In his third foreign trip since being inaugurated for a fifth term this month, Russian President Vladimir Putin fielded questions from a group of Russian reporters at Tashkent International Airport in the capital of Uzbekistan.
Note: This transcript presents what Putin said and as he said - it may contain a selective view of information to argue Russia’s case for its invasion of Ukraine. Russia refers to the Russia-Ukraine War as a special military operation.
Putin: Good afternoon! What will we talk about today? Please go ahead with your questions.
Yegor Piskunov: Hello, Mr President. Yegor Piskunov, Russia Today TV channel.
An absolutely unprecedented visit to Tashkent in terms of the packaged agenda. Two nights. To be honest, some of us thought that maybe there would be a third one already. You spoke one-on-one with the President of Uzbekistan for a very long time. How was it? What hopes do you have regarding cooperation with Tashkent, especially, perhaps, in the trade and economic sphere? And what is the potential for Uzbekistan’s participation in integration associations on the territory of the former Soviet Union? Thanks a lot.
Putin: You know, I arrived on Sunday evening, there was nothing else on the first day except for the official part - laying flowers at the monument, the Independence Monument. But the next day - indeed, the day was full of business contacts, meetings, negotiations. It was a busy day on Monday, it lasted until late evening. This is how the host organized our day.
For the first time we attended a meeting of regions. But, you know, why was the effect so serious? Because the composition of our delegation was very serious, it included almost half of the Government of the Russian Federation, all key ministers. Therefore, when the regional leaders and the two governments from both sides gathered together, of course, the exchange of information, the exchange of opportunities for developing cooperation was very intense. And it’s not even a matter of the number of signed papers, it’s a matter of live contacts between people who want to work together and see how to do it. Uzbekistan is indeed of great interest to Russia from the point of view of developing relations.
Firstly, Uzbekistan is by far the most populous country of the former Soviet Union, other than Russia. 37 million people [live] here today, and every year it adds a million. This is how Uzbekistan is growing in terms of population.
The economy is growing actively and quickly, the pace is good: last year GDP increased by six percent - this is one of the major global achievements. The President of Uzbekistan managed to build a fairly effective management system and a growing economic model.
We have a lot of joint plans in industrial cooperation, in the energy sector—you’ve probably seen and heard everything—in infrastructure.
Uzbekistan has its own specific problems, it does not have access to the sea, to the ocean. Here, too, we, together with other partners in the region, could take steps to help our friends in Uzbekistan solve this logistics problem and create the necessary conditions for entering foreign markets. Here we also have something to talk about. Therefore, there are a lot of questions, and the scope of possible projects is very large.
As you know, we have created a fund for joint work in the order of $500 million, of which $400 million comes from the Russian side. This is not because we have more money, but because we have great interests in this part of Asia and we see that they can be realized taking into account the stability of the political system and the conditions for investing in the economy of Uzbekistan. The interest, I repeat, is great, and this is associated with such an intensity of contacts.
As for integration processes, we never insist on anything. In general, integration processes, if you mean the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) - first of all, of course, we are talking about the economy - these processes were initiated by the first President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev. This structure is developing at a good pace and is bringing real results to all participants. But to participate or not is the choice of any sovereign state based on interest, primarily economic interest, and economic feasibility. We have different levels of economic development, different levels of financial system development. And when this or that government makes an appropriate decision on participation or non-participation in certain integration associations, it proceeds primarily from this.
In general, if an economy like that of Uzbekistan joins the union, I think that the union will only benefit from this. But the Uzbek economy also needs to benefit. This is a rather complex negotiation process, because when we created the Eurasian Economic Union, we spent many days and nights arguing about what conditions and what mutual obligations should arise. Therefore, it is a calm, smooth process.
Our economies are getting closer and developing, many joint projects are emerging, and the outline of mutual interests in the field of further cooperation and participation in integration associations will gradually emerge.
Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,
Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV channel. I'm sorry, I have two questions at once, and both are a bit lengthy.
First. You came to Tashkent, and we, together with you, flew almost immediately from Minsk, and since then this topic has been of interest: In Minsk you answered the question about Zelensky’s legitimacy and about who to negotiate with, if and when these negotiations become possible. You said that it would need a look at the Constitution of Ukraine to see which government bodies can operate without elections. But, based on the Constitution of Ukraine, it turns out that now only the Verkhovna Rada can work; not a word is said about extending the tenure of the president. It is only on the basis of the martial law that Zelensky would continue to be in power. You said a legal analysis is needed. Are we doing this analysis? Who are we going to talk with if I do want?
Can I ask the second question right away?
Putin: Go ahead, please.
P. Zarubin: More and more belligerent statements are coming from the Western side. Now we have even agreed to the point that Kyiv must be allowed to strike deep into Russian territory with Western weapons. Just today, the EU Minister of Defense brought this up, and the Secretary General of NATO even said: we are giving weapons to Kyiv and from the moment of handover we believe that they are Ukrainian, and Ukraine can do whatever it wants, strike at Russian territory where it believes necessary.
Thank you!
Putin: The first question is about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government. Indeed, a serious, in-depth analysis needs to be carried out.
The first thing that is visible and what my colleagues also raised this. The Constitution of Ukraine provides for the extension of terms, but only of the Rada; the Constitution of Ukraine does not say anything about the extension of the tenure of the President. First.
Second. Indeed, the law of Ukraine on legal status, legal position, and martial law states that during martial law, presidential elections are not held, but this does not necessarily mean that the election is delayed. They are not being carried out, but who said that they should be delayed? There is nothing about this in the constitution. But there is Article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which states that in this case the powers of the supreme power, in fact presidential powers, are transferred to the speaker of parliament. Moreover, under the conditions of the martial law, the powers of parliament are prolonged. This is a preliminary analysis, we need to take a closer look.
Some experts say that there are contradictions between the constitution, which only talks about the extension of the term of the Rada under martial law, and the law that I just talked about - the law, I think, from 2016, which determines the legal status of martial law. There, as I have already said and repeat, it is said that presidential elections are not being held, but nowhere is it said that an extension applies, and this is a problem.
What's the matter? The fact is that, at its core, Ukrainian statehood is based not on the idea of a presidential republic, but on the idea of a parliamentary-presidential republic, and the main levers of power are concentrated in the representative body of the state. Therefore, it is quite logical that the constitution itself and other legal acts that were adopted on its basis are structured this way.
Therefore, strictly speaking, according to the preliminary assessment - I am speaking only according to this preliminary assessment - the only legitimate authority is the parliament and the Speaker of the Rada. And so, by and large, if they wanted to hold presidential elections, then the martial law law would have to be abolished, that’s all, and elections would be held. But they didn’t want to do this for a number of reasons.
I think, and this is not linked with the Constitution in any way, that maybe the current bosses of Ukraine, who are overseas, would like to place the burden of making all unpopular decisions on the current executive branch. This includes the adoption of yet another decision to further lower the conscription age. It was 27 years, now it is 25 and next it may be 23 years or even 18 years.
And after this and other unpopular decisions are made, the current executive branch, I think, will be replaced by people who will not have this responsibility on their shoulders for decisions made that are unpopular among the people. They’ll change them easily, and that’s it. If this is the idea, then in principle the logic is clear. Let's see what happens next.
But just as I said in Minsk, the political and legal system of Ukraine itself must finally formulate and give an answer to what is happening in Ukraine. Here, it seems to me, it’s actually not that difficult. I repeat for the third time: the 2016 law says that presidential elections cannot be held under martial law, but nowhere does it say that there can be an extension of the term. Means what? See Article 111 of the constitution - all power goes to the speaker of parliament.
Now about the strikes. To be honest, I don’t know what the NATO Secretary General is talk about. When he was the Prime Minister of Norway, we communicated with him and resolved difficult issues regarding the Barents Sea and others, and in general we could agree; at that time, I’m just sure, he did not suffer from any dementia. If he is talking about potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precision weapons, he, as in the capacity of the head of a military-political organisation, even though he is a civilian like me, should be aware of the fact that long-range precision weapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. This is my first point.
Second. The final choice of target and the so-called flight mission can only be made by highly qualified specialists based on this intelligence data, technical reconnaissance data. For some strike systems, such as Storm Shadow, these tasks can be entered automatically (flight missions), without any involvement of Ukrainian military personnel. Who does this? This is done by those who manufacture and those who supply these strike systems to Ukraine. In general, it can happen and does happen without the involvement of Ukrainian military personnel. And other systems, for example, ATACMS, are also prepared on the basis of space reconnaissance, [targets] are identified, and are automatically communicated to the crews - they may not even understand what they are entering - and the crew may be Ukrainian, would enter the sent flight mission. But this task is being prepared not by Ukrainian military personnel, but by NATO countries.
So, these NATO countries, especially in Europe, especially small countries, must be aware of what they are playing with. They must remember that these states with a small territory and a very dense population. And this is a factor that they must keep in mind before talking about striking deep into Russian territory. This is a serious thing, and we, of course, are watching this very carefully, keeping an eye on it.
Everything now revolves around events on the outskirts of Kharkov. So it was they who provoked these events in this direction. I think I publicly said six months ago: if they continue to strike residential areas, we will then be forced to create a security zone. And just recently, as I said, we moved on to this.
First, they provoked us in Donbass. For eight long years they have been pulling the wool over our eyes and making us believe that they were going to resolve the issue peacefully and eventually made us try to restore peace by using the armed forces. Then, they deceived us during the negotiating process and decided that they would defeat us on the battlefield by inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. We warned them against making incursions into our territory, shelling Belgorod and neighbouring areas, or else we will be forced to create a security area.
Look at all the reports of your Western colleagues. No one is talking about the shelling of Belgorod and other adjacent territories; everyone is only talking about the fact that Russia has opened a new front and is attacking Kharkov. Not a word. Why? They did it with their own hands. Well, then they will reap the fruits of their creativity. The same thing can happen in the case of the use of long-range precision weapons you asked about.
In general, this constant escalation can lead to serious consequences. If these serious consequences occur in Europe, how will the United States behave, bearing in mind our parity in the field of strategic weapons? Hard to say.
Do they want global conflict? It seems to me that they wanted to negotiate about strategic weapons, but for some reason we don’t see much desire to do this. There are conversations about this, but we don’t seem to see much desire. Let's see what happens next.
Viktor Sineok: Mr President, my name is Viktor Sineok, Izvestiya.
For several months, even before your visit, delegations from the US Treasury Department and other departments that impose the sanctions travelled to the Central Asia countries, including Uzbekistan. Unprecedented pressure on the capitals of Central Asian countries in order to exclude, suppress all opportunities, all prospects for cooperation with Russia. How do you feel about this behavior, and can Russia somehow compensate for this pressure on Central Asian countries, including Uzbekistan?
If I may, my second question very quickly. News has come out that Russia is considering removing the Taliban from its terrorist organizations list. How was this decision made, why, how will it affect our relations with Afghanistan and when will it take effect?
Putin: I will start with the second part.
This is constantly being discussed, and I will not comment on it now, because relations with the Taliban and Afghanistan are constantly being discussed. There are problems in Afghanistan, they are undeniable, they are well known to everyone.
The question of how to build relationships with the current government is another question. But we need to build it somehow. These are the people who control the country, control the territory of the country, they are the authorities in Afghanistan today. We must proceed from reality and build relationships accordingly.
We are in contact with many partners, including in contact with many partners in the Central Asian region. We take into account the opinion of each of our partners and friends and will formulate this position together.
Regarding the first part of your question, there’s nothing new here. I mean what is happening now, that “voyagers” are flying all over the world, to Latin America, to Africa, to the East, and intimidating everyone - these are elements of imperial behavior. And American analysts themselves say this directly: the United States is an empire, and to a large extent its imperial ambitions are connected with internal political happenings. Presidential elections are coming soon, and the current authorities want to confirm their status as an empire. Many in the United States do not like this, many do not want to be an empire and bear the imperial burden. And they don’t want responsibility, and they don’t want to expose their country to any dangers or get into any difficulties.
What about Central Asia? Uzbekistan is the largest country not only in Central Asia, but also in terms of population it is second to Russia only - its population is 37 million. The “voyagers” from the USA, as I said, fly to all regions of the world. Quite recently, as you know, the Secretary of the Treasury, I believe, also visited China. What did she talk about? I think I also recalled this in Minsk. She said the Chinese produce too many cars. They talked about overproduction of cars. I don’t think that the US Secretary of the Treasury is an illiterate person. This is simply juggling with facts.
What is overproduction? If we live in a market environment, then the market regulates whether there is overproduction or not. They buy it, and it is also produced at a profit - which means there is no overproduction. How can you force another country to stop producing this or that product? By force? Sanctions? And this is one of the options for using force. And they are trying to do this all over the world.
Of course, countries which are weak, unsure of themselves, especially those where there are dozens of NGOs that feed from the American hand, peck at what is handed to them, of course, in these countries it is easier to manipulate the consciousness of the local population, it is easier to put pressure on the current authorities. Where the authorities feel confident, where they devote all their activities to strengthening sovereignty, the interests of their people and their country, they do not respond to these “calls” from overseas. This happens both with large countries and with small, but self-sufficient and self-respecting states.
We know that pressure was also exerted on the Central Asian region. Something I don’t see yet is that everyone is on their knees and ready to blindly follow any “instructions” from overseas.
They - Americans, Europeans - of course, take certain actions that harm our partners, but in the end this is also the sovereign choice of any country: how to build its policy, fight for sovereignty or not, whether sovereignty represents a certain value or not, and so on. .
In my opinion, it does. Because if a country wants to be successful, it must be sovereign, even in socio-economic terms. If it wants to be successful, it must be sovereign. Otherwise, they will always put pressure on and subordinate the interests of another state to their own foreign interests - just as, say, they are trying to do with cars in relation to China.
They will do the same with fertiliser, chemicals, aircraft – you name it. We are facing this. Yes, we are seeing this and there is nothing good in it. This is damaging both international security and the global economy.
Konstantin Panyushkin: Good afternoon! Konstantin Panyushkin, from Channel One.
The day before it was revealed that the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Alexander Syrsky, approved the deployment of French mercenary instructors on the territory of Ukraine, one might say military personnel, whatever you like. Now it's official and finally public. And moreover, Syrsky says that he hopes that other partners of the Kyiv regime will also officially follow the French. What do you think about this and how far can all this go?
Allow me to ask a bit of clarity on the question of legitimacy. It seems from your answer that until Western curators replace Zelensky in Kyiv, you have virtually no one to talk with in Ukraine. But I wanted to ask: did Alexander Lukashenko offer you the Ukrainian military as the ones to talk to?
Putin: Who? Military?
Konstantin Panyushkin: Military, yes.
Putin: Unfortunately, Alexander Lukashenko does not command the military in Ukraine yet. If he had been in command, we would have ended this conflict long ago, and to mutual satisfaction. We would have found a solution to Ukraine if Ukraine were now commanded by people who were guided by national interests, and not by the interests of their masters in Europe or overseas.
As for the fact that there may be or are mercenaries in Ukraine, we know this well, there is nothing new here. The fact that the military is now in Ukraine saying that they may appear is because they have been there for a long time. We hear English, French, or Polish on the radio. We know that they are there, these so-called mercenaries. But there are specialists there under the guise of mercenaries.
There was a question about long-range precision weapons. And who controls these weapons, who maintains them? Of course, these same instructors are disguised as mercenaries, that’s all. They exist and suffer losses. Perhaps such a statement is due to the fact that it is apparently becoming more and more difficult for them to hide these losses. Therefore, perhaps the time has come to show that they are officially present there, so that these losses can be shown realistically, legally. I do not know. Maybe.
As for the various contingents, I have already spoken about this. Polish authorities say they are ready to send their contingents. We hear Polish accent, there are many mercenaries from Poland there. If some contingents from European countries come in along with the Poles, others will leave later on, but the Poles will never. This is an obvious thing - for me, at least, for sure. Maybe I'm wrong, but unlikely.
Therefore, this pretext of “freeing some Ukrainian units along the border, releasing them so as to send them to the battlefield, keeping them along the borders to ensure their safety” is nonsense. If they are there, then they will also be in the engagement area of our Armed Forces.
I don't think this is a good, correct decision or a good way out. This is an escalation and another step towards a serious conflict in Europe or a global conflict. Do they need it? Oh please. We will still do as we see fit, regardless of who is on the territory of Ukraine. And this is what they should know for sure.
Alexei Golovko: Alexei Golovko, Rossiya TV channel.
There have been reports in the Western press that after the Swiss conference on Ukraine, Western countries want to hold another conference in Saudi Arabia and officially invite Russia there to show Moscow a kind of consolidated position and kick start negotiations.
If such a proposal is made, will our country participate in this conference, and if so, on what terms?
Putin: There is no answer right now, because I don’t know what we are talking about. They say: we are not ready to invite Russia now, but later we will be ready. And we never refused - not now, not later, not the year before. We said that we are ready.
It wasn’t us who stopped negotiating. We were told: that’s it, we will no longer have talks with you. They could have said we are not satisfied with the agreements that were reached in Istanbul. The talks were launched in Minsk and were completed, brought to a certain stage in Istanbul. They could have said this this had it not been for the signature of the head of the Ukrainian negotiating team on the extract of the agreement that we had prepared as a draft.
He initialed this, which means it suited the Ukrainian side. They were given the command to throw it in the trash and try to defeat Russia on the battlefield, inflict a strategic defeat on it. But he directly said, publicly: if we had not been ordered from abroad - from Great Britain in this case, that is, from the USA, the same thing, then the fighting would have stopped a year and a half ago. It's been said.
On this basis, we have never refused and are ready to continue the negotiation process. But we don’t know what and who, bearing in mind here the legitimacy of the Ukrainian authorities, will be offered to us at some other stages. So I don't have an answer on this matter.
I am always looking with surprise at the antics of our Western partners who say that Russia refuses to negotiate. I’ve said it a thousand times, it’s as if they don’t have ears: we don’t refuse. The Ukrainian side refused publicly. They initialed the agreement and refused in order to defeat us on the battlefield. They see they are not succeeding in this. Now they are ready. Well, if you are ready, come back. What’s the problem?
They want to draw something, create the appearance of world support for what they are drafting based on their “wants,” and present it as a consolidated position of the world community. They won't succeed like that. This just means that they don’t want to come to an agreement, but are clinging to getting something else and turning the situation around on the battlefield - it’s not working. And the more attempts there are, the more losses there will be, and these losses are far from being in favor of the Ukrainian armed forces.
Why is this happening? Today's rulers of Ukraine do not feel sorry for these people; they do not consider them theirs. This is the problem and tragedy of Ukraine today. They do not consider these people their own, they do not protect the interests of the Ukrainian people today. I hope that people will eventually understand this.
