Putin-Carlson interview - Full
transcript
by Edward Slavsquat
February 08, 2024
from
EdwardSlavsquat Website
Tucker:
The following is an interview with the
President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Shot February 6th,
2024, at about 7 p.m. in the building behind us, which is, of
course, the Kremlin. The interview, as you will see if you
watch it, is primarily about the war in progress, the war in
Ukraine, how it started, what's happening, and most
pressingly how it might end. One note before you watch. At
the beginning of the interview, we asked the most obvious
question, which is why did you do this? Did you feel a
threat, an imminent physical threat, and that's your
justification. And the answer we got shocked us. Putin went
on for a very long time, probably half an hour, about the
history of Russia going back to the eighth century. And
honestly, we thought this was a filibustering technique and
found it annoying and interrupted him several times, and he
responded. He was annoyed by the interruption. But we
concluded in the end, for what it's worth, that it was not a
filibustering technique. There was no time limit on the
interview. We ended it after more than two hours. Instead,
what you're about to see seemed to us sincere whether you
agree with it or not. Vladimir Putin believes that Russia
has a historic claim to parts of western Ukraine. So our
opinion would be to view it in that light as a sincere
expression of what he thinks. And with that, here it is. Mr.
President, thank you. On February 22nd, 2022, you addressed
your country in a nationwide address when the conflict in
Ukraine started, and you said that you were acting because
you had come to the conclusion that the United States,
through NATO, might initiate a, quote, surprise attack on
our country and too American ears, that sounds paranoid.
Tell us why you believe the United States might strike
Russia out of the blue. How did you conclude that?
Vladimir Putin:
It's not that America, the United States
was going to launch a surprise strike on Russia. I didn't
say that. Are we having a talk show or a serious
conversation?
Tucker:
Here's the quote. Thank you. It's a
formidable serious talk.
Vladimir Putin:
Because your basic education is in
history, as far as I understand.
Tucker:
Yes.
Vladimir Putin:
So if you don't mind, I will take only 30
seconds or one minute to give you a short reference to
history for giving you a little historical background.
Tucker:
Please.
Vladimir Putin:
Let's look where our relationship with
Ukraine started from. Where did Ukraine come from? The
Russian state started gathering itself as a centralized
statehood. And it is considered to be the year of the
establishment of the Russian state in 862. But when the
townspeople of Novgorod invited a Virangian Prince Rurik
from Scandinavia to reign. In 1862, Russia celebrated the
1000th anniversary of its statehood. And in Novgorod there
is a memorial dedicated to the 1000 anniversary of the
country. In 882 Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, who was
actually playing the role of regent at Rurik's young son.
Because Rurik had died by that time, came to Kiev. He ousted
two brothers who apparently had once been members of Rurik's
squad. So Russia began to develop with two centers of power
Kiev and Novgorod. The next very significant date in the
history of Russia was 988, this was the baptism of Russia
when Prince Vladimir, the great grandson of Rurik, baptized
Russia and adopted Orthodoxy, or Eastern Christianity. From
this time, the centralized Russian state began to
strengthen. Why? Because of the single territory. Integrated
economic ties. One and the same language. And after the
baptism of Russia, the same faith and rule of the Prince,
the centralized Russian state began to take shape. Back in
the Middle Ages, Prince Yaroslav the Wise introduced the
order of succession to a throne. But after he passed away,
it became complicated for various reasons. The throne was
passed not directly from father to eldest son, but from the
prince who had passed away to his brother. Then to his sons
in different lines. All this led to the fragmentation and
the end of Rus as a single state. There was nothing special
about it. The same was happening then in Europe. But the
fragmented Russian state became an easy prey to the empire
created earlier by Genghis Khan. His successors, namely Batu
Khan plundered and ruined nearly all the cities. The
southern part, including Kiev, by the way, and some other
cities, simply lost independence. While northern cities
preserved some of their sovereignty. They had to pay tribute
to the horde, but they managed to preserve some part of
their sovereignty. And then a unified Russian state began to
take shape with its center in Moscow. The southern part of
Russian lands, including Kiev begun to gradually gravitate
towards another magnet, the center that was emerging in
Europe. This was the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and it was
even called the Lithuanian Russian Duchy because Russians
were a significant part of this population. They spoke the
old Russian language and were Orthodox. But then there was a
unification, the union of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and
the Kingdom of Poland. A few years later. Another union was
signed, but this time already in the religious sphere, some
of the Orthodox priests became subordinate to the Pope. Thus
these lands became part of the Polish-Lithuanian state.
During decades the Poles were engaged in colonization of
this part of the population. They introduced a language
there, tried to entrench the idea that this population was
not exactly Russians, that because they lived on the fringe,
they were Ukrainians. Originally the word Ukrainian meant
that the person was living on the outskirts of the state,
along the fringes, or was engaged in a border patrol
service. It didn't mean any particular ethnic group. So the
poles were trying to, in every possible way, to colonize
this part of the Russian lands and actually treated it
rather harshly, not to say cruelly, all that led to the fact
that this part of the Russian lands began to struggle for
their rights. They wrote letters to Warsaw demanding that
their rights be observed and people be commissioned here,
including to Kiev.
Tucker:
I beg your pardon. Could you tell us what
period, I'm losing track of where in history, we are in the
Polish oppression of Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin:
It was in the 13th century. Now, I will
tell you what happened later. And give the dates so that
there is no confusion. And in 1654, even a bit earlier this
year. The people who were in control of the authority over
that part of the Russian land, addressed war so, I repeat,
demanding that they send them to rulers of Russian origin
and Orthodox faith. But Warsaw did not answer them, and in
fact rejected their demands, they turned to Moscow so that
Moscow took them away. So that you don't think that I'm
inventing things. I'll give you these documents.
Tucker:
Well, I, it doesn't sound like you're
inventing. And I'm not sure why it's relevant to what
happened two years ago.
Vladimir Putin:
But still, these are documents from the
archives. Copies. Here's the letters from Bohdan Khmelnytsky,
the man who then controlled the power in this part of the
Russian lands, that is now called Ukraine. He wrote to
Warsaw demanding that their rights be upheld. And after
being refused, he began to write letters to Moscow. Asking
to take them under the strong hand of the Moscow Tsar. There
are copies of these documents. I will leave them for your
good memory. There is a translation into Russian. You can
translate it into English later. But Russia would not agree
to admit them straight away, assuming that the war with
Poland would start. Nevertheless, in 1654, the Russian
assembly of top clergy and landowners, headed by the Tsar,
which was the representative body of the power of the old
Russian state, decided to include a part of the old Russian
lands into Moscow Kingdom. As expected, the war with Poland
began. It lasted 13 years, and then in 1654, a truce was
concluded. And 32 years later, I think a peace treaty with
Poland, which they called eternal peace, was signed. And
these lands, the whole left bank of Dnieper, including Kiev,
went to Russia. And the whole right bank of Dnieper remained
in Poland. Under the rule of Catharina the Great Russia
reclaimed all of its historical lands, including in the
south and west, this all lasted until the Revolution. Before
World War 1, Austrian General Staff relied on the ideas of
Ukrainization, and started actively promoting the ideas of
Ukraine and the Ukrainization. The motive was obvious. Just
before World War 1, they wanted to weaken the potential
enemy and secure themselves favorable conditions in the
border area. So the idea which had emerged in Poland, that
people residing in that territory were allegedly not really
Russians, but rather belong to a special ethnic group,
Ukrainians started being propagated by the Austrian General
Staff. As far back as the 19th century, theorists calling
for Ukrainian independence appeared. All those, however,
claimed that Ukraine should have a very good relationship
with Russia. They insisted on that. After the 1917
revolution, the Bolsheviks sought to restore the statehood,
and the civil war began, including the hostilities with
Poland. In 1921, peace with Poland was proclaimed. And under
that treaty, the right bank of Dnieper River once again was
given back to Poland. In 1939, after Poland cooperated with
Hitler. It did collaborate with Hitler, no, Hitler offered
Poland peace and a treaty of friendship. An alliance,
demanding in return that Poland give back to Germany the
so-called Danzig Corridor, which connected the bulk of
Germany with East Prussia and Konigsberg. After World War
One, this territory was transferred to Poland. And instead
of Danzig, a city of Gdasnk emerged. Hitler asked them to
give it amicably, but they refused. Of course, still they
collaborated with Hitler and engaged together in the
partitioning of Czechoslovakia.
Tucker:
But may I ask, you're making the case
that Ukraine, certainly parts of Ukraine, eastern Ukraine is
in effect Russia has been for hundreds of years. Why
wouldn't you just take it when you became president 24 years
ago? You have nuclear weapons. They don't. It's actually
your land. Why did you wait so long?
Vladimir Putin:
I'll tell you, I'm coming for that. This
briefing is coming to an end. It might be boring, but it
explains many things.
Tucker:
It's not boring. Just not sure how it's
relevant.
Vladimir Putin:
Good, good. I'm so gratified that you
appreciate that. Thank you. So before World War 2, Poland
collaborated with Hitler. And although it did not yield to
Hitler's demands, it still participated in the partitioning
of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not
given the Danzig corridor to Germany, and went too far,
pushing Hitler to start World War 2 by attacking them. Why
was it Poland against whom the war started, on 1st September
1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had
nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.
Sobieski. By the way, the USSR, I have read some archive
documents, behaved very honestly, and it asked Poland's
permission to transit its troops through the Polish
territory to help Czechoslovakia. But the then Polish
foreign minister said that if the Soviet planes flew over
Poland, they would be downed over the territory of Poland.
But that doesn't matter. What matters is that the war begun
and Poland fell prey to the policies it had pursued against
Czechoslovakia. This under the well known Molotov-Ribbentrop
pact, a part of the territory including western Ukraine was
to be given to Russia, thus Russia, which was then named the
USSR regained its historical lands. After the victory in the
Great Patriotic War, as we call World War 2, and all those
territories were ultimately enshrined as belonging to
Russia, to the USSR. As for Poland, it received, apparently
in compensation, the lands which had originally been German.
The eastern parts of Germany. These are now western lands of
Poland. Of course, Poland regained access to the Baltic Sea
and Danzig. Which was once again given its Polish name. So
this was how this situation developed. In 1922 when the USSR
was being established, the Bolsheviks started building the
USSR and established the Soviet Ukraine, which had never
existed before.
Tucker:
Right.
Vladimir Putin:
Stalin insisted that those republics be
included in the USSR as autonomous entities. For some
inexplicable reason, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state,
insisted that they be entitled to withdraw from the USSR.
And again, for some unknown reasons, he transferred to that
newly established Soviet Republic of Ukraine some of the
lands, together with people living there, even though those
lands had never been called Ukraine, and yet they were made
part of that Soviet Republic of Ukraine. Those lands
included the Black Sea region, which was received under
Catherine the Great and which had no historical connection
with Ukraine whatsoever. Even if we go as far back as 1654,
when these lands returned to the Russian Empire. That
territory was the size of 3 to 4 regions of modern Ukraine,
with no Black Sea region. That was completely out of the
question.
Tucker:
In 1654.
Vladimir Putin: Exactly.
Tucker:
I'm just, you obviously have encyclopedic
knowledge of this region. But why didn't you make this case
for the first 22 years as president, that Ukraine wasn't a
real country?
Vladimir Putin:
The Soviet Union was given a great deal
of territory that had never belonged to it, including the
Black Sea region. At some point when Russia received them as
an outcome of the Russo Turkish wars, they were called New
Russia or another Russia. But that does not matter. What
matters is that Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state,
established Ukraine that way. For decades, the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic developed as part of the USSR. And for
unknown reasons, again, the Bolsheviks were engaged in
Ukrainization. It was not merely because the Soviet
leadership was composed to a great extent of those
originating from Ukraine. Rather, it was explained by the
general policy of indigenization pursued by the Soviet
Union. Same things were done in other Soviet republics. This
involved promoting national languages and national cultures,
which is not a bad, in principle. That is how the Soviet
Ukraine was created. After the World War 2, Ukraine
received, in addition to the lands that had belonged to
Poland before the war, part of the lands that had previously
belonged to Hungary and Romania. So Romania and Hungary had
some of their lands taken away and given to the Soviet
Ukraine, and they still remain part of Ukraine. So in this
sense, we have every reason to affirm that Ukraine is an
artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will.
Tucker:
Do you believe Hungary has a right to
take its land back from Ukraine, and that other nations have
a right to go back to their 1654 borders?
Vladimir Putin:
I'm not sure whether they should go back
to their 1654 borders. But given Stalin's time, so-called
Stalin's regime, which, as many claim, saw numerous
violations of human rights and violations of the rights of
other states. One can say that they could claim back those
lands of theirs while having no right to do that. It is at
least understandable.
Tucker:
Have you told Viktor Orban that he can
have part of Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin:
Never. I have never told him. Not a
single time. We have not even had any conversation on that.
But I actually know for sure that Hungarians who live there
wanted to get back to their historical land. Moreover, I
would like to share a very interesting story with you. I
digress, it's a personal one. Somewhere in the early 80s, I
went on a road trip in a car from then Leningrad, across the
Soviet Union through Kiev. Made a stop in Kiev and then went
to western Ukraine. I went to the town of Beregovoy and all
the names of towns and villages there were in Russian and in
the language I did not understand in Hungarian, in Russian
and in Hungarian. Not in Ukrainian, in Russian and in
Hungarian. I was driving through some kind of village, and
there were men sitting next to their houses, and they were
wearing black three piece suits and black cylinder hats. I
asked, are they some kind of entertainers? I was told no,
they were not entertainers, they were Hungarians. I said,
what are they doing here? What do you mean? This is their
land. They live here. This was during the Soviet time in the
1980s. They preserved the Hungarian language, Hungarian
names and all their national costumes. They are Hungarians
and they feel themselves to be Hungarians. And of course,
when now there is an infringement.
Tucker:
What that is, and there's a lot of that,
though I think many nations are upset about Transylvania as
well as you obviously know. But many nations feel frustrated
by the redrawn borders of the wars of the 20th century and
wars going back a thousand years, the ones that you
mentioned. But the fact is that you didn't make this case in
public until two years ago, February. And in the case that
you made, which I read today, you explain at great length
that you felt a physical threat from the West in NATO,
including potentially nuclear threat. And that's what got
you to move. Is that a fair characterization of what you
said?
Vladimir Putin:
I understand that my long speeches
probably fall outside of the genre of the interview. That is
why I asked you at the beginning, are we going to have a
serious talk or a show? You said a serious talk. So bear
with me, please. We're coming to the point where the Soviet
Ukraine was established. Then in 1991, the Soviet Union
collapsed and everything that Russia had generously bestowed
on Ukraine was dragged away by the latter. I'm coming to a
very important point of today's agenda.
Tucker:
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
After all, the collapse of the Soviet
Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I
do not understand what the Russian leadership was guided by
at the time, but I suspect there were several reasons to
think everything would be fine. First, I think that then
Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the
relationship between Russia and Ukraine were in fact a
common language. More than 90% of the population there spoke
Russian. Family ties, every third person there had some kind
of family or friendship ties. Common culture. Common
history, finally, common faith, coexistence with a single
state for centuries and deeply interconnected economies. All
of these were so fundamental. All these elements together
make our good relationships inevitable. The second point is
a very important one. I want you as an American citizen and
your viewers to hear about this as. The former Russian
leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist
and therefore there were no longer any ideological dividing
lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily and proactively to the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and believed that this would
be understood by the so-called civilized West as an
invitation for cooperation and association. That is what
Russia was expecting, both from the United States and this
so-called collective West as a whole. There were smart
people, including in Germany, Egon Bahr, a major politician
of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal
conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the
collapse of the Soviet Union, that they knew security
systems should be established in Europe. Help should be
given to unified Germany, but a new system should be also
established to include the United States, Canada, Russia and
other Central European countries. But NATO needs not to
expand. That's what he said. If NATO expands, everything
would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer
to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but
no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. If, he
said, you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in
Moscow once again. Everything happened just as he had said.
Tucker:
Of course, it did come true. And I and
you've mentioned this many times. I think it's a fair point.
And many in America thought that relations between Russia
and the United States would be fine with the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the opposite
happened. But you've never explained why you think that
happened, except to say that the West fears a strong Russia.
But we have a strong China the West does not seem very
afraid of. What about Russia do you think, convinced
policymakers they had to take it down?
Vladimir Putin:
The West is afraid of strong China more
than it fears a strong Russia, because Russia has won 150
million people and China has 1.5 billion population. And its
economy is growing by leaps and bounds, or 5% a year. It
used to be even more, but that's enough for China. As
Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important.
China's potential is enormous. It is the biggest economy in
the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the
size of the economy. It is already overtaking the United
States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid
clip. Let's not talk about who is afraid of whom. Let's not
reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after
1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into
the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this
happened. You tricked us. I don't mean you personally when I
say you. Of course I'm talking about the United States. The
promise was that NATO would not expand eastward. But it
happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. We
tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were
saying, please don't. We are as bourgeois now as you are. We
are a market economy and there is no Communist Party power.
Let's negotiate. Moreover, I have also said this publicly
before. There was a moment when a certain rift started
growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United
States. Remember, he spoke in Congress and said the good
words: God bless America. Everything he said were signals,
let us in. Remember the developments in Yugoslavia before
that, Yeltsin was lavished with praise. As soon as the
developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in
support of Serbs. And we couldn't but raise our voices for
Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex
processes underway there. I do, but Russia could not help
raising its voice in support of Serbs, because Serbs are
also a special and close to us nation, with Orthodox culture
and so on. It's a nation that has suffered so much for
generations. Well, regardless. What is important is that
Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States
do? In violation of international law and the UN charter it
started bombing Belgrade. It was the United States that led
the genie out of the bottle. Moreover, when Russia protested
and expressed its resentment, what was said? The UN charter
and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone
invokes international law, but at that time they started
saying that everything was outdated. Everything had to be
changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as the
balance of power has changed. It's true, but not in this
manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud,
accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing
nothing. He understood everything, I assure you. Well, I
became president in 2000. I thought, okay, the Yugoslav
issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's
re-open the door that Russia had tried to go through. And
moreover, I said it publicly, I can reiterate. At a meeting
here in the Kremlin with the outgoing President Bill
Clinton, right here in the next room, I said to him, I asked
him: Bill, do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you
think it would happen?" Suddenly he said, "you know, it's
interesting. I think so." But in the evening, when we met
for dinner, he said: You know, I've talked to my team, no,
it's not possible now. You can ask him. I think he will
watch our interview, he'll confirm it. I wouldn't have said
anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay, well, it's
impossible now.
Tucker:
Were you sincere? Would you have joined
NATO?
Vladimir Putin:
Look, I asked the question, is it
possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I was
insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership
position was....
Tucker:
But if he had said yes, would you have
joined NATO?
Vladimir Putin:
If he had said yes, the process of
rapprochement would have commenced, and eventually it might
have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the side
of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no,
okay, fine.
Tucker:
Why do you think that is? Just to get to
motive. I know, you're clearly bitter about it. I
understand. But why do you think the West rebuffed you then?
Why the hostility? Why did the end of the Cold War not fix
the relationship? What motivates this from your point of
view?
Vladimir Putin:
You said that I was bitter about the
answer. No, it's not bitterness. It's just the statement of
fact. We're not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment,
it's not about those kind of matters in such circumstances.
We just realized we weren't welcome there, that's all. Okay,
fine. But let's build relations in another manner. Let's
look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a
negative response, you should ask your leaders. I can only
guess why, too big a country, with its own opinion and so
on. And the United States, i have seen how issues are being
resolved in NATO. I will give you another example now
concerning Ukraine. U.S. leadership exerts pressure and all
NATO members obediently vote. Even if they do not like
something. Now, I'll tell you what happened in this regard
with Ukraine in 2008. Although it's being discussed, I'm not
going to open a secret to you say anything new. Nevertheless,
after that, we try to build the relations in different ways.
For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq, we were
building relations with the United States in a very soft,
prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that
the United States should not support separatism or terrorism
in the North Caucasus's? But they continue to do it anyway.
And political support, information support, financial
support, even military support came from the United States
and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus. I
once raised this issue with my colleague, also the president
of the United States. He says it's impossible. Do you have
proof? I said yes, I was prepared for this conversation, and
I gave him that proof of motive. He looked at it and you
know what he said? I apologize, but that's what happened.
I'll quote, he says, "well, I'm gonna kick their ass." We
waited and waited for some response. There was no reply. I
said to the FSB director: Write to the CIA". What is the
result of the conversation with the president? He wrote
once, twice. And then we got a reply. We have the answer in
the archive. The CIA replied: We have been working with the
opposition in Russia. We believe that this is the right
thing to do and we will keep on doing it." It's just
ridiculous. Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the
question.
Tucker:
Forces in opposition to you? So you're
saying the CIA is trying to overthrow your government?
Vladimir Putin:
Of course they meant in that particular
case, the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in
the Caucasus. That's who they call the opposition. This is
the second point. The third moment is a very important one,
is the moment when the US missile defense system was created
at the beginning. We persuaded for a long time not to do it
in United States. Moreover, after was invited by Bush
Juniors Father Bush senior to visit his place on the ocean.I
had a very serious conversation with President Bush and his
team. I propose that the United States, Russia and Europe
jointly create the missile defense system that we believe,
if created, unilaterally threatens our security. Despite the
fact that the United States officially said that it was
being created against missile threats from Iran. That was
the justification for the deployment of the missile defense
system. I suggested working together: Russia, the United
States and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They
asked me, "Are you serious?" I said, "Absolutely".
Tucker:
May I ask what year was this?
Vladimir Putin:
I don't remember. It is easy to find out
on the internet. When I was in the USA at the invitation of
a Bush Sr.. It is even easier to learn from someone I'm
going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting.
I said, "Just imagine if we could settle such a global
strategic security challenge together. The world will
change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and
even political ones. But we could drastically change the
situation in the world." He says "Yes, and asks, "Are you
serious? I said, "Of course". "We need to think about it." I
said, "Go ahead please". Then Secretary of Defense Gates,
former Director of CIA and Secretary of State Rice came in
here in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on
this table. Me, the Foreign Minister, the Russian Defense
Minister on that side. They said to me, yes, we have thought
about it. We agree. I said, "Thank God, great". "But with
some exceptions."
Tucker:
So, twice you've described U.S.
presidents making decisions and then being undercut by their
agency heads. So it sounds like you're describing a system
that's not run by the people who are elected, in your
telling.
Vladimir Putin:
That's right, that's right. And then they
just told us to get lost. I'm not going to tell you the
details because I think it's incorrect. After all, it was
confidential conversation, but our proposal was declined.
That's a fact. It was right then when I said, "Look, but
then we will be forced to take counter measures. We will
create such strike systems that will certainly overcome
missile defense systems. The answer was, "We are not doing
this against you, and you do what you want. Assuming that it
is not against us, not against the United States. I said,
"Okay". Very well. That's the way it went. And we created
hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we
continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone, the
United States and the other countries in terms of the
development of hypersonic strike systems. And we are
improving them every day. But it wasn't us. We proposed to
go the other way and we were pushed back. Now about NATO's
expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the
east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then
what? They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll
expand. So there were five waves of expansion. The Baltic
states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on. And now I
come to the main thing. They have come to the Ukraine.
Ultimately, in 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they
declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO
were open. Now, about how decisions are made there. Germany,
France seemed to be against it, as well as some other
European countries. But then, as it turned out later,
President Bush and he's such a tough guy, a tough
politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us
and we had to agree. It's ridiculous. It's like
kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is
this? What kind of people are these? Who are they? You see,
they were pressed. They agree. And then they say Ukraine
won't be in the NATO. You know, I say I don't know. I know
you agreed in 2008. Why won't you agree in the future? Well,
they pressed us then I say, why won't they press you
tomorrow and you'll agree again? Well. It's nonsensical.
Who's there to talk to? I just don't understand. We're ready
to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees? None. So
they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever
is there? I have told you the background, how this territory
develops. What kind of relations? They were with Russia.
Every second or third person there has always had some ties
with Russia. And during the elections in already independent
sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result
of the declaration of independence. And by the way, it says
that Ukraine is a neutral state. And in 2008, suddenly the
doors or gates to NATO were opened to it. Oh come on. This
is not how we agreed. Now, all the presidents that have come
to power in Ukraine, they relied on the electorate with a
good attitude to Russia in one way or the other. This is the
southeast of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And
it was very difficult to persuade this electorate, which had
a positive attitude towards Russia. Viktor Yanukovych came
to power. And how, the first time he won, after President
Kuchma, they organized the third round, which is not
provided for in the Constitution of Ukraine. This is a coup
d'etat. Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn't
like the outcome....
Tucker:
In 2014?
Vladimir Putin:
No, this was before that. After President
Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his
opponents did not recognize that victory. The US supported
the opposition and the third round was scheduled. But what
is this? This is a coup. The US supported it and the winner
of the third round came to power. Imagine if in the US
something was not to someone's liking and the third round of
election, which the US Constitution does not provide for,
was organized. Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay.
Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered the pro-Western
politician, came to power, but fine we have built relations
with him as well. He came to Moscow with visits. We visited
Kiev. I visited it too, we met in an informal setting. If
he's pro-Western, so be it. It's fine. Let people do their
job. The situation should have developed inside independent
Ukraine itself as a result of Kuchma leadership. Things got
worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power. Maybe he wasn't
the best president and politician, I don't know. I don't
want to give assessments. However, the issue of the
association with the EU came up. We have always been leanent
into this. Suit yourself. But when we read through the
treaty of association, it turned out to be a problem for us
since we had the free trade zone and open customs borders
with Ukraine, which under this association had to open its
borders for Europe, which would have led to flooding of our
market. But we said, no, this is not going to work. We shall
close our borders with Ukraine then the customs borders,
that is. Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine
was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European
partners, I need more time to think before signing. The
moment he said that, the opposition began to take
destructive steps which were supported by the West. It all
came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
Tucker:
So he did more trade with Russia than
with the EU? Ukraine did.
Vladimir Putin:
Of course. It's not even the matter of
trade volume, although for the most part it is. It is the
matter of cooperation size which the entire Ukrainian
economy was based on. A cooperation size between the
enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet
Union. Yeah. One enterprise there used to produce components
to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa.
They used to be very close ties. A coup d'etat was
committed. Although I shall not delve into details now as I
find doing it inappropriate. The US told us, calm Yanukovych
down and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation
unfold. In the scenario of a political settlement. We said,
all right, agreed, let's do it this way. As the Americans
requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor
the police. Yet the armed opposition committed a coup in
Kiev. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you
are? I wanted to ask the then US leadership.
Tucker:
With the backing of whom?
Vladimir Putin:
With the backing of CIA, of course, the
organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I
understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in.
Although it is a serious organization, I understand. My
former is a V in the sense that I served in the First Main
Directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service. They have
always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they
did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing
the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a
colossal mistake. Surely it was political leadership's
miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve
into. So in 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine.
In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those
who did not accept the coup. And it was indeed a coup. They
created the threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our
protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the
use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is
when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking
Donetsk from above. They launched a large scale military
operation. Then another one. When they failed, they started
to prepare the next one. All this against the background of
military development of this territory and opening of NATO's
doors. How could we not express concern over what was
happening? From our side this would have been a culpable
negligence. That's what it would have been. It's just that
the US political leadership pushed us to the line we could
not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself.
Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith. In fact,
just part of Russian people in the face of this "war
machine".
Tucker:
So that was eight years before the
current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you?
What was the moment where you decided you had to do this?
Vladimir Putin:
Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine
that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then, the
representatives of three European countries Germany, Poland
and France aligned, they were the guarantors of the signed
agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the
opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the
opposition committed a coup and all these countries
pretended that they didn't remember that they were
guarantors of the peaceful settlement. They just threw it in
the snow right away. And nobody recalls that. I don't know
if the US knew anything about the agreement between the
opposition and the authorities and its three guarantors,
who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the
political field supported the coup. Although it was
meaningless, believe me, because President Yanukovych agreed
to all conditions, he was ready to hold an early election,
which he had no chance of winning frankly speaking. Everyone
knew that. Then, why the coup? Why the victims? Why
threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas?
This I do not understand. That is exactly what the
miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I
think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that they
cost a large sum of money. Almost 5 billion. But the
political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do
that? All this could have been done legally, without
victims, without military action, without the losing Crimea.
We would have never considered to even lift the finger if it
hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because
we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of
former union republics. We agreed to that, but we never
agreed to NATO's expansion, and moreover, we never agreed
that Ukraine would be in NATO. We did not agree to NATO
bases there without any discussion with us. For decades we
kept asking, don't do this, don't do that. And what
triggered the latest events? Firstly, the current Ukrainian
leadership declared that it would not implement the Minsk
agreements which had been signed, as you know, after the
events of 2014 in Minsk where the plan of peaceful
settlement in Donbas was set forth. But no, the current
Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials
and then president himself said that they don't like
anything about the Minsk agreements. In other words, they
were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half
ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the
whole that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they
never intended to implement them, they simply led us by the
nose.
Tucker:
Was there anyone for you to talk to? Did
you call us President and Secretary of State and say, if you
keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is going to
get, we're going to act.
Vladimir Putin:
We talked about this all the time. We
addressed the United States and European countries
leadership to stop these developments immediately. To
implement the Minsk agreements. But frankly speaking, I
didn't know how we were going to do this. But I was ready to
implement them. These agreements were complicated for
Ukraine. They included lots of elements of those Donbas
territories independence. That's true. However, I was
absolutely confident. And I'm saying this to you now. I
honestly believe that if we managed to convince the
residents of Donbas and we had to work hard to convince them
to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually the
wounds would start to heal. But when this part of territory
reintegrated itself into a common social environment, when
the pensions and social benefits were paid again, all the
pieces would gradually fall into place. No, nobody wanted
that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military
force only. But we could not let that happen. And the
situation got to the point when the Ukrainian side
announced, no, we will not do anything. They also started
preparing for military action. It was they who started the
war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not
start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
Tucker:
Do you think you've stopped it now? I
mean, have you achieved your aims?
Vladimir Putin:
No. We haven't achieved our aims yet
because one of them is de-nazification. This means the
prohibition of all kinds of neo-Nazi movements. This is one
of the problems that we discussed during the negotiation
process, which ended in Istanbul early this year. And it was
not our initiative because we were told by the Europeans in
particular that it was necessary to create conditions for
the final signing of the documents. My counterparts in
France, in Germany said, How can you imagine them signing a
treaty with a gun to their heads? The troops should be
pulled back from Kiev. I said, all right. We withdrew the
troops from Kiev. As soon as we pulled back our troops from
Kiev, our Ukrainian negotiators immediately threw all our
agreements reached in Istanbul into the bin and got prepared
for a long standing armed confrontation with the help of the
United States and its satellites in Europe. That is how the
situation has developed, and that is how it looks now.
Tucker:
Pardon my ignorance. What is what is de-nazification?
What would that mean?
Vladimir Putin:
That is what I want to talk about right
now. It is a very important issue. De-nazification. After
gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some
Western analysts say, its identity. Well, if the
intuitionist, you know. And it came up with nothing better
than to build this identity upon some false heroes who
collaborated with Hitler. I have already said that in the
early 19th century, when the theorists of independence and
sovereignty of Ukraine appeared, they assumed that an
independent Ukraine should have very good relations with
Russia. But due to the historical development, those
territories were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Poland, where Ukrainians were persecuted and treated quite
brutally as well as were subject to cruel behavior. There
were also attempts to destroy their identity. All this
remained in the memory of the people. When World War 2 broke
out, part of this extremely nationalist elite collaborated
with Hitler, believing that he would bring them freedom. The
German troops, even the SS troops made Hitler's
collaborators do the dirtiest work of exterminating the
Polish and Jewish population. Hence this brutal massacre of
the Polish and Jewish population, as well as the Russian
population too. This was led by the persons who are well
known, Bandera, Shukhevych. It was those people who were
made national heroes. That is the problem. And we are
constantly told that nationalism and neo-Nazism exists in
other countries as well. Yes, they are seedlings, but we
uproot them. And other countries fight against them. But
Ukraine is not the case. These people have been made into
national heroes in Ukraine. Monuments to those people have
been erected. They are displayed on flags. Their names are
shouted by crowds that walk with torches, as it was in Nazi
Germany. These were people who exterminated Poles, Jews and
Russians. It is necessary to stop this practice and prevent
the dissemination of this concept. I say that the Ukrainians
are part of the one Russian people. They say, no, we are a
separate people. Okay, fine. If they consider themselves a
separate people, they have the right to do so. But not on
the basis of Nazism, the Nazi ideology.
Tucker:
Would you be satisfied with the territory
that you have now?
Vladimir Putin:
I will finish answering the question. You
just asked the question about neo-Nazism and denazification.
The president of Ukraine visited Canada. The story is well
known, but being silenced in the Western countries. The
Canadian Parliament introduced the man who, as the speaker
of the Parliament said fought against the Russians during
the World War II. Well, who fought against the Russians
during the World War two. Hitler and his accomplices. And it
turned out that this man served in the SS troops, he
personally killed the Russians, Poles and Jews. The US
troops consisted of Ukrainian nationalists who did this
dirty work. The president of Ukraine stood up with the
entire Parliament of Canada and applauded this man. How can
this be imagined? The President of Ukraine himself, by the
way, is a Jew by nationality.
Tucker:
Really my question is, what do you do
about it? I mean, Hitler has been dead for 80 years. Nazi
Germany no longer exists. And so, true. And so I think what
you're saying is you want to extinguish or at least control
Ukrainian nationalism. But how? How do you do that?
Vladimir Putin:
Listen to me. Your question is very
subtle, and I can tell you what I think. Do not take
offense.
Tucker:
Of course.
Vladimir Putin:
This question appears to be subtle. It
is.
Tucker:
Quite pesky.
Vladimir Putin:
You say Hitler has been dead for so many
years, 80 years. But, his example lives on. The people who
exterminate the Jews, Russians or poles are alive. And the
president, the current president of today's Ukraine,
applauds him in the Canadian Parliament, gives a standing
ovation. Can we say that we have completely uprooted this
ideology? If what we see is happening today, that is what
De-nazification is in our understanding. We have to get rid
of those people who maintain this concept and support this
practice and try to preserve it. That is what De-nazification
is. That is what we mean.
Tucker:
Right. My question was more specific. It
was, of course, not a defense of Nazis, new or otherwise. It
was a practical question. You don't control the entire
country. You don't control Kiev. You don't seem like you
want to. So how do you will eliminate a culture or an
ideology or feelings or a view of history in a country that
you don't control. What do you do about that?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, as strange as it may seem to
you during the negotiations at Istanbul, we did agree that
we have it all in writing. Neo-Nazism would not be
cultivated in Ukraine, including that it would be prohibited
at the legislative level. Mr. Carlson, we agreed on that.
This, it turns out, can be done during the negotiation
process. And there's nothing humiliating for Ukraine as a
modern, civilized state. Is there any state allowed to
promote Nazism? It is not, is it? Oh, that is it.
Tucker:
Will there be talks? And why haven't
there been talks about resolving the conflict in Ukraine?
Peace talks.
Vladimir Putin:
There have been they reached a very high
stage of coordination of positions in a complex process, but
still they were almost finalized. But after we withdrew our
troops from Kiev, as I have already said, the other side
threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions
of Western countries, European countries and the United
States to fight Russia to the bitter end. Moreover, the
President of Ukraine has legislated a ban on negotiating
with Russia. He signed a decree forbidding everyone to
negotiate with Russia. But how are we going to negotiate if
he forbade himself and everyone to do this? We know that he
is putting forward some ideas about this settlement, but in
order to agree on something, we need to have a dialog. Is
that not right?
Tucker:
Well, but you wouldn't be speaking to the
Ukrainian president. You'd be speaking to the American
president. When was the last time you spoke to Joe Biden?
Vladimir Putin:
Well, I cannot remember when I talked to
him. I do not remember. We can look it up.
Tucker:
You don't remember?
Vladimir Putin:
No.
Tucker:
Why? Do I have to remember everything? I
have my own things to do. We have domestic political
affairs.
Tucker:
Well, he's funding the war that you're
fighting, so I would think that would be memorable.
Vladimir Putin:
Well, yes, he funds, but I talked to him
before the special military operation, of course. And I said
to him then, by the way, I will not go into details, I never
do. But I said to him, then, I believe that you are making a
huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting
everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing
Russia away. I told him, told him repeatedly, by the way, I
think that would be correct if I stop here.
Tucker:
What did he say?
Vladimir Putin:
Ask him, please, it is easier for you.
You are a citizen of the United States. Go and ask him. It
is not appropriate for me to comment on our conversation.
Tucker:
But you haven't spoken to him since
before February of 2022.
Vladimir Putin:
No, we haven't spoken. Certain contacts
are being maintained, though. Speaking of which. Do you
remember what I told you about my proposal to work together
on a missile defense system?
Tucker:
Yes.
Vladimir Putin:
You can ask all of them. All of them are
safe and sound. Thank God. The Former President. Condoleezza
is safe and sound. And I think Mr. Gates and the current
director of the intelligence agency, Mr. Burns, the then
ambassador to Russia, in my opinion, are very successful,
ambassador. They were all witnesses to these conversations.
Ask them. Same here. If you are interested in what Mr.
President Biden responded to me, ask him. At any rate, I
talk to him about it.
Tucker:
I'm definitely interested. But from the
outside, it seems like this could devolve or evolve into
something that brings the entire world into conflict and
could, um, initiate some nuclear launch. And so why don't
you just call Biden and say, let's work this out.
Vladimir Putin:
What's there to work out? It's very
simple. I repeat, we have contacts through various agencies.
I will tell you what we are saying on this matter and what
we are conveying to the US leadership. If you really want to
stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will
be over within a few weeks. That's it. And then we can agree
on some terms before you do that, stop. What's easier? Why
would I call him? What should I talk to him about? Or beg
him for what?
Tucker:
And what messages do you get back?
Vladimir Putin:
You were going to deliver such and such
weapons to Ukraine. Oh, I'm afraid, I'm afraid. Please
don't. What is there to talk about?
Tucker:
Do you think NATO is worried about this
becoming a global war or a nuclear conflict?
Vladimir Putin:
At least that's what they're talking
about. And they're trying to intimidate their own population
with an imaginary Russian threat. This is an obvious fact.
And thinking people, not philistines, but thinking people,
analysts, those who are engaged in real politics, just smart
people, understand perfectly well that this is a fake.
They're trying to fuel the Russian threat.
Tucker:
The threat I think you're referring to is
a Russian invasion of Poland. Latvia. Expansionist behavior.
Can you imagine a scenario where you send Russian troops to
Poland?
Vladimir Putin:
Only in one case, if Poland attacks
Russia. Why? Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia
or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don't have
any interest. It's just threat mongering.
Tucker:
Well, the argument, I know you know this
is that, well, he invaded Ukraine. He has territorial aims
across the continent. And you're saying unequivocally you
don't.
Vladimir Putin:
It is absolutely out of the question. You
just don't have to be any kind of analyst. It goes against
common sense to get involved in some kind of a global war
and a global war will bring all humanity to the brink of
destruction. It's obvious. There are certainly means of
deterrence. They have been scaring everyone with us all
along. Tomorrow, Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons.
Tomorrow Russia will use that. No, the day after tomorrow.
So what. In order to extort additional money from U.S.
taxpayers and European taxpayers in the confrontation with
Russia in the Ukrainian theater of war. But the goal is to
weaken Russia as much as possible.
Tucker:
One of, our Senior United States senators
from the state of New York, Chuck Schumer, said yesterday, I
believe, that we have to continue to fund the Ukrainian
effort, or U.S. soldier citizens could wind up fighting
there. How do you assess that?
Vladimir Putin:
This is a provocation and a cheap
provocation at that. I do not understand why American
soldiers should fight in Ukraine. They are mercenaries from
the United States. They're the bigger number of mercenaries
comes from Poland, with mercenaries from the United States
in second place and mercenaries from Georgia in third place.
Well, if somebody has the desire to send regular troops,
that would certainly bring humanity to the brink of a very
serious global conflict. This is obvious. Do the United
States need this? What for? Thousands of miles away from
your national territory. Don't you have anything better to
do? You have issues on the border. Issues with migration,
issues with the national debt. More than $33 trillion. You
have nothing better to do. So you should fight in Ukraine.
Wouldn't it be better to negotiate with Russia? Make an
agreement. Already understanding the situation that is
developing today, realizing that Russia will fight for its
interests to the end. And realizing this actually a return
to common sense, start respecting our country and its
interests and look for certain solutions. It seems to me
that this is much smarter and more rational.
Tucker:
Who blew up Nord Stream?
Vladimir Putin:
You for sure.
Tucker:
I was busy that day. I did not blow up
Nord Stream. Thank you though.
Vladimir Putin:
You personally may have an alibi, but the
CIA has no such alibi.
Tucker:
Did you have evidence that NATO or the
CIA did it?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, I won't get into details, but
people always say in such cases, look for someone who is
interested. But in this case, we should not only look for
someone who is interested, but also for someone who has
capabilities, because there may be many people interested,
but not all of them are capable of sinking to the bottom of
the Baltic Sea and carrying out this explosion. These two
components should be connected. Who is interested and who is
capable of doing it?
Tucker:
But I'm confused. I mean, that's the
biggest act of industrial terrorism ever, and it's the
largest emission of CO2 in history. Okay, so if you had
evidence and presumably given your security services or
Intel services, you would that NATO, the US, CIA, the West
did this, why wouldn't you present it and win a propaganda
victory?
Vladimir Putin:
In the war of propaganda, it is very
difficult to defeat the United States because the United
States controls all the world's media and many European
media. The ultimate beneficiary of the biggest European
media are American financial institutions. Don't you know
that? So it is possible to get involved in this work, but it
is cost prohibitive, so to speak. We can simply shine the
spotlight on our sources of information and we will not
achieve results. It is clear to the whole world what
happened then. Even American analysts talk about it
directly. It's true.
Tucker:
Yes I, but here's a question you may able
to answer. You worked in Germany famously. The Germans
clearly know that their NATO partner did this, but they. And
it damaged their economy greatly. It may never recover. Why
are they being silent about it? That's very confusing to me.
Why wouldn't the Germans say something about it?
Vladimir Putin:
This also confuses me, but today's German
leadership is guided by the interests of the collective West
rather than its national interests. Otherwise, it is
difficult to explain the logic of their action or inaction.
After all, it is not only about Nord Stream one, which was
blowing up and the Nord Stream two was damaged, but one pipe
is safe and sound and gas can be supplied to Europe through
it. But Germany does not open it. We are ready. Please.
There is another route through Poland called Yamal Europe,
which also allows for large flow. Poland has closed it, but
Poland pecks from the German hand. It receives money from
the pan European funds, and Germany is the main donor to
these pan-European funds. Germany feeds Poland to a certain
extent and they close their route to Germany. Why? I don't
understand Ukraine, to which the Germans supply weapons and
give money. Germany is the second sponsor of the United
States in terms of financial aid to Ukraine. There are two
gas routes through Ukraine. They simply closed one route.
The Ukrainians. Open the second route. And please get gas
from Russia. They do not open it. Why don't the Germans say,
look, guys, we give you money and weapons. Open up the
valve. Please let the gas from Russia pass through for us.
We are buying liquefied gas at exorbitant prices in Europe,
which brings the level of our competitiveness and economy in
general down to zero. So do you want us to give you money?
Let us have the decent existence to make money for our
economy, because this is where the money we give you comes
from.They refuse to do so. Why? Ask them. That is what is
like in their heads. Those are highly incompetent people.
Tucker:
Well, maybe the world is breaking into
two hemispheres. One with cheap energy, the other without.
And I want to ask you that if we're now a multipolar world,
obviously we are. Can you describe the blocks of alliances?
Who is in each side. Do you think?
Vladimir Putin:
Listen, you have said that the world is
breaking into two hemispheres. A human brain is divided into
two hemispheres. At least one is responsible for one type of
activities. The other one is more about creativity and so
on. But it is still one and the same head. I the world
should be a single whole. Security should be shared rather
than a meant for the golden billion. That is the only
scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable and
predictable. Until then, while the head is split in two
parts, it is an illness, a serious adverse condition. It is
a period of severe disease that the world is going through
now. But I think that thanks to honest journalism, this work
is akin to the work of the doctors. This could somehow be
remedied.
Tucker:
Well, let's just give one example. The
U.S. dollar, which has kind of united the world, in a lot of
ways, maybe not to your advantage, but certainly to ours. Is
that going away as the reserve currency, the com the
universally accepted currency? How have sanctions do you
think changed the dollar's place in the world?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, to use the dollar as a tool of
foreign policy struggle is one of the biggest strategic
mistakes made by the US political leadership. The dollar is
the cornerstone of the United States power. I think everyone
understands very well that no matter how many dollars are
printed, they're quickly dispersed all over the world.
Inflation in the United States is minimal. It's about 3 or
3.4%, which is, I think, totally acceptable for the US. But
they won't stop printing. What does the debt of $33 trillion
tell us about? It is about the emission. Nevertheless, it is
the main weapon used by the United States to preserve its
power across the world. As soon as the political leadership
decided to use the US dollar as a tool of political
struggle, a blow was dealt to this American power. I would
not like to use any strong language, but it is a stupid
thing to do and a grave mistake. Look at what is going on in
the world. Even the United States allies are now downsizing
their dollar reserves. Seeing this, everyone starts looking
for ways to protect themselves. But the fact that the United
States applies restrictive measures to certain countries,
such as placing restrictions on transactions, freezing
assets, etc., causes grave concern and sends a signal to the
whole world. What did we have here? Until 2022, about 80% of
Russian foreign trade transactions were made in US dollars
and euros. U.S. dollars accounted for approximately 50% of
our transactions with third countries. Well, currently it is
down to 13%. It wasn't us who banned the use of the US
dollar. We had no such intention. It was the decision of the
United States to restrict our transactions in U.S. dollars.
I think it is complete foolishness from the point of view of
the interests of the United States itself and its taxpayers,
as it damages the U.S. economy, undermines the power of the
United States across the world. By the way, our transactions
in yuan accounted for about 3%. Today, 34% of our
transactions are made in rubles and about as much. A little
over 34% in yuan. Why did the United States do this? My only
guess is self conceit. They probably thought it would lead
to full collapse, but nothing collapsed. Moreover, other
countries, including oil producers, are thinking of and
already accepting payments for oil in yuan. Do you even
realize what is going on or not? Does anyone in the United
States realize this. What are you doing? You are cutting
yourself off. All experts say this. Ask any intelligent and
thinking person in the United States what the dollar means
for the US. But you are killing it with your own hands.
Tucker:
I think that's. I think that's a fair
assessment. The question is what comes next? And maybe you
trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental
and forgiving colonial power. I mean, or is the the BRICs,
for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the
Chinese, the Chinese economy? In a way that's not good for
their sovereignty. Do you worry about that?
Vladimir Putin:
Well, we have heard those boogeyman
stories before. It is a boogeyman story. We're neighbors
with China. You cannot choose neighbors, just as you cannot
choose close relatives. We share a border of 1000km with
them. This is number one. Second, we have a centuries long
history of coexistence. We're used to it. Third, China's
foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to
always look for compromise. And we can see that. And that's
the next point is as follows. We are always told the same
boogeyman story. And here it goes again through in
euphemistic form. But it is still the same boogeyman story.
The cooperation with China keeps increasing the pace at
which China's cooperation with Europe is growing is higher
and greater than that of the growth of Chinese Russian
cooperation. If you ask Europeans, aren't they afraid they
might be? I don't know. But they are still trying to access
China's market at all costs, especially now that they are
facing economic problems. Chinese businesses are also
exploring the European market. Do Chinese businesses have
small presence in the United States? Yes. The political
decisions are such that they are trying to limit the
cooperation with China. It is to your own detriment, Mr.
Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China. You
are hurting yourself. It is a delicate matter and there are
no silver bullet solutions, just as it is with the dollar.
So before introducing any illegitimate sanctions,
illegitimate in terms of the charter of the United Nations,
one should think very carefully for decision makers. This
appears to be a problem.
Tucker:
So you said a moment ago that the world
would be a lot better if it weren't broken into competing
alliances, if there was cooperation globally. One of the
reasons you don't have that is because the current American
administration is dead set against you. Do you think if
there were a new administration after Joe Biden, that you
would be able to reestablish communication with the U.S.
government? Or does it not matter who the president is?
Vladimir Putin:
I will tell you. But let me finish the
previous thought. We, together with my colleague and friend
President XI Jinping, set their goal to reach $200 billion
of mutual trade with China this year. We have exceeded this
level. According to our figures, our bilateral trade with
China totals already 230 billion. And the Chinese statistics
says it is $240 billion. One more important thing. Our trade
is well balanced, mutually complementary in high tech,
energy, scientific research and development. It is very
balanced. As for BRICs, where Russia took over the
presidency this year, the BRICs countries are by and large
developing very rapidly. Look, if memory serves me right,
back in 1992, the share of the G7 countries in the world
economy amounted to 47%, whereas in 2022 it was down to, I
think, a little over 30%. The BRICs countries accounted for
only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that
of the G7. It has nothing to do with the events in Ukraine.
This is due to the trends of global development and world
economy, as I mentioned just now. And this is inevitable.
This will keep happening. It is like the rays of the sun.
You cannot prevent the sun from rising. You have to adapt to
it. How do the United States adapt with the help of force
sanctions, pressure, bombings and use of armed forces? This
is about self conceit. Your political establishment does not
understand that the world is changing under objective
circumstances. And in order to preserve your level, even if
someone aspires, pardon me to the level of dominance. You
have to make the right decisions in a competent and timely
manner. Such brutal actions, including with regard to Russia
and say other countries, are counterproductive. This is an
obvious fact. It has already become evident. You just asked
me if another leader comes and changes something? It is not
about the leader. It is not about the personality of a
particular person. I had a very good relationship with say
Bush. I know that in the United States, he was portrayed as
some kind of a country boy who does not understand much. I
assure you that this is not the case. I think he made a lot
of mistakes with regard to Russia, too. I told you about
2008 and the decision in Bucharest to open the NATO's doors
to for Ukraine and so on. That happened during his
presidency. He actually exercised pressure on the Europeans.
But in general, on a personal human level, I had a very good
relationship with him. He was no worse than any other
American or Russian or European politician. I assure you he
understood what he was doing as well as others. I had such
personal relationship with Trump as well. It is not about
the personality of the leader. It is about the elites
mindset, leader deal. If the idea of domination at any cost,
based also on forceful actions dominates the American
society, nothing will change. It will only get worse. But if
in the end, one comes to the awareness that the world has
been changing due to the objective circumstances, and that
one should be able to adapt to them in time using the
advantages that the US still has today, then perhaps
something may change. Look, China's economy has become the
first economy in the world than purchasing power parity in
terms of volume. It's over to the US a long time ago. The
USA comes second, then in the 1.5 billion people, and then
Japan with Russia in the fifth place. Russia was the first
economy in Europe last year, despite all the sanctions and
restrictions. Is it normal from your point of view,
sanctions, restrictions and possibility of payments in
dollars being cut off from Swift services sanctions against
their ships carrying oil? Sanctions against airplanes.
Sanctions in everything, everywhere. The largest number of
sanctions in the world which are applied, are applied
against Russia. And we have become Europe's first economy
during this time. The tools that U.S. uses don't work. Well,
one has to think about what to do. If this realization comes
to the ruling elites, then yes, then the first person of the
state will act in anticipation of what the voters and the
people who make decisions at various levels expect from this
person. Then maybe something will change.
Tucker:
But you're describing two different
systems. You say the leader acts in the interest of the
voters, but you also say these decisions are not made by the
leader, they're made by the ruling classes. You've run this
country for so long, you've known all these American
presidents. What are those power centers in the United
States? do you think? Like who actually makes the decisions?
Vladimir Putin:
I don't know. America is a complex
country. Conservative on one hand, rapidly changing on the
other. It's not easy for us to sort it all out. Who makes
decisions in the elections? Is it possible to understand
this when each state has its own legislation? Each state
regulates itself. Someone can be excluded from elections at
the state level. It is a two stage electoral system. It is
very difficult for us to understand it. Secondly, there are
two parties that are dominant: the Republicans and the
Democrats. And within this party system, the centers that
make decisions that prepare decisions. Then look, why, in my
opinion, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, such an
erroneous, crude, completely unjustified policy of pressure
was pursued against Russia. After all, this is a policy of
pressure. NATO expansion, support for the separatists in
Caucasus. Creation of a missile defense system. These are
all elements of pressure. Pressure, pressure, pressure. Then
dragging Ukraine into NATO is all about pressure, pressure,
pressure. Why? I think, among other things, because
excessive production capacities were created. During the
confrontation with the Soviet Union. There were many centers
created and specialists on the Soviet Union who could not do
anything else. They convinced the political leadership that
it is necessary to continue chiseling Russia, to try to
break it up, to create on this territory several quasi state
entities, and to subdue them in a divided form, to use their
combined potential for the future struggle with China. This
is a mistake, including the excessive potential of those who
worked for the confrontation with the Soviet Union. It is
necessary to get rid of this. There should be new, fresh
forces, people who look into the future and understand what
is happening in the world. Look at how Indonesia is
developing. 600 million people. Where can we get away from
that? Nowhere. We just have to assume that Indonesia will
enter. It is already in the club of the world's leading
economies. No matter who likes it or dislikes. Yes, we
understand and are aware that in the United States, despite
all the economic problems, the situation is still normal
with the economy growing decently. The GDP is growing by
2.5%, if I'm not mistaken. But if we want to ensure the
future, then we need to change our approach to what is
changing. As I already said, the world would nevertheless
change regardless of how the developments in Ukraine end.
The world is changing and the United States themselves.
Experts are writing that the United States are nonetheless
gradually changing their position in the world. It is your
experts who write that. I just read them. The only question
is how this would happen. Painfully and quickly or gently
and gradually. And this is written by people who are not
anti-American. They simply follow global development trends.
That's it. And in order to assess them and change policies,
we need people who think, look forward, can analyze and
recommend certain decisions at the level of political
leaders.
Tucker:
I just have to ask you, you've said
clearly that NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the
promise you all were made in 1990. It's a threat to your
country. Right before you send troops into Ukraine, the Vice
President of the United States, went to the Munich Security
Conference and encouraged the president of Ukraine to join
NATO. Do you think that was an effort to provoke you into
military action?
Vladimir Putin:
I repeat, once again, we have repeatedly,
repeatedly proposed to seek a solution to the problems that
arose in Ukraine after 2014 coup d'etat through peaceful
means. But no one listens to us. And moreover, the Ukrainian
leaders who were under the complete US control suddenly
declared that they would not comply with the Minsk
agreements. They disliked everything there and continued
military activity in that territory. And in parallel, that
territory was being exploited by NATO military structures
under the guise of various personnel training and retraining
centers. They essentially began to create bases there.
That's all. Ukraine announced that the Russians were a non
titular nationality, while passing the laws that limit the
rights of non titular nationalities in Ukraine. Ukraine
having received all the southeastern territories as a gift
from the Russian people, suddenly announced that the
Russians were a non titular nationality in that territory.
Is that normal? All this put together led to the decision to
end the war. That neo-Nazi started in Ukraine in 2014.
Tucker:
Do you think Zelensky has the freedom to
negotiate a settlement to this conflict?
Vladimir Putin:
I don't know the details. Of course, it's
difficult for me to judge, but I believe he has. In any
case, he used to have. His father fought against the
fascists Nazis during World War Two. I once talked to him
about this. I said, Volodymyr, what are you doing? Why are
you supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine today while your father
fought against fascism? He was a frontline soldier. I will
not tell you what he answered. This is a separate topic, and
I think it's incorrect for me to do so. But as to the
freedom of choice. Why not? He came to power on the
expectations of Ukrainian people that he would lead Ukraine
to peace. He talked about this. It was thanks to this that
he won the elections overwhelmingly. But then when he came
to power, in my opinion, he realized two things. Firstly, it
is better not to clash with neo-Nazis and nationalists
because they are aggressive and very active. You can expect
anything from them. And secondly, the U.S. Led West supports
them and will always support those who antagonize with
Russia. It is beneficial and safe. So he took the relevant
position despite promising his people to end the war in
Ukraine. He deceived his voters.
Tucker:
But do you think at this point, as of
February 2024, he has the latitude, the freedom, to speak
with you or your government directly about putting an end to
this, which clearly isn't helping his country or the world.
Can he do that, do you think?
Vladimir Putin:
Why not? He considers himself a head of
state. He won the elections. Although we believe in Russia
that the coup d'etat is the primary source of power for
everything that happened after 2014. And in this sense, even
today, government is flawed. But he considers himself the
president and he is recognized by the United States, all of
Europe, and practically the rest of the world in such a
capacity. Why not? He can. We negotiated with Ukraine in
Istanbul. We agreed. He was aware of this. Moreover, the
negotiation group leader, Mr. Arakhamia, his last name I
believe, still heads the faction of the ruling party, the
party of the president in the Rada. He still heads the
presidential faction in the Rada, the country's parliament.
He still sits there. He even put his preliminary signature
on the document. I am telling you. But then he publicly
stated to the whole world, we were ready to sign this
document but Mr. Johnson, then the Prime Minister, came and
dissuaded us from doing this, saying it was better to fight
Russia. They would give everything needed for us to return
what was lost during the clashes with Russia. And we agreed
with this proposal. Look, his statement has been published.
He said it publicly. Can they return to this or not? The
question is, do they want it or not? Further on, president
of Ukraine issued a decree prohibiting negotiations with us.
Let him cancel that decree. And that's it. We have never
refused negotiations indeed. We hear all the time, is Russia
ready? Yes. We have not refused. It was them who publicly
refused. Well, let him cancel his decree and enter into
negotiations. We have never refused. And the fact that they
obey the demand or persuasion of Mr. Johnson, the former
Prime Minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous. And it's
very sad to me because, as Mr. Arakhamia put it, we could
have stopped those hostilities with war a year and a half
ago already. But the British persuaded us and we refused
this. Where is Mr. Johnson now? And the war continues.
Tucker:
That's a good question. Where do you
think he is, and why did he do that?
Vladimir Putin:
Who knows. I don't understand it myself.
There was a general starting point. For some reason,
everyone had the illusion that Russia could be defeated on
the battlefield. Because of arrogance, because of a pure
heart, but not because of a great mind.
Tucker:
You've described the connection between
Russia and Ukraine. You've described Russia itself a couple
of times as orthodox. That's central to your understanding
of Russia. You've said you're Orthodox. What does that mean
for you? You are a Christian leader by your own description.
So what effect does that have on you?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, as I already mentioned, in 988
Prince Vladimir himself was baptized following the example
of his grandmother, Princess Olga. Then he baptized his
squad. And then gradually, over the course of several years,
he baptized all the Rus. It was a lengthy process from
pagans to Christians. It took many years but in the end,
this orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity, deeply rooted itself
in the consciousness of the Russian people. When Russia
expanded, then absorbed other nations who profess Islam,
Buddhism, and Judaism, Russia has always been very loyal to
those people who profess other religions. This is our
strength. This is absolutely clear. And the fact is that the
main postulates main values are very similar. Not to say the
same in all the world religions I have just mentioned, and
which are the traditional religions of the Russian
Federation. By the way, Russian authorities were always very
careful about the culture and religion of those people who
came into the Russian Empire. This, in my opinion, forms the
basis of both security and stability of the Russian
statehood. All the peoples inhabiting Russia basically
consider it their motherhood. If, say, people move over to
you or to Europe from Latin America and even clearer and
more understandable example, people come, but yet they have
come to you or to European countries from their historical
homeland. And people who profess different religions in
Russia consider Russia their motherland. They have no other
motherland. We are together. This is one big family and our
traditional values are very similar. 've just mentioned one
big family, but everyone has his or her own family. And this
is the basis of our society. And if we say that the
motherland and the family are specifically connected with
each other, it is indeed the case, since it is impossible to
ensure a normal future for our children and our families
unless we ensure a normal, sustainable future for the entire
country, for the motherland. That is why patriotic sentiment
is so strong in Russia.
Tucker:
The one way in which the religions are
different is that Christianity is specifically a nonviolent
religion. Jesus says, turn the other cheek. Don't kill. How
can a leader who has to kill - of any country - how can a
leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to
yourself?
Vladimir Putin:
It is very easy when it comes to
protecting oneself and one's family, one's homeland. We
won't attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine
start? Since the coup d'etat and the hostilities in Donbas
began. That's when they started. And we were protecting our
people, ourselves, our homeland and our future. As for
religion in general, you know, it's not about external
manifestations. It's not about going to church every day or
banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart, and our
culture is so human oriented. Dostoyevsky, who was very well
known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian
literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.
After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people
think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don't
know, maybe you won't agree with me, but Western culture is
more pragmatic after all. I'm not saying this is bad. It
makes it possible for today's golden billion to achieve good
success in production, even in science and so on. There's
nothing wrong with that. I'm just saying that we kind of
look the same.
Tucker:
So do you see the supernatural at work as
you look out across what's happening in the world now? Do
you see God at work? Do you ever think to yourself, these
are forces that are not human?
Vladimir Putin:
No, to be honest. I don't think so. My
opinion is that the development of the world community is in
accordance with inherent laws, and those laws are what they
are. It's always been this way in the history of mankind.
Some nations and countries rose, became stronger and more
numerous and then left the international stage, losing the
status they had accustomed to. There's probably no need for
me to give examples, but we could start with Genghis Khan
and horde conquers, the Golden Horde and then end with the
Roman Empire. It seems that there has never been anything
like the Roman Empire in the history of mankind.
Nevertheless, the potential of the barbarians gradually
grew, as did their population. In general, the barbarians
were getting stronger and begun to develop economically, as
we would say today. This eventually led to the collapse of
the Roman Empire and the regime imposed by the Romans.
However, it took five centuries for the Roman Empire to fall
apart. The difference with what is happening now is that all
the processes of change are happening had been much faster
paced than in Roman times.
Tucker:
So when does the AI empire start do you
think?
Vladimir Putin:
You're asking increasingly more
complicated questions. To answer them you need to be an
expert in big numbers, big data and AI. Mankind is currently
facing many threats due to the genetic researchers, it is
now possible to create this superhuman. A specialized human
being. A genetically engineered athlete, scientist, military
man. There are reports that Elon Musk has already had the
chip implanted in the human brain in the USA.
Tucker:
What do you think of that?
Vladimir Putin:
I think there's no stopping Elon Musk. He
will do as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you'll need to find
some common ground with him. Search for ways to persuade
him. I think he's a smart person. I truly believe he is. So
you'll need to reach an agreement with him because this
process needs to be formalized and subjected to certain
rules. Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due
to the newest development in genetics or in AI? One can make
an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind
felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons. All
nuclear nations begun to come to terms with one another,
since they realized the negligent use of nuclear weaponry
could drive humanity to extinction. It is impossible to stop
research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible
to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as
we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and
uncontrolled development of AI or genetics or any other
field, the time will come to reach an international
agreement on how to regulate these things.
Tucker:
I appreciate all the time you've given
us. I just gotta ask you one last question. And that's about
someone who is very famous in the United States. Probably
not here. Evan Gershkovich who's the Wall Street Journal
reporter. He's 32. And he's been in prison for almost a
year. This is a huge story in the United States. And I just
want to ask you directly, without getting into the details
of it or your version of what happened, if, as a sign of
your decency, you would be willing to release him to us and
we'll bring him back to the United States.
Vladimir Putin:
We have done so many gestures of goodwill
out of decency that I think we have run out of them. We have
never seen anyone reciprocate to us in a similar manner.
However, in theory, we can say that we do not rule out that
we can do that if our partners take reciprocal steps. When I
talk about the partners, I first of all refer to special
services. Special services are in contact with one another.
They are talking about the matter in question. There is no
taboo to settle this issue. We are willing to solve it but
there are certain terms being discussed via special services
channels. I believe an agreement can be reached.
Tucker:
So typically, I mean this stuff has
happened for obviously centuries. One country catches
another spy within its borders. It trades it for one of its
own intel guys in another country. I think what makes and
it's not my business, but what makes this different is the
guy's obviously not a spy. He's a kid, and maybe he was
breaking your law in some way, but he's not a super spy and
everybody knows that. And he's being held hostage in
exchange, which is true with respect. It's true. And
everyone knows it's true. So maybe he's in a different
category. Maybe it's not fair to ask for, you know, somebody
else in exchange for letting him out. Maybe it degrades
Russia to do that.
Vladimir Putin:
You know, you can give a different
interpretations to what constitutes a spy. But there are
certain things provided by law. If a person gets secret
information and does that in conspiratorial manner, then
this is qualified as espionage. And that is exactly what he
was doing. He was receiving classified, confidential
information, and he did it covertly. Maybe he did that out
of carelessness or his own initiative. Considering the sheer
fact that this is qualify this espionage. The fact has been
proven as he was caught red handed when he was receiving
this information. If it had been some farfetched excuse,
some fabrication, something not proven, it would have been a
different story then. But he was caught red handed when he
was secretly getting confidential information. What is it
then?
Tucker:
But are you suggesting he was working for
the U.S. government or NATO, or he was just a reporter who
was given material he wasn't supposed to have? Those seem
like very different, very different things.
Vladimir Putin:
I don't know who he was working for. But
I would like to reiterate that getting classified
information in secret is called espionage. And he was
working for the US special services, some other agencies. I
don't think he was working for Monaco as Monaco is hardly
interested in getting that information. It is up to the
special services to come to an agreement. Some groundwork
has been laid. There are people who, in our view, are not
connected with special services. Let me tell you a story
about a person serving a sentence in an allied country of
the U.S. That person, due to patriotic sentiments,
eliminated a bandit in one of the European capitals. During
the events in the Caucasus, do you know what he was doing? I
don't want to say that, but I will do it anyway. He was
laying our soldiers taken prisoner on the road and then
drove his car over their heads. What kind of person is that?
Can he even be called human? But there was a patriot who
eliminated him in one of the European capitals. Whether he
did it of his own volition or not. That is a different
question.
Tucker:
I mean, that's a completely different.
He's a 32 year old newspaper reporter.
Vladimir Putin:
He committed something different. He's
not just a journalist. I reiterate. He's a journalist who is
secretly getting confidential information. Yes, it is
different, but still, I'm talking about other people who are
essentially controlled by the US authorities, wherever they
are serving a sentence.
Tucker:
There is an ongoing dialog between the
special services. This has to be resolved in a calm,
responsible and professional manner. They're keeping in
touch, so let them do their work.
Vladimir Putin:
I do not rule out that the person you
refer to, Mr. Gershkovich, may return to his motherland. But
at the end of the day, it does not make any sense to keep
him in prison in Russia. We want the U.S. Special Services
to think about how they can contribute to achieving the
goals our special services are pursuing. We are ready to
talk. Moreover, the talks are underway and there have been
many successful examples of these talks crowned with
success. Probably this is going to be crowned with success
as well. But we have to come to an agreement.
Tucker:
I hope you let him out. Mr. President,
thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
I also want him to return to his homeland
at last. I'm absolutely sincere. But let me say once again,
the dialog continues. The more public we render things of
this nature, the more difficult it becomes to resolve them.
Everything has to be done in calm manner.
Tucker:
I wonder if that's true with the war
though. I guess I want to ask one more question, which is
and maybe you don't want to say so for strategic reasons,
but are you worried that what's happening in Ukraine could
lead to something much larger and much more horrible? And
how motivated are you just to call the U.S. government and
say, let's come to terms?
Vladimir Putin:
I already said that we did not refuse to
talk. We're willing to negotiate. It is the western side,
and Ukraine is obviously a satellite state of the US. It is
evident. I do not want you to take it as if I am looking for
a strong word or an insult. But we both understand what is
happening. The financial support. 72 billion U.S. dollars
was provided. Germany ranks second, then other European
countries come. Dozens of billions of U.S. dollars are going
to Ukraine. There's a huge influx of weapons. In this case,
you should tell the current Ukrainian leadership to stop and
come to a negotiating table, rescind this absurd decree. We
did not refuse.
Tucker:
Sure, but you already said it. I didn't
think you meant it is an insult because you already said
correctly, it's been reported that Ukraine was prevented
from negotiating a peace settlement by the former British
Prime Minister acting on behalf of the Biden administration.
So, of course they're a satellite. Big countries control
small countries. That's not new. And that's why I asked
about dealing directly with the Biden administration, which
is making these decisions, not President Zelensky of
Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin:
Well if the Zelensky administration in
Ukraine refused to negotiate, I assume they did it under the
instruction from Washington. If Washington believes it to be
the wrong decision, let it abandon it. Let it find the
delicate excuse so that no one is insulted. Let it come up
with a way out. It was not us who made this decision. It was
them. So let them go back on it. That is it. However, they
made the wrong decision. And now we have to look for a way
out of this situation to correct their mistakes. They did
it, so let them correct it themselves. We support this.
Tucker:
So I just want to make sure I'm not
misunderstanding what you're saying. I don't think that I
am. I think you're saying you want a negotiated settlement
to what's happening in Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin:
Right. And we made it. We prepared the
huge document in Istanbul that was initialed by the head of
the Ukrainian delegation. He had fixed his signature to some
of the provisions, not to all of it. He put his signature
and then he himself said, we were ready to sign it, and the
war would have been over long ago. 18 months ago. However,
Prime Minister Johnson came, talk to us out of it and we
missed that chance. Well, you missed it. You made a mistake.
Let them get back to that. That is all. Why do we have to
bother ourselves and correct somebody else's mistakes? I
know one can say it is our mistake. It was us who
intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the
war that started in 2014, in Donbas. As I have already said
by means of weapons. Lt me get back to furthering history. I
already told you this. We were just discussing it. Let us go
back to 1991, when we were promised that NATO would not
expand to 2008, when the doors to NATO opened to the
Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, declaring
Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that
NATO and U.S. military bases started to appear on the
territory, Ukraine creating threats to us. Let us go back to
coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless, though,
isn't it? We may go back and forth endlessly, but they
stopped negotiations. Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We
are ready. What else is needed?
Tucker:
Do you think it's too humiliating at this
point for NATO to accept Russian control of what was two
years ago Ukrainian territory?
Vladimir Putin:
I said let them think how to do it with
dignity. There are options if there is a will. Up until now,
there has been the uproar and screaming about inflicting a
strategic defeat to Russia on the battlefield. But now they
are apparently coming to realize that it is difficult to
achieve, if possible, at all. In my opinion, it is
impossible by definition. It is never going to happen. It
seems to me that now those who are in power in the West have
come to realize this as well. If so, if the realization has
set in, they have to think what to do next. We are ready for
this dialogue.
Tucker:
Would you be willing to say
congratulations, NATO, you won and just keep the situation
where it is now?
Vladimir Putin:
You know, it is a subject matter for the
negotiations. No one is willing to conduct or, to put it
more accurately... they're willing, but do not know how to
do it. I know they want to. It is not just I see it, but I
know they do want it, but they are struggling to understand
how to do it. They have driven the situation to the point
where we are at. It is not us who have done that. It is our
partners, opponents who have done that. Well now let them
think how to reverse the situation. We're not against it. It
would be funny if it were not so sad that. This endless
mobilization in Ukraine, the hysteria, the domestic
problems, sooner or later it will result in an agreement.
You know, this probably sounds strange given the current
situation. But the relations between the two peoples will be
rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time, but they will
heal. I'll give you very unusual examples. There is a combat
encounter on the battlefield. Here is a specific example.
Ukrainian soldiers get encircled. This is an example from
real life. Our soldiers were shouting to them. There is no
chance. Surrender yourselves. Come out and you will be
alive. Suddenly the Ukrainian soldiers were screaming from
there in Russian. Perfect Russian. Saying Russians do not
surrender. And all of them perished. They still identify
themselves as Russian. What is happening is, to a certain
extent, an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West
thinks that the Russian people have been split by
hostilities forever, and now they will be reunited. The
unity is still there. Why are the Ukrainian authorities
dismantling the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? Because it brings
together not only the territory. It brings together our
souls. No one will be able to separate the soul. Shall we
end here, or is there anything else?
Tucker:
Thank you, Mr. President.
