreed. Representatives of the United States agreed, Iran agreed, Israel agreed. But then the United States hardened its position and demanded that the uranium be transferred only to US territory. After that Iran hardened its position and I was told Mr. Larijani came who unfortunately has passed away. A great pity. He was a man with whom one could conduct a constructive dialogue. He could listen, he heard and he responded to everything. But at that time he came and said no you know we have also changed our position. Now we are not prepared to ship that enriched uranium anywhere. We propose a new format of cooperation with Russia to create joint ventures but on Iranian territory and to dilute the uranium together there. I said please we are not against it. The main thing is that it should diffuse the situation. But I think that no one will agree to that anymore. Neither the United States nor Israel. And so it turned out and in that direction the situation has reached something of a dead end to be frank.

Our proposals lie on the table and I think it is a good proposal. Why? Because first, if everyone agrees to it, Iran can be fully confident that it has shipped these materials to a friendly country that cooperates and will continue to cooperate with Iran in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy, not in weapons programs. Iran does not aspire to that in any case. And there is a fatwa there issued by the former spiritual leader and we have heard repeated statements to that effect. Nor has the IAEA ever stated that there is evidence of Iran's aspiration toward nuclear weapons. All the other participants in this process could in my view also be interested. It seems to me that this could suit them. Why? First, everyone would see what exactly it is, how much there is, and where it is located. Second, all of it would be placed under IAEA oversight. And third, the work of diluting this uranium would also be organized under IAEA control. It would be transparent and safe. But at the same time, we need nothing from this. Not in order to, forgive the term, puff up our political gills and say that without us, no one can do anything. No, we simply want to make whatever modest contribution we can, if it suits everyone, to a deescalation of the situation. If it does not suit them, by all means. But we will support any situation, any solution that leads out of this impasse and makes it possible to move forward along the path of a peaceful settlement. And I think there is a nuance here as well. I will certainly not speak about it now but compromises are possible.

Well, there is no secret here. First of all, we always say this, the interaction between Russia and China is a most important factor today for the stabilization of international relations. After all, we have almost no remaining treaties regulating the sphere of security, disarmament, and nuclear weapons control. And the interaction of such states, such countries as China and Russia, is without doubt a factor of restraint and stability. That is the first point. Second, China is our largest trade and economic partner. Listen, over $140 billion. That is a respectable turnover. It is growing. Third, it is diversified and that diversification is continuing into high technology sectors, which is very important. I want to thank the leadership of the People's Republic of China. My friend, as I say and say it with full justification, Chairman of the PRC, Mr. Xi Jinping. He personally supports, I see and feel it, diversification in the direction of high technology sectors. And there are also energy matters here. Nuclear energy as well. We continue to work with China. We continue to build nuclear power units. Alternative energy. China has made considerable progress in this but there is nonetheless room for cooperation. That is space, that is conventional energy, hydrocarbon energy both oil and gas. I will not speak about this now either but in principle we are to a high degree in agreement because a serious, very significant step forward in cooperation in the gas and oil sphere is within reach. Serious. But I will not get ahead of myself on those matters. As I see it, from what my colleagues have reported to me, practically all the key issues have been agreed upon. If we can finalize them and put a period on them during the visit, I will be very glad.

As for the United States continuing contact with China, that this is very important. We only welcome it. It is one more element of stability because first of all they are very large trade and economic partners and the state of the entire global economy depends on their interaction. We watch this carefully and proceed from the assumption that there will be no illegitimate sanctions and no tension in the economic sphere between the two states. We only benefit from the stability and constructive interaction between the United States and China. Please.

Thank you. Stupidity can lead to poverty in the end. Raise your hand, please. Please.

The stronger Russia is, the more quickly this will fade away. That is the first point. Second, as for why this is happening at all, I believe this is a manifestation of, strange as it may sound, revanchism on the part of those very globalist western elites I already mentioned. Not to invoke ill omens, but it is already late in the evening. What do I mean? I already said it, and we all know it. Everyone was counting on the swift collapse of Russia. Within 6 months, everything was supposed to, in their view, fall apart. Enterprises were supposed to grind to a halt. The banking system was supposed to cease functioning. Millions of people were supposed to find themselves out on the street. We have, incidentally, the lowest unemployment of all G20 countries, 2.2% still. And everyone was counting on snatching something from Russia, grabbing something. Forgive the bluntness. Take Finland. Why did Finland join NATO? Did we have any territorial disputes with Finland? No. Everything was resolved long ago. Nothing was needed. And the Finnish leadership understood this perfectly well. So why did they go to NATO? In the hope that everything here with us would collapse and they would be right there ready to snatch and grab. And now they are already building a border fence along the Sestra River. I would make certain gestures and say certain things, but since I am from the cultural capital, I will refrain. I think that to a significant extent what is happening is dictated precisely by considerations of this kind.

But now as the understanding sets in that things are not so simple, that problems are arising, that overcoming them is rather difficult, and that it is better to seek ways of resuming normal relations, better to move towards some mutually acceptable agreements. And incidentally, we always built our relations with Europe on the principles of mutual respect and consideration of interests. That is not an empty diplomatic phrase. We actually operated that way. Not everyone talks to Europe that way today, but we always have and only in that manner. But that was apparently not enough. I hope that the realization that this was an erroneous position is now emerging and will gain momentum and strength and in the end we will nonetheless restore relations with many countries that today are trying to anathematize our relations. But the sooner this happens the better for us and in this case for the European countries. Thank you very much. It is time to wrap up. Happy holiday.

As for provocations, you can see that I am here at the Ministry of Defense. I have not yet been briefed on this, so I cannot say anything. I will return to my workplace now and the military will brief me there. Regarding the parade, you know, we made the decision that this year it is not a jubilee, but nonetheless it is still victory day. We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without a demonstration of military hardware. And not only for security reasons, but primarily because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy within the framework of the special military operation.

As for the provocative statements, those decisions were made, of course, much earlier than all the statements you referred to as provocative. Regarding those statements, we responded to them. As you know, initially the Ministry of Defense made a certain statement. It is well known that in the event of an attempt to disrupt our festive events, we would be forced to deliver retaliatory strikes, massive missile strikes on the center of Kiev. What is unclear about that? That was precisely what was envisioned as retaliatory action.

We did not stop there. That was followed by a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Those are already documents, not merely statements. But we did not end there either. We began working with our main partners and friends first and foremost with our friends from the People's Republic of China, from India, and with some other countries, including beginning work with the administration of the United States of America. What kind of work? We simply outlined for our friends, colleagues, and partners the picture that could take shape. We have no desire to aggravate or worsen relations with anyone. And that could have happened, bearing in mind that all centers of command and decision making in Kiev are in close proximity to the diplomatic missions of a whole range of countries. There are several dozen of them there. That is the point.

And when we began such a dialogue with the administration of the United States of America, we warned them about this, showed them the possible consequences, and asked them to do everything necessary to ensure the security of their country's diplomatic mission. As a result of all these discussions, the initiative of the president of the United States, Mr. Trump, emerged for an additional 2 days of ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during those two days. We immediately agreed to this, especially since, in my view, it is a justified proposal dictated by considerations of respect for our common victory over Nazism and clearly of a pronounced humanitarian character.

Incidentally, a few days earlier on the 5th, we had also submitted a proposal to Ukraine for an exchange and sent Ukraine a list of 500 Ukrainians. That is a direct quote. We have a recording of the conversation. I said, 'What needs to be done? Will the troops should be pulled back from Kiev?' So, we pulled them back right away. Another representative of show business arrived, the then prime minister of the United Kingdom. And what did he say? This agreement cannot be signed. It is unfair. But who decides what is fair or not? If the representative of the negotiating group on the Ukrainian side initialed those documents, what is unfair about it? Who decides that? Well, everything was wonderful. They promised assistance and began ramping up the confrontation with Russia which has continued to this day. I think the situation is heading toward a conclusion but it is still a serious matter. The question arises what was it all for? First they expected the shattering defeat of Russia. We know it well. The collapse of statehood within a few months. It is not working out. And then they got stuck in this glue and cannot get themselves out. That is the problem. Although there are certainly intelligent people there, there are those who without doubt understand the essence of the events unfolding.

I hope that these political forces will gradually return to power or will take power into their own hands with the support of the overwhelming majority of European countries. Regarding Iran and the USA, a very heavy and complex conflict and it puts us in a difficult position because we have good relations with Iran and genuinely friendly relations with the countries of the Persian Gulf without any exaggeration and we continue to maintain contact with both sides. We hope that this conflict can be stopped as quickly as possible. In my view, there are no longer any interested parties in continuing this confrontation. Of course, we understand that agreements must be reached in the interests of all the peoples and all the states of that region. There are various options. I would not want to go into details now. We have a sense of what they might be and in general they can be achieved. Conversely, if things move toward an escalation of the situation, toward a heightening of confrontation, everyone will be a loser.

For me personally, the preferable choice would be the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Schröder. Otherwise, let the Europeans choose such a leader, one they trust, who has not said nasty things about us. Please, we have never been closed to negotiations. Never. It was not we who refused. They refused. Please.

There you have answered that question yourself. It must be ensured that no one threatens us. That is all. That is what we will strive for. As for the technologies they are being given in Europe and equipment partially assembled there, we know they are playing an escalation game. But judging by what was just said, they are nonetheless already seeking contact with us. They understand that this escalation game can prove very costly.

You know, I will share some secrets with you, but they are relatively secret secrets. We not only made the offer, we already did this once in 2015 and Iran trusts us fully and not without reason because first of all, we have never violated any agreements. Second, we continue to pursue peaceful nuclear programs in Iran. We have already built Bushehr which is operating and we continue to build further. We continue our work and our cooperation in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy is not subject to current fluctuations. We did this in 2015 and at the time it formed the basis for the conclusion of an agreement between all interested countries and Iran. That is to say it played a very positive role. That experience exists. And I said even now that we are ready to repeat that experience and initially, and this is the secret so to speak. Everyone agreed. Representatives of the United States agreed, Iran agreed, Israel agreed. But then the United States hardened its position and demanded that the uranium be transferred only to US territory. After that Iran hardened its position and I was told Mr. Larijani came who unfortunately has passed away. A great pity. He was a man with whom one could conduct a constructive dialogue. He could listen, he heard and he responded to everything. But at that time he came and said no you know we have also changed our position now we are not prepared to ship that enriched uranium anywhere. We propose a new format of cooperation with Russia to create joint ventures but on Iranian territory and to dilute the uranium together there. I said please we are not against it. The main thing is that it should diffuse the situation. But I think that no one will agree to that anymore. Neither the United States nor Israel. And so it turned out and in that direction the situation has reached something of a dead end to be frank.

Our proposals lie on the table and I think it is a good proposal. Why? Because first, if everyone agrees to it, Iran can be fully confident that it has shipped these materials to a friendly country that cooperates and will continue to cooperate with Iran in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy, not in weapons programs. Iran does not aspire to that in any case. And there is a fatwa there issued by the former spiritual leader and we have heard repeated statements to that effect. Nor has the IAEA ever stated that there is evidence of Iran's aspiration toward nuclear weapons. All the other participants in this process could in my view also be interested. It seems to me that this could suit them. Why? First, everyone would see what exactly it is, how much there is, and where it is located. Second, all of it would be placed under IAEA oversight. And third, the work of diluting this uranium would also be organized under IAEA control. It would be transparent and safe. But at the same time, we need nothing from this. Not in order to, forgive the term, puff up our political gills and say that without us, no one can do anything. No, we simply want to make whatever modest contribution we can if it suits everyone to a deescalation of the situation. If it does not suit them, by all means. But we will support any situation, any solution that leads out of this impasse and makes it possible to move forward along the path of a peaceful settlement. And I think there is a nuance here as well. I will certainly not speak about it now, but compromises are possible.

Well, there is no secret here. First of all, we always say this, the interaction between Russia and China is a most important factor today for the stabilization of international relations. After all, we have almost no remaining treaties regulating the sphere of security, disarmament, and nuclear weapons control. And the interaction of such states, such countries as China and Russia, is without doubt a factor of restraint and stability. That is the first point. Second, China is our largest trade and economic partner. Listen, over $140 billion. That is a respectable turnover. It is growing. Third, it is diversified and that diversification is continuing into high technology sectors, which is very important. I want to thank the leadership of the People's Republic of China. My friend, as I say and say it with full justification,

Justification, Chairman of the PRC, Mr. Xi Jinping. He personally supports, I see and feel it, diversification in the direction of high technology sectors. And there are also energy matters here. Nuclear energy as well. We continue to work with China. We continue to build nuclear power units. Alternative energy. China has made considerable progress in this but there is nonetheless room for cooperation. That is space, that is conventional energy, hydrocarbon energy, both oil and gas. I will not speak about this now either but in principle we are to a high degree in agreement because a serious, very significant step forward in cooperation in the gas and oil sphere is within reach. Serious. But I will not get ahead of myself on those matters. As I see it, from what my colleagues have reported to me, practically all the key issues have been agreed upon. If we can finalize them and put a period on them during the visit, I will be very glad. As for the United States continuing contact with China, that is very important. We only welcome it. It is one more element of stability because first of all they are very large trade and economic partners and the state of the entire global economy depends on their interaction. We watch this carefully and proceed from the assumption that there will be no illegitimate sanctions and no tension in the economic sphere between the two states. We only benefit from the stability and constructive interaction between the United States and China. Please.

Thank you. Stupidity can lead to poverty in the end. Raise your hand, please. Please.

The stronger Russia is, the more quickly this will fade away. That is the first point. Second, as for why this is happening at all, I believe this is a manifestation of, strange as it may sound, revanchism on the part of those very globalist western elites I already mentioned. Not to invoke ill omens, but it is already late in the evening. What do I mean? I already said it, and we all know it. Everyone was counting on the swift collapse of Russia. Within 6 months, everything was supposed to, in their view, fall apart. Enterprises were supposed to grind to a halt. The banking system was supposed to cease functioning. Millions of people were supposed to find themselves out on the street. We have, incidentally, the lowest unemployment of all G20 countries, 2.2% still. And everyone was counting on snatching something from Russia, grabbing something. Forgive the bluntness. Take Finland. Why did Finland join NATO? Did we have any territorial disputes with Finland? No. Everything was resolved long ago. Nothing was needed. And the Finnish leadership understood this perfectly well. So why did they go to NATO? In the hope that everything here with us would collapse and they would be right there ready to snatch and grab. And now they are already building a border fence along the Sestra River. I would make certain gestures and say certain things but since I am from the cultural capital I will refrain. I think that to a significant extent what is happening is dictated precisely by considerations of this kind. But now as the understanding sets in that things are not so simple, that problems are arising, that overcoming them is rather difficult, and that it is better to seek ways of resuming normal relations, better to move towards some mutually acceptable agreements. And incidentally, we always built our relations with Europe on the principles of mutual respect and consideration of interests. That is not an empty diplomatic phrase. We actually operated that way. Not everyone talks to Europe that way today, but we always have and only in that manner. But that was apparently not enough. I hope that the realization that this was an erroneous position is now emerging and will gain momentum and strength and in the end we will nonetheless restore relations with many countries that today are trying to anathematize our relations. But the sooner this happens the better for us and in this case for the European countries. Thank you very much. It is time to wrap up. Happy holiday.

As for provocations, you can see that I am here at the Ministry of Defense. I have not yet been briefed on this, so I cannot say anything. I will return to my workplace now and the military will brief me there. Regarding the parade, you know, we made the decision that this year it is not a jubilee, but nonetheless it is still Victory Day. We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without a demonstration of military hardware. And not only for security reasons, but primarily because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy within the framework of the special military operation. As for the provocative statements, those decisions were made, of course, much earlier than all the statements you referred to as provocative. Regarding those statements, we responded to them. As you know, initially the Ministry of Defense made a certain statement. It is well known that in the event of an attempt to disrupt our festive events, we would be forced to deliver retaliatory strikes, massive missile strikes on the center of Kiev. What is unclear about that? That was precisely what was envisioned as retaliatory action. We did not stop there. That was followed by a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Those are already documents, not merely statements. But we did not end there either. We began working with our main partners and friends first and foremost with our friends from the People's Republic of China, from India, and with some other countries, including beginning work with the administration of the United States of America. What kind of work? We simply outlined for our friends, colleagues, and partners the picture that could take shape. We have no desire to aggravate or worsen relations with anyone. And that could have happened, bearing in mind that all centers of command and decision making in Kiev are in close proximity to the diplomatic missions of a whole range of countries. There are several dozen of them there. That is the point. And when we began such a dialogue with the administration of the United States of America, we warned them about this, showed them the possible consequences, and asked them to do everything necessary to ensure the security of their country's diplomatic mission. As a result of all these discussions, the initiative of the president of the United States, Mr. Trump, emerged for an additional 2 days of ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during those two days. We immediately agreed to this, especially since, in my view, it is a justified proposal dictated by considerations of respect for our common victory over Nazism and clearly of a pronounced humanitarian character. Incidentally, a few days earlier on the 5th, we had also submitted a proposal to Ukraine for an exchange and sent Ukraine a list of 500 Ukrainian servicemen held in Russia. Initially, the reaction was that they needed to look more carefully, perhaps not all 500, perhaps 200. And then they dropped off the radar entirely and said outright that they were not ready for this exchange, that they did not want it. Therefore, when the proposal of President Trump of the United States was put forward, we of course immediately supported it. And we hope that in this case, the Ukrainian side will nonetheless respond to the proposal of the president of the United States. No proposals have so far reached us unfortunately.

As for the bilateral meetings and what was central in those negotiations, the central matter was the event that stands at the center of attention for both Russia and all the friendly countries as we say in this case those whose representatives came to Moscow for the festive events. At the center of discussion was precisely Victory Day, our shared result in the struggle against Nazism and a conversation about how to ensure that the memory of the heroes of the Second World War and the Great Patriotic War is preserved and serves as a foundational basis so that nothing of the sort ever happens again in the future. Of course, we spoke about bilateral relations here. Naturally, our relations with our closest allies and partners come to the fore. These are Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. But with Belarus, you heard a $50 billion turnover. A country of just over 10 million people. Quite a turnover, isn't it? There is much to discuss and many real issues. The same applies to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Fast growing economies. We have good plans including of an investment nature. With Kazakhstan, we also have shared interests within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. And with other countries I met with as well. Laos, for example, is also an important partner for us. The volumes there are very modest in dollar terms, but the prospects are good and the country is well situated in ASEAN, a region important to us. So in each specific case, there was something to discuss and everything was very substantive and pragmatic in nature. As for Armenia's plans, the Armenian leadership, you know, we did not formally invite anyone to these events. These are not jubilee events, but nonetheless, we sent information to everyone saying that we would be happy if anyone came. We are not forbidding anyone from coming. There is no official invitation. So, not only Armenia, many other countries, our good neighbors and fine partners and friends were not here today. I see nothing unusual in that. Although those who did come certainly showed a degree of personal courage because they came to know of certain agreements, including those initiated by President Trump, regarding the extended ceasefire days, the exchanges, and so on, only after they had already arrived and not knowing about it, they nonetheless made the decision to be here. That deserves particular respect. But I repeat, the fact that some are absent, we see nothing particularly unusual in that. As for Armenia's plans to join the European Union, that of course requires special consideration. We have discussed this with Prime Minister Pashinyan on more than one occasion and we see nothing particularly unusual in it. In fact, and he will confirm this. I have already told him several times and I can now repeat it publicly. We will support whatever is beneficial to the Armenian people. We have a special relationship with the Armenian people spanning centuries. And if a particular decision benefits the Armenian people, please, we will not object. But of course, we must keep in mind certain circumstances that are important both for us and for our partners. What do I have in mind? For example, our trade turnover with Armenia. It has declined somewhat now in the past year. In the year before last, it was considerably higher, but it is still $7 billion as of 2025. Bearing in mind that the country's GDP is 29 billion, that is a significant figure. And Armenia receives substantial advantages within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. This applies to agriculture, to processing industries, to customs and other duties and so on and so forth. It applies to the migration sphere. And in my view, it would be right both toward the population, the citizens of Armenia, and toward us as the main economic partner to reach a decision as early as possible. For example, hold a referendum. It is not our place to say, but in principle, it would be entirely logical to hold a referendum and ask the citizens of Armenia what their choice will be. In accordance with that, we too would draw the appropriate conclusions and proceed along the path of a soft, refined, and mutually beneficial separation. You understand what we are living through now in everything happening on the Ukrainian front. But what was it that started it all? The accession or the attempt at accession of Ukraine to the EU. That was the first stage. Just the first stage. We were already then discussing it with the Europeans. We told them look the phytosanitary standards are completely different in your countries in the EU and in Russia. Incidentally ours are considerably stricter. But it is impossible for your products to enter the Russian market via Ukrainian territory. We cannot allow that. And at that time we had open borders and free trade zones with Ukraine. We would be forced to close them. The same applies to a whole range of industrial goods. Frankly, I was surprised by such a rigid, blunt position on the part of the Europeans. They dug in hard on not a single point would they yield. In the end, even then, President Yanukovich read more carefully, weighed things up, and said, 'No, perhaps I am not ready for this yet because the economic damage to Ukraine would be too great.' He did not refuse accession. He said, 'I need to return to this and analyze everything once more.' All of that then led to the coup, to the Crimea episode, to the position of southeastern Ukraine, and to armed conflict. That is what all of that led to. This is a serious matter. So there is no need to push things to extremes. One must simply say in time, this is what we will do. There is nothing unusual about that. Everything needs to be calculated. The Armenian side needs to calculate and we need to calculate. As I answer this now, I'm thinking one could quite reasonably raise this matter at the next Eurasian Economic Union summit. Right now, the boss will give the order. Then me.

First, regarding the ceasefire, during my last phone call with the president of the United States, Mr. Trump, a conversation arose about May 9th, and incidentally, he spoke about it very fittingly in my view. He recalled our alliance in the common struggle against Nazism. I told him that I plan to announce the 8th and 9th of May. Why May 8th? Because in the West, May 8th is the day. Ukraine has now joined them in that. I believe they also now consider May 8th their victory day. But that is not the point. The point is that President Trump actively supported it and literally the next day we announced it. But as soon as we announced it, there was no reaction from anyone. After I don't know, a day or two, when evidently Kiev had thought it over and clearly realized that this was being supported by the administration of the United States, they apparently saw it as beneficial to respond. But how to respond? Simply agreeing with our proposal was apparently seen as disadvantageous for them. And so they came up with a different proposal from the 6th. You know, for us, for Russia, May 9th is not a comedy show with keyboard instrument performances. For us, it is a sacred day because every family of ours suffered. If you consider that 27 million lives were sacrificed on the altar of victory by the Soviet Union, then the RSFSR, that is today's Russian Federation, bore almost 70% of that. According to postwar documents, the RSFSR accounted for almost 70% of losses, 69 something percent. Calculate if total losses were 27 million then Russia's losses come to how much? Almost 19 million people. Of course for us this is an event that touches every citizen of the Russian Federation. Every one of our families. We play no games here of any kind. We propose two days. No reaction followed and then suddenly some sort of games began around it. We do not play those games. But since the proposal emerged from the president of the USA for also conducting an exchange which we ourselves had proposed on the 5th, you can ask Umerov. He will not hide it. We sent an entire list 500 people. Of course, we welcomed it and were ready to do it and extended the ceasefire by two more days in the hope of conducting the exchange hoping that we would ultimately accomplish it. And the second part of the question, ah the message, yes Mr. Fico told me about it, spoke of his meeting but there was essentially no particular message. I simply heard once again that the Ukrainian side, Mr. Zelensky, is ready to hold a personal meeting. Yes, I heard that. But this is not the first time we are hearing it. Well, what can one say in this context? We have never refused. I have not refused. I am not the one proposing this meeting. But if someone is proposing it, please let whoever wants to meet come to Moscow and we will meet. A meeting in a third country is also possible, but only in the event that final agreements on a peace treaty have been reached. A treaty designed to last on a long historical horizon. In order to participate in such an event or to sign something but it must be a final point not the negotiations themselves because we know what negotiations are. I personally went through this at length in Minsk during the drafting of the Minsk agreements that can go on for hours endlessly day and night to no end. Specialists need to do the work, get everything done. So it is clear to both sides that the agreements are fully coordinated. In that case, a meeting can happen anywhere to put a signature or to be present at the signing.

Listen, this concerns first and foremost Russia and Ukraine. If someone wants to help us and is doing so and we see that the current US administration and the president of the United States are sincerely, I want to emphasize this, sincerely striving toward a settlement. They clearly do not need this conflict. They have many other priority tasks. Then we are only grateful to them for that. But this is first and foremost the business of Russia and Ukraine.

What is the west? It is the so-called, I think, globalist wing of western elites. It is waging war against us using Ukrainians as its instrument. They have arranged things rather comfortably for themselves. They provoked this conflict. I already said what it started with. I did not invent anything about the original starting point. Strange as it may seem, it was about whether Ukraine would join the EU or not. By all means let them have joined. But it came to armed conflict. Why? Because no one cared in the slightest about Russia's interests. Moreover, in their desire to use Ukraine as a tool for achieving their geopolitical goals. These figures in the West were deceiving everyone. People are openly saying this now. They began deceiving us regarding NATO's expansion eastward as early as the beginning of the 1990s. NATO will not take a single step eastward. That is what we were told then. And what happened? Where is it now? All of this combined in aggregate provoked today's situation. So they are waging war against us. But I repeat, it has become clear to everyone that they are doing it with Ukrainian hands. Just recently, I was talking with colleagues, recalling how all of this unfolded. After all, we did reach an agreement with the Ukrainians in 2022 in Istanbul and initialed an agreement. Then one colleague, well, there is no point in hiding it. Mr. Macron called me and said that Ukraine cannot sign such documents, historical ones, with a gun to its head. That is a direct quote. We have a recording of the conversation. I said, 'What needs to be done? Will the troops should be pulled back from Kiev?' So, we pulled them back. Right away, another representative of show business arrived, the then prime minister of the United Kingdom. And what did he say? This agreement cannot be signed. It is unfair. But who decides what is fair or not? If the representative of the negotiating group on the Ukrainian side initialed those documents, what is unfair about it? Who decides that? Well, everything was wonderful. They promised assistance and began ramping up the confrontation with Russia which has continued to this day. I think the situation is heading toward a conclusion but it is still a serious matter. The question arises what was it all for? First they expected the shattering defeat of Russia. We know it well. The collapse of statehood within a few months. It is not working out. And then they got stuck in this glue and cannot get themselves out. That is the problem. Although there are certainly intelligent people there, there are those who without doubt understand the essence of the events unfolding. I hope that these political forces will gradually return to power or will take power into their own hands with the support of the overwhelming majority of European countries. Regarding Iran and the USA, a very heavy and complex conflict and it puts us in a difficult position because we have good relations with Iran and genuinely friendly relations with the countries of the Persian Gulf without any exaggeration and we continue to maintain contact with both sides. We hope that this conflict can be stopped as quickly as possible. In my view, there are no longer any interested parties in continuing this confrontation. Of course, we understand that agreements must be reached in the interests of all the peoples and all the states of that region. There are various options. I would not want to go into details now. We have a sense of what they might be and in general they can be achieved. Conversely, if things move toward an escalation of the situation, toward a heightening of confrontation, everyone will be a loser.

For me personally, the preferable choice would be the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Schroeder. Otherwise, let the Europeans choose such a leader, one they trust, who has not said nasty things about us. Please, we have never been closed to negotiations. Never. It was not we who refused. They refused. Please.

Must we must a difficult question be asked? Today is a holiday.

There you have answered that question yourself. It must be ensured that no one threatens us. That is all. That is what we will strive for. As for the technologies they are being given in Europe and equipment partially assembled there, we know they are playing an escalation game. But judging by what was just said, they are nonetheless already seeking contact with us. They understand that this escalation game can prove very costly.

You know, I will share some secrets with you, but they are relatively secret secrets. We not only made the offer, we already did this once in 2015 and Iran trusts us fully and not without reason because first of all, we have never violated any agreements. Second, we continue to pursue peaceful nuclear programs in Iran. We have already built Bushehr which is operating and we continue to build further. We continue our work and our cooperation in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy is not subject to current fluctuations. We did this in 2015 and at the time it formed the basis for the conclusion of an agreement between all interested countries and Iran. That is to say it played a very positive role. That experience exists. And I said even now that we are ready to repeat that experience. And initially, and this is the secret so to speak, everyone agreed. Representatives of the United States agreed. Iran agreed. Israel agreed. But then the United States hardened its position and demanded that the uranium be transferred only to US territory. After that Iran hardened its position and I was told Mr. Larijani came who unfortunately has passed away. A great pity. He was a man with whom one could conduct a constructive dialogue. He could listen, he heard and he responded to everything. But at that time he came and said no you know we have also changed our position now we are not prepared to ship that enriched uranium anywhere. We propose a new format of cooperation with Russia to create joint ventures but on Iranian territory and to dilute the uranium together there. I said please we are not against it. The main thing is that it should diffuse the situation. But I think that no one will agree to that anymore. Neither the United States nor Israel. And so it turned out and in that direction the situation has reached something of a dead end to be frank. Our proposals lie on the table. And I think it is a good proposal. Why? Because first, if everyone agrees to it, Iran can be fully confident that it has shipped these materials to a friendly country that cooperates and will continue to cooperate with Iran in the sphere of peaceful nuclear energy, not in weapons programs. Iran does not aspire to that in any case. And there is a fatwa there issued by the former spiritual leader and we have heard repeated statements to that effect. Nor has the IAEA ever stated that there is evidence of Iran's aspiration toward nuclear weapons. All the other participants in this process could in my view also be interested. It seems to me that this could suit them. Why? First, everyone would see what exactly it is, how much there is, and where it is located. Second, all of it would be placed under IAEA oversight. And third, the work of diluting this uranium would also be organized under IAEA control. It would be transparent and safe. But at the same time, we need nothing from this. Not in order to, forgive the term, puff up our political gills and say that without us, no one can do anything. No, we simply want to make whatever modest contribution we can, if it suits everyone, to a deescalation of the situation. If it does not suit them, by all means, but we will support any situation, any solution that leads out of this impasse and makes it possible to move forward along the path of a peaceful settlement. And I think there is a nuance here as well. I will certainly not speak about it now, but compromises are possible.

Well, there is no secret here. First of all, we always say this, the interaction between Russia and China is a most important factor today for the stabilization of international relations. After all, we have almost no remaining treaties regulating the sphere of security, disarmament, and nuclear weapons control. And the interaction of such states, such countries as China and Russia, is without doubt a factor of restraint and stability. That is the first point. Second, China is our largest trade and economic partner. Listen, over $140 billion. That is a respectable turnover. It is growing. Third, it is diversified and that diversification is continuing into high technology sectors which is very important. I want to thank the leadership of the People's Republic of China. My friend, as I say and say it with full justification, Chairman of the PRC, Mr. Xi Jinping. He personally supports, I see and feel it, diversification in the direction of high technology sectors. And there are also energy matters here, nuclear energy as well. We continue to work with China. We continue to build nuclear power units. Alternative energy. China has made considerable progress in this but there is nonetheless room for cooperation. That is space, that is conventional energy, hydrocarbon energy, both oil and gas. I will not speak about this now either but in principle we are to a high degree in agreement because a serious, very significant step forward in cooperation in the gas and oil sphere is within reach. Serious. But I will not get ahead of myself on those matters. As I see it, from what my colleagues have reported to me, practically all the key issues have been agreed upon. If we can finalize them and put a period on them during the visit, I will be very glad. As for the United States continuing contact with China, that is very important. We only welcome it. It is one more element of stability because first of all they are very large trade and economic partners and the state of the entire global economy depends on their interaction. We watch this carefully and proceed from the assumption that there will be no illegitimate sanctions and no tension in the economic sphere between the two states. We only benefit from the stability and constructive interaction between the United States and China. Please.

Thank you. Stupidity can lead to poverty in the end. Raise your hand please. Please.

The stronger Russia is, the more quickly this will fade away. That is the first point. Second, as for why this is happening at all, I believe this is a manifestation of, strange as it may sound, revanchism on the part of those very globalist western elites I already mentioned. Not to invoke ill omens, but it is already late in the evening. What do I mean? I already said it, and we all know it. Everyone was counting on the swift collapse of Russia. Within 6 months, everything was supposed to, in their view, fall apart. Enterprises were supposed to grind to a halt. The banking system was supposed to cease functioning. Millions of people were supposed to find themselves out on the street. We have, incidentally, the lowest unemployment of all G20 countries, 2.2% still. And everyone was counting on snatching something from Russia, grabbing something. Forgive the bluntness. Take Finland. Why did Finland join NATO? Did we have any territorial disputes with Finland? No. Everything was resolved long ago. Nothing was needed. And the Finnish leadership understood this perfectly well. So why did they go to NATO? In the hope that everything here with us would collapse and they would be right there ready to snatch and grab. And now they are already building a border fence along the Sestra River. I would make certain gestures and say certain things, but since I am from the cultural capital, I will refrain. I think that to a significant extent what is happening is dictated precisely by considerations of this kind. But now as the understanding sets in that things are not so simple, that problems are arising, that overcoming them is rather difficult, and that it is better to seek ways of resuming normal relations, better to move towards some mutually acceptable agreements. And incidentally, we always built our relations with Europe on the principles of mutual respect and consideration of interests. That is not an empty diplomatic phrase. We actually operated that way. Not everyone talks to Europe that way today, but we always have and only in that manner. But that was apparently not enough. I hope that the realization that this was an erroneous position is now emerging and will gain momentum and strength and in the end we will nonetheless restore relations with many countries that today are trying to anathematize our relations. But the sooner this happens the better for us and in this case for the European countries. Thank you very much. It is time to wrap up. Happy holiday.

As for provocations, you can see that I am here at the Ministry of Defense. I have not yet been briefed on this, so I cannot say anything. I will return to my workplace now and the military will brief me there. Regarding the parade, you know, we made the decision that this year it is not a jubilee, but nonetheless it is still Victory Day. We decided that we would definitely hold festive events, but without a demonstration of military hardware, and not only for security reasons, but primarily because the armed forces must focus their attention on the final defeat of the enemy within the framework of the special military operation. As for the provocative statements, those decisions were made of course much earlier than all the statements you referred to as provocative. Regarding those statements, we responded to them. As you know, initially the Ministry of Defense made a certain statement. It is well known that in the event of an attempt to disrupt our festive events, we would be forced to deliver retaliatory strikes, massive missile strikes on the center of Kiev. What is unclear about that? That was precisely what was envisioned as retaliatory action. We did not stop there. That was followed by a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Those are already documents, not merely statements. But we did not end there either. We began working with our main partners and friends first and foremost with our friends from the People's Republic of China, from India, and with some other countries, including beginning work with the administration of the United States of America. What kind of work? We simply outlined for our friends, colleagues, and partners the picture that could take shape. We have no desire to aggravate or worsen relations with anyone. And that could have happened, bearing in mind that all centers of command and decision making in Kiev are in close proximity to the diplomatic missions of a whole range of countries. There are several dozen of them there. That is the point. And when we began such a dialogue with the administration of the United States of America, we warned them about this, showed them the possible consequences, and asked them to do everything necessary to ensure the security of their country's diplomatic mission. As a result of all these discussions, the initiative of the president of the United States, Mr. Trump, emerged for an additional 2 days of ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during those two days. We immediately agreed to this, especially since, in my view, it is a justified proposal dictated by considerations of respect for our common victory over Nazism and clearly of a pronounced humanitarian character. Incidentally, a few days earlier on the 5th, we had also submitted a proposal to Ukraine for an exchange and sent Ukraine a list of 500 Ukrainians. That is a direct quote. We have a recording of the conversation. I said, 'What needs to be done? Will the troops should be pulled back from Kiev?' So, we pulled them back right away. Another representative of show business arrived, the then prime minister of the United Kingdom. And what did he say? This agreement cannot be signed. It is unfair. But who decides what is fair or not? If the representative of the negotiating group on the Ukrainian side initialed those documents, what is unfair about it? Who decides that? Well, everything was wonderful. They promised assistance and began ramping up the confrontation with Russia, which has continued to this day. I think the situation is heading toward a conclusion, but it is still a serious matter. The question arises, what was it all for? First, they expected the shattering defeat of Russia. We know it well, the collapse of statehood within a few months. It is not working out. And then they got stuck in this glue and cannot get themselves out. That is the problem. Although there are certainly intelligent people there, there are those who without doubt understand the essence of the events unfolding. I hope that these political forces will gradually return to power or will take power into their own hands with the support of the overwhelming majority of European countries. Regarding Iran and the USA, a very heavy and complex conflict and it puts us in a difficult position because we have good relations with Iran and genuinely friendly relations with the countries of the Persian Gulf without any exaggeration and we continue to maintain contact with both sides. We hope that this conflict can be stopped as quickly as possible. In my view, there are no longer any interested parties in continuing this confrontation. Of course, we understand that agreements must be reached in the interests of all the peoples and all the states of that region. There are various options. I would not want to go into details now. We have a sense of what they might be and in general they can be achieved. Conversely, if things move toward an escalation of the situation, toward a heightening of confrontation, everyone will be a loser.

For me personally, the preferable choice would be the former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Schroeder. Otherwise, let the Europeans choose such a leader, one they trust, who has not said nasty things about us. Please, we have never been closed to negotiations. Never. It was not we who refused. They refused. Please.

Must we must a difficult question be asked? Today is a holiday.