Answers to media questions following the visit to Uzbekistan (2024)

President ofRussia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. Whatwill we discuss today? Please go ahead with your questions.

Yegor Piskunov: Hello, Mr President. Yegor Piskunov, Russia Today TV channel.

Your visit toTashkentwas absolutely unprecedented interms ofits packed agenda. You spent twonights here, andsome ofus thought you might stay forthethird. You had alengthyface-to-face conversation with thePresident ofUzbekistan. What are yourimpressions? What are your expectations forcooperation with Tashkent,especially intrade andeconomic matters? Andwhat are Uzbekistan’s prospectsfortaking part inintegration structures inthepost-Soviet space? Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Asyou know, Iarrivedhere onSunday evening, so we did not have anything onour agenda forthat dayexcept fortheofficial events– aflower-laying ceremony attheIndependenceMonument. That was it fortheday. But thenext day was packed with all kindsofformal contacts, meetings andtalks. It all happened onMonday, andweworked late into theevening. This is true. Thehosts scheduled our visit thisway.

This was thefirst time we attendedameeting oftheregions. Do you know why this visit was so effective? Thecomposition ofour delegation was impressive; it included nearly half oftheRussian Government members, all thekey ministers. Naturally, ameeting thatinvolved heads ofregions andCabinet ministers from both sides featured awide-ranging andfulfilling discussion. Iam not even referring tothenumberofdocuments signed, but totheactual face-to-face contact between people whowant towork together andknow how todo it. Russia has agenuine interest inexpandingour relations with Uzbekistan.

First, Uzbekistan is currently thesecondmost populated country inthepost-Soviet space, after Russia. Today, it ishome to37 million people, andit adds one million every year. That is howUzbekistan’s population is growing.

It has avibrant, fast-growingeconomy which has gathered substantial momentum. Last year, Uzbekistan’s GDPincreased bysix percent, which is amajor achievement compared toothercountries oftheworld. ThePresident ofUzbekistan has implemented aneffectivegovernance framework andagrowth-driven economic model.

We have alot ofjoint plans interms ofindustrialcooperation, energy, andinfrastructure, asyou have probably seen andheard.

Uzbekistan faces someproblems because it is alandlocked country with no access tothesea orocean.Inthis connection, we andother regional partners can take action tohelp ourfriends inUzbekistan resolve this logistics task andcreate essentialconditions forentering external markets. We have alot todiscuss here. So,there are very many issues, andthere is alarge volume ofpotential projects.

Asyou know, we haveestablished aUS$500 million fund forconducting joint work, andtheRussianside has contributed US$400 million ofthis amount. This does not mean that wehave more money, this is because we have major interests inthis part ofAsia,andwe can see that it is possible torealise them, given thestability ofthepolitical system andspecific terms forinvesting inUzbekistan’s economy. Irepeat, we are very much interested, andthis explains such intensive contacts.

Speaking ofintegrationprocesses, we never insist onanything. Tobe honest, Nursultan Nazarbayev, thefirst President ofKazakhstan, had initiated these integration processes, ifyou mean theEAEU (above all, we are talking about theeconomy, ofcourse).This organisation has gained considerable momentum, andit is yielding realresults forall participants. However, any sovereign state is free todecidewhether totake part ornot; this decision is motivated byspecific interests,primarily economic interests, andeconomic expediency. We have different levelsofeconomic development andfinancial system development. When any particulargovernment makes arelevant decision ontaking (ornot taking) part inanyspecific integration association, it proceeds from these considerations, inthefirst place.

Onthewhole, if such aneconomy asthat ofUzbekistan joins theassociation, then Ibelieve theassociation would only benefit from this. However, Uzbekistan’s economy shouldalso benefit. This amounts toarather complicated negotiating process because whileestablishing theEAEU, we had debated formany days andnights onwhat specificmandatory terms andmutual obligations would arise. Consequently, this is asteadyandsmooth process.

Our economies are aligninganddeveloping, andnumerous joint projects are emerging. We will graduallychart our mutual interests inthesphere ofsubsequent cooperation andinvolvement inintegration associations.

Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,

Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Iam sorry butIhave two questions andboth are extensive.

Here is thefirst one. You went toTashkent andwe arrived together with you, practically right from Minsk. Since then we have beeninterested inthis issue: InMinsk you replied toaquestion about Zelensky’s legitimacyandwith whom tohold talks if andwhen they become possible. You said it was necessarytolook up intheConstitution of*ckraine what government authorities canoperate without elections. But proceeding from theConstitution of*ckraine, theVerkhovna Rada is theonly body that can work now. Not aword is said aboutextending thepowers ofthepresident. Zelensky seems tocontinue tostay inoffice exclusively onthebasis ofmartial law. You said alegal analysis is needed.Are we conducting this analysis? Who are we going totalk toif we do?

Can Iask you asecond question right away?

Vladimir Putin: Go ahead, please. Whatever suits you best.

Pavel Zarubin: More andmore bellicose statements are made fromhigh Western rostrums. Now they are even saying that Kiev should be allowed tostrike deep into Russian territory with Western weapons. TheEU Defence Ministerspoke about this issue today, andtheNATO Secretary General said this: We are givingweapons toKiev andconsider them Ukrainian from this moment, so Ukraine can dowhatever it wants with these arms, inpart, strike atRussian territory whereit deems necessary.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thefirst question was about thelegitimacy oftheUkrainian power. Indeed, it is necessary toconduct aserious, deepanalysis ofthis.

Thefirst point is onthesurface andismentioned bymycolleagues. This is what it is about. TheConstitution of*ckraineonly extends thepowers oftheRada. It says nothing about extending thepowersofthepresident. This is thefirst point.

Second. Indeed, thelaw of*ckraine onthelegalstatus, legal position andmartial law reads that presidential elections arenot held during martial law. However, this does not mean that they are extended.They are not held but who said that they must be extended? TheConstitutionsays nothing about this. But Article 111 oftheConstitution of*ckraine readsthat inthis case thepowers ofthesupreme authority, actually thepresidential powers are transferred totheSpeaker ofParliament. All themoreso since thepowers ofparliament are extended during martial law. This is apreliminary analysis. We should take adeeper look into this issue.

Some specialists say that there are contradictionsbetween theConstitution that provides only fortheextension oftheRada’s powersunder martial law andthelaw Ihave just mentioned– Ithink it is the2016 lawthat defines thelegal status ofmartial law. AsIalready said andrepeat, thislaw stipulates that thepresidential elections are not held but nothing is saidabout theprolongation, andthis is aproblem.

What is thepoint? Thepoint is that inessence, theUkrainian statehood is based ontheidea oftheparliamentary-presidential republic rather than thepresidential republic. Themain levers ofpower are concentrated intherepresentative state body.Therefore, it is quite logical that theConstitution itself andother legalacts adopted onits basis are construed insuch away.

Therefore, speaking strictly, inatentative estimate– Iam just talking about atentative estimate– theparliament andtheRadaSpeaker remain theonly legitimate power. Andso, basically, if they wanted tohold presidential elections, they should have simply repealed martial law atthat time andheld elections. But they did not want todo this foranumber ofreasons.

Ithink, andthis is not linked with theConstitution inany way, that maybe thecurrent bosses of*ckraine, who areoverseas, would like toplace theburden ofmaking all unpopular decisions onthecurrent executive branch. This includes theadoption ofyet anotherdecision tofurther lower theconscription age. It was 27 years, now it is 25andnext it may be 23 years oreven 18 years.

Ibelieve that after this andother unpopular decisionsare made, those who are acting today asrepresentatives ofexecutive governmentwould be replaced with people who would not be responsile fortheunpopulardecisions made. These representatives will be simply replaced inasnap. If thisis theidea, thelogic is understandable inprinciple. Let’s see what happens next.

But asIsaid inMinsk, thefinal say should bemade bythepolitical andlegal system of*ckraine. It should formulate andexplainwhat is happening inUkraine. Ibelieve, this is not too difficult, indeed. Iwill repeat forthethird time that the2016 law prohibits holding presidentialelections under martial law but nothing is said about extension ofthesepowers. So, what? See Article 111 oftheConstitution– all power istransferred totheSpeaker ofParliament.

With regard tothestrikes, frankly,Iam not sure what theNATO Secretary General is talking about. When he was thePrime Minister ofNorway, we communicated andaddressed challenging issues concerningtheBarents Sea andother issues, andgenerally, we were able tocome toterms,andIam positive he was not suffering from dementia back then. If he is talkingabout potentially attacking Russia’s territory with long-range precisionweapons, he, asaperson who heads amilitary-political organisation, even thoughhe is acivilian like me, should be aware ofthefact that long-range precisionweapons cannot be used without space-based reconnaissance. This is myfirstpoint.

Mysecond point is that thefinaltarget selection andwhat is known aslaunch mission can only be made byhighlyskilled specialists who rely onthis reconnaissance data, technical reconnaissancedata. Forsome attack systems, such asStorm Shadow, these launch missions canbe put inautomatically, without theneed touse Ukrainian military. Who does it?Those who manufacture andthose who allegedly supply these attack systems toUkraine do. This can anddoes happen without theparticipation oftheUkrainianmilitary. Launching other systems, such asATACMS, forexample, also relies onspace reconnaissance data, targets are identified andautomaticallycommunicated totherelevant crews that may not even realise what exactly theyare putting in. Acrew, maybe even aUkrainian crew, then puts inthecorresponding launch mission. However, themission is put together byrepresentatives ofNATO countries, not theUkrainian military.

So, these officials from NATOcountries, especially theones based inEurope, particularly insmall European countries,should be fully aware ofwhat is atstake. They should keep inmind that theirsare small anddensely populated countries, which is afactor toreckon with beforethey start talking about striking deep into theRussian territory. It is aserious matter and, without adoubt, we are watching this very carefully.

Thefocus is onthedevelopments ontheoutskirts ofKharkov. But they were theones toprovoke those events. Imadeit clear publicly, Ithink it was six months ago, that if they continue totargetresidential neighbourhoods, we will have tocreate asecurity area. Not longago, we started doing what Isaid back then.

First, they provoked us inDonbass.Foreight long years they have been pulling thewool over our eyes andmakingus believe that they were going toresolve theissue peacefully andeventually madeus try torestore peace byusing thearmed forces. Then, they deceived usduring thenegotiating process anddecided that they would defeat us onthebattlefield byinflicting astrategic defeat onRussia. We warned them againstmaking incursions into our territory, shelling Belgorod andneighbouring areas,orelse we will be forced tocreate asecurity area.

Look atwhat your Western colleaguesare reporting. No one is talking about shelling Belgorod orother adjacentterritories. Theonly thing they are talking about is Russia opening anewfront andattacking Kharkov. Not aword. Why is that? They did it with theirown hands. Well, let them reap thefruits oftheir ingenuity. Thesame thingcan happen incase thelong-range precision weapons which you asked about isused.

More broadly, this unending escalationcan lead toserious consequences. If Europe were toface those seriousconsequences, what will theUnited States do, considering our strategic armsparity? It is hard totell.

Are they looking foraglobalconflict? Ithink they wanted toagree upon strategic arms, but we do not reallysee them being really eager todo so. They are talking about it but are notdoing much tomake it happen. We will wait andsee what happens next.

Viktor Sineok: Mr President, myname is ViktorSineok, Izvestiya.

Forseveral months before yourvisit, delegations from theUS Treasury andother agencies implementing thesanctions regime were coming toCentral Asian countries, including Uzbekistan.Unprecedented pressure was put ontheCentral Asian capitals inorder toexclude andstrangle all thepossibilities andprospects forcooperation withRussia. How do you find this behaviour? Can Russia redress this pressure fortheCentral Asian countries, including Uzbekistan?

If Imay, Iwould like toask asecond question very quickly. News came out that Russia was considering thepossibility ofremoving theTaliban from thelist ofterrorist organisations.How has this decision been made andwhy? How will it affect our relations withAfghanistan, andwhen will it take effect?

Vladimir Putin: Iwill begin with thesecond part.

This is constantly being discussed,andIwill not comment onit now, because relations with theTaliban andAfghanistan are constantly being discussed. It cannot be denied that there areproblems inAfghanistan. Everyone known this very well.

How can we build our relations withthecurrent regime? It is adifferent question altogether. However, we have todo it. These are thepeople controlling thecountry, its territory; they arethepower inAfghanistan today. We must proceed from reality andbuildrelations accordingly.

We stay incontact with manypartners, including with many partners intheCentral Asian region. We takeinto account each partner’s andfriend’s opinion andwill formulate this positiontogether.

Asforthefirst part ofyourquestion, there is nothing new about it. Imean thevoyagers flying all aroundtheworld, be it Latin America, orAfrica, ortheEast, threatening everybody.These are elements ofimperial behaviour. American political observers andanalysts say directly that theUnited States is anempire, andits imperialambitions are connected with internal political events toalarge extent.Presidential election is coming soon, andthecurrent authorities want toconfirm their status asanempire. Many intheUnited States do not like this,do not want tobe anempire andbear theimperial burden. They do not wantresponsibility, anddo not want toexpose their country toany dangers orget itinto adifficult position.

What about Central Asia? Uzbekistanis not only thebiggest country inCentral Asia. It is second after Russia interms ofpopulation– 37 million. But voyageurs from theUS are flying toallparts oftheworld. Asyou know, quite recently, theSecretary oftheTreasury,Ibelieve, also visited China. What did she talk about? Ithink Ialso recalledthis inMinsk. She said theChinese produce too many cars. They talked about overproductionofcars. Idon’t think that theUS Secretary oftheTreasury is anilliterateperson. This is simply juggling with facts.

What is overproduction? If we liveinthemarket conditions, themarket regulates whether this is overproductionornot. If people buy products andthey are produced with aprofit, there is nooverproduction. Andhow else do you force another country tostop theproduction ofdifferent goods? Byusingforce? Sanctions? Andthis is one ofthevariants ofusing force, andthis ishow they are trying toact all over theworld.

Ofcourse, countries that are weak,insecure, especially those with dozens ofNGOs that feed off theAmerican hand,are pecking atwhat they have been given, and, ofcourse, it is easier tomanipulate public consciousness inthese countries, easier topressure incumbentauthorities. But thecountries where theauthorities feel confident, where theydevote all their activities tostrengthening sovereignty, theinterests oftheir people andtheir country, do not respond tothese peremptory orders fromacross theocean. This is thecase with large countries andsmall states ifthey are self-sufficient anddignified.

We know that pressure was exerted onCentral Asia aswell. So far Ihaven’t seen people kneeling ready toblindlyobey any edicts from across theocean.

They– theAmericans andtheEuropeans– certainly take certain steps that deal damage toour partners but eventuallythis is also asovereign choice ofany country ofhow tocreate its policy,fight forits sovereignty ornot, consider sovereignty avalue ornot andsoon.

Ithink it represents avalue. Thisis because if acountry wants tobe successful, it must be sovereign, even onthesocioeconomic plane. If it wants tobe successful, it must be sovereign.Otherwise, other states will always pressure it andsubjugate it toforeigninterests– like what they are now trying todo with China regarding cars.

They will do thesame withfertiliser, chemicals, aircraft– you name it. We are facing this. Yes, we are seeingthis andthere is nothing good init. This is damaging both internationalsecurity andtheglobal economy.

Konstantin Panyushkin: Good afternoon, Mr President. Myname is Konstantin Panyushkin, Channel One.

Yesterday, Commander-in-Chief oftheArmed Forces of*ckraine Alexander Syrsky was reported tohave approved thedeployment ofFrench mercenary instructors, who can be called themilitary, ontheterritory of*ckraine. Now it is official andwas finally made public. Moreover,Syrsky says he hopes that theKiev regime’s other partners will also officiallyfollow theFrench example. What do you think about this andhow far can it go?

Please allow me toadd abit ofclarification asafollow up onthequestion oflegitimacy. It is clear fromyour answer that, until Western handlers replace Zelensky inKiev, you havevirtually no one totalk toinUkraine. But Iwanted toask: did AlexanderLukashenko offer you theUkrainian military astheones totalk to?

Vladimir Putin: Who? Themilitary?

Konstantin Panyushkin: Yes, themilitary.

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, Mr Lukashenko doesnot command themilitary inUkraine yet. If he did, we would have ended thisconflict long ago, andtomutual satisfaction. We would have found asolution onUkraine if Ukraine were now managed bypeople guided bynational interests, andnot bytheinterests oftheir masters inEurope oroverseas.

Asforthefact that there may bemercenaries inUkraine, we are well aware ofthat, there is nothing new aboutit. Thefact that themilitary inUkraine are now saying that they [theFrench]may come is because they have been there foralong time. We hear English, French,orPolish ontheradio. We know that these mercenaries are there. But there arespecialists there under theguise ofmercenaries.

There was aquestion aboutlong-range precision weapons. Andwho controls andmaintains these weapons? Ofcourse, thesame instructors who are disguised asmercenaries. They exist andthey suffer losses. Perhaps this statement has been made because it isapparently increasingly hard forthem toconceal these losses. Therefore,perhaps thetime has come toshow that they are officially there, so that theselosses can be shown realistically, legally. Ido not know. Maybe.

Asforvarious contingents, Ihavealready spoken about it. ThePolish authorities say they are ready tosendtheir contingents. We can hear Polish language, so there are many mercenariesfrom Poland. If some contingents from European countries enter [Ukraine] togetherwith thePoles, others will later leave whereas thePoles will never do. Thisis obvious, atleast forme. Imight be wrong but Idoubt that.

Therefore, this pretext of“freeingsome Ukrainian units along theborder, releasing them so astosend them tothebattlefield, keeping them along theborders toensure their safety” isnonsense. If they are there, then they will also be intheengagement area ofour Armed Forces.

Ido not think that this is theright decision oragood way out. This is escalation andyet another steptowards alarge conflict inEurope andglobally. Do they need it? They arewelcome. We will continue todo aswe see fit, regardless ofwho is ontheterritory of*ckraine. Andthis is what they must remember.

Alexei Golovko: Alexei Golovko, Rossiya TV channel.

There have been reports inWesternpress that Western countries allegedly want tohold another conference inSaudiArabia after theSwiss conference onUkraine, andofficially invite Russiathere inorder toshow Moscow apurportedly consolidated position andbeginsome kind oftalks.

Mr President, if we receive such aproposal, will Russia attend this conference? If yes, onwhat conditions?

Vladimir Putin: Ido not have ananswer now, becauseIdo not know what you are talking about. They say that now they are not readytoinvite Russia, andlater they will be. We never refused them: not now, norlater, nor ayear ago. We have said that we are ready.

It wasn’t us who stopped thetalks. We were told:that’s it, we will no longer have talks with you. They could have said we arenot satisfied with theagreements that were reached inIstanbul. Thetalks werelaunched inMinsk andwere completed, brought toacertain stage inIstanbul. Theycould have said this this had it not been forthesignature ofthehead oftheUkrainian negotiating team onthedigest oftheagreement that we had preparedasadraft.

He initialled this which means it suited Ukraine.They were ordered tothrow it into arubbish can andtry tobeat Russia onthebattlefield, toinflict strategic defeat onit. But he said directly andpublicly– had we not been ordered from abroad (from Britain inthis case, that is, fromtheUS– thesame thing), thehostilities would have stopped ayear andahalfa*go. He did say this.

We have never refused totalk onthis basis andwe are ready tocontinue thenegotiating process. But we do not know what andwhowill offer us atsome other stages, inview ofthelegitimacy of*ckrainianrepresentatives. Therefore, Ido not have ananswer tothis question.

Iam always looking with surprise atsome anticsofour “friends” andpartners that are saying that Russia is rejecting talks. Ihave said athousand times but it seems they don’t have ears. No, we are not rejectingtalks. Ukraine rejected them inpublic. They initialled theagreement andrejectedit with aview tobeating us onthebattlefield. They are not succeeding inthis.Now they are ready. Well, if you are ready, come back. What’s theproblem?

They wanttopaint something, tocreate asemblance ofglobal support forwhat they have paintedontheir own free will, proceeding from their own wants andwishes andpresent thisasaconsolidated position oftheinternational community. They won’t succeed.This shows that they do not want tocome toterms but are still wishing togetsomething andturn thetide onthebattlefield but all invain. Themoreattempts they will make, themore losses there will be, andthese losses willbyno means be infavour oftheArmed Forces of*ckraine.

Why is this happening? Thecurrent rulers of*ckraine do not feel sorry forthese people. They do not consider them their ownpeople. This is thegist of*ckraine’s problem andtragedy today. They do not considerthese people their own people. They do not protect theinterests oftheUkrainianpeople today. Iam hoping that people will still realise this eventually.