Young
Washington opens
in theaters nationwide on July 3, 2026, the day before the Fourth of July, and
exactly at the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Young Washington | Official Trailer | In Theaters July
3 | Angel, 2521 Entertainment, Wonder Project
The timing of Young Washington’s July 3 release is not accidental. July 4,
2026 marks the 250th anniversary
of the Declaration of Independence, the Semiquincentennial of the United
States, a milestone the federal government has designated as a national
celebration.
This video presentation is very well
worth reviewing. Thankfully the British-centric perspective is dropped and
Promethean Action PAC focus more on the overall ‘globalist’ political machine
driven in North America by Obama’s leftist political operation, the Center for
American Progress (CAP).
Kokinda stays away from the ‘intelligence‘
aspect of the background (which is good – not her lane). However, for
accurate and affirming context on the geopolitical part of the Kokinda review,
make sure you have read “Segment 4” (just
updated) from the remarks of Russian President Vladimir Putin when he
was asked about whether his upcoming trip to China was related any way
go President Trump’s trip which takes place this week. President Trump
and President Putin have spent several hours on the phone together in
the past seven days. Putin’s responses in SEGMENT 4 are quite
revealing.
PROMETHEAN PAC – “As President Trump prepares to travel to China, this
episode argues that Putin’s remarks about Russia’s “partners and friends”
(China, India, and the U.S.) reveal a shifting global alignment that alarms the
Obama–Soros network. It examines the Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto,
where Barack Obama appeared and Center for American Progress leaders, including
Neera Tanden and Patrick Gaspard, framed Trump’s presidency as an “interregnum”
and promoted Mark Carney’s “Principled Pragmatism,” described as preserving
globalist structures while rebranding to address public backlash. The script
contrasts this with what it calls a “new strategic map” driven by Trump, Putin,
and Xi, highlighted by Victory Day context, an announced Russia–China energy
deal, and Trump’s proclamations. It concludes that Democrats seek midterm gains
but face setbacks from redistricting rulings, prompting renewed efforts to win
back working-class voters.”
Putin Exposes Trump's China Reset — Obama, Soros &
Carney Panic in Toronto
Putin's Victory Day remarks naming
China, India, and the U.S. as Russia's "partners and friends" have
rattled the Obama–Soros network — who convened in Mark Carney's Toronto to
launch a "Principled Pragmatism" rebrand and declare Trump's
presidency an "interregnum."
As President Trump prepares to travel to China, this
episode argues that Putin's remarks about Russia's "partners and
friends" (China, India, and the U.S.) reveal a shifting global alignment
that alarms the Obama–Soros network. It examines the Global Progress Action
Summit in Toronto, where Barack Obama appeared and Center for American Progress
leaders, including Neera Tanden and Patrick Gaspard, framed Trump's presidency
as an "interregnum" and promoted Mark Carney's "Principled
Pragmatism," described as preserving globalist structures while rebranding
to address public backlash. The script contrasts this with what it calls a
"new strategic map" driven by Trump, Putin, and Xi, highlighted by
Victory Day context, an announced Russia–China energy deal, and Trump's
proclamations. It concludes that Democrats seek midterm gains but face setbacks
from redistricting rulings, prompting renewed efforts to win back working-class
voters.
In 2008 Joe Biden was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, with oversight jurisdiction of the U.S State Dept., and by extension
all foreign policy nominations etc.
In 2008 John Brennan was working for the Obama campaign when
someone from his outside government group, The Analysis Corporation, “hacked”
into the state dept database to access the passport files and State Dept
records of Barack Obama.
John O. Brennan, Obama’s then top terrorism and intelligence adviser, was
the owner of The Analysis Corp. The company was cited in March 2008 for penetrating the files of presidential
candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain in the State
Department’s passport office.
At the time of the breach, John Brennan was working as an unpaid adviser to
the Obama campaign. After the breach was revealed by the Washington Times, Brennan stated:
“This individual’s actions were taken without the knowledge or direction
of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our
professional and ethical standards,” Brennan’s company said in a statement sent
to reporters after the passport breach was made public. (link)
The Washington Times Reported – Passport application
data includes such details as date and place of birth, e-mail address, mailing
address, Social Security number, former names and travel plans. Mr. Obama was
born in Honolulu in 1961 to a Kenyan father and American mother. He lived in
Jakarta, Indonesia, from age six to 10.
Computer-monitoring equipment detected the activities by the three
employees on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14, triggering alarms in each case, Mr.
McCormack said. Mr. McCormack said the officials accessed Mr. Obama’s
records “without a need to do so.”
“In each case, we immediately contacted our contractors, their employer,
and two were fired and one was disciplined,” he said. (link)
But it is important to remember EXACTLY what Brennan’s background was before
the State Department breach. Brennan spent 25 years working for the
CIA prior to the security breach:
Mr. Brennan spent most of his C.I.A. career as an analyst, but during
the 1990s served a tour as the chief of the station in Saudi
Arabia. From 1999 to early 2001, he was chief of
staff to George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, as the position
was then called. At the end of his CIA. service, in 2004 and 2005, Mr. Brennan
set up what is now the counterterrorism center. (link)
Yet, people would have us believe, after 25 years within the CIA, and after
being the Chief of Staff to the Director, and after being the person who set up
the counter terrorism center, and after being the CIA approved contractor for
the State dept., well, John Brennan just didn’t know that someone from his firm
was penetrating the passport files within the State Dept. on three occasions in
Jan and Feb 2008 to look at information of the candidate who he was
specifically working for.
That was their story, and they stuck to it in 2008.
After the initial inquiry, federal investigators maintained that the target
of the illegal activity was Senator Barack Obama’s passport file.
It does not take a stretch to come to the conclusion this was for the sole
purpose of cleansing records of information that would jeopardize Obama’s
candidacy. As many people speculated at the time, the breach
of the passport records of the other candidates was merely to create confusion.
Brennan was, at the time, an unpaid advisor working with Obama’s
campaign. Passport files include an applicant’s name, gender, social security
number, date and place of birth, and passport number. Additional information
may include birth certificates, naturalization certificates, or oaths of allegiance
for U.S. born persons who adopted the citizenship of a foreign country as
minors.
It is important to remember the oversight agency that would be investigating
the breach – The Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversees the State
Department.
At the time Senator Joe Biden was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee when the breach would be investigated.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice phoned Obama and personally apologized for the breach.
“I told him that I myself would be very disturbed if I learned that somebody
had looked into my passport file,” Rice told reporters. She phoned Clinton and
McCain and offered similar apologies.
Following the breach, State Department managers met with Senate Foreign
Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, whose committee has oversight over
the Foreign Service and the passport office. (link)
And, well, what do you know… Biden became the VP pick of Obama.
State Department employee, Lieutenant Quarles Harris, Jr. who had the
passport access, apparently was the guy who penetrated the database and
scrubbed the records. Harris was killed – April 18th, 2008.
Yes, Lieutenant Harris decided to cooperate with the FBI who were
investigating the break-in. Soon after his cooperation became a
matter of record, his body was discovered in his parked car; he had been shot twice in the head, likely a “suicide”.
Last point. In mid-February 2010, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs
alerted WH reporters that certain questions about Obama’s job with Business
International Corporation (BIC) would not be subject to
discussion. BIC was well known in Washington DC to be a front
company for the CIA; hence, many speculated the State Department passport
records were scrubbed to erase any potential mention of Obama’s CIA activities
and his personal information. You decide.
Here’s the thing, and I do mean this with great seriousness:
If you take a close look at it, you realize that seemingly every function of
the USAID as an institution came from the CIA. In essence, USAID was the
operational cover for the CIA. The CIA seemingly created the mechanics of
USAID for CIA purposes.
Now, once you look at USAID as an outreach arm of the CIA, then suddenly
everything USAID partnered with can realistically be looked at -at the very
least questioned- as a CIA operation working with joint partners for CIA
intentions.
This agency relationship means everything.
The recent story of USAID funding The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC),
which in turn was funding KKK ops, is just one example. In actuality, with the
nature of the relationship now being spotlighted, was the CIA directing
activity and funding KKK ops? If so the implications are remarkable.
When we transition our thinking to accept much of the USAID activity was a CIA
operation, it completely changes things. That shift in review, also reconciles
things. Additionally, it is worth noting that Barack Obama’s mom worked
for USAID.
The Clinton Foundation had a partnership with USAID. Ergo, essentially Bill
and Hillary were partnered with the CIA. Now, does the lack of accountability
for “Clinton Cash” or the pay-to-play make sense?
The same thing applies to Joe/Hunter Biden in Ukraine.
The Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin laptop. The Awan Brothers. The
Hunter Biden laptop, labeled as “Russian Disinformation” by former Acting CIA
Director Mike Morrell and others.
USAID Administrator Samantha Power traveling Europe organizing political
movements inside European and non-European countries. Well, that can now become
the CIA organizing ‘leftist’ political groups, when you accept CIA as the
chicken and USAID as the egg.
The entire analysis of how our govt is structured completely changes under
the perspective that CIA operations have been much more deeply enmeshed than
previously accepted. George H.W. Bush was a former CIA Director.
Now, we take recent events into that context.
The Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Marco
Rubio, a long time Gang of Eight member, becomes the U.S. Secretary of State.
What changes first?
What is the first priority?
USAID!
USAID is dissolved inside the State Dept.
Concurrently, the Directorate of Analysis inside the CIA, the office that
connects the NSA to the CIA, is removed from inside the CIA and put under the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The heads of
the Directorate of Analysis are removed and input feeding officials lose their
security clearances.
At the same time, the ODNI then replaces the CIA as the principal director
to assemble the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief (PDB).
Put these actions together: the political manipulation of the CIA analysis
desk is now confronted. The
outcome equities of the CIA are fact-checked and confronted (PDB)….
and the biggest move, the USAID operation that is run by the CIA to influence
both foreign and domestic government operations is dissolved.
However, that said, we must remember these are generational CIA constructs,
legacy networks with the ability to adapt, shrink and/or expand their muscle
memory depending on the objectives of who is watching them.
Then overlay the 5-eyes aspect that supports the foundational CIA operation,
and what we get is a likelihood that even if the domestic CIA is brought to
heel, the U.K (GCHQ), Canada, Australia and EU alliance part can still operate
on the original framework.
Now think about Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent opposition, his words
and network to whom he is speaking. Then President Obama and Mark Carney
assemble. Again, does that shift in perspective change the way these
events look?
This is our current status.
It certainly does seem that all roads, historic, recent and even
generational; along with almost all significant political events and the
political figures within them (Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama); have some
direct connection that leads back to Langley, Virginia.
Bumped and Updated as THE
FULL the transcript is now available. Segment #4 of the Transcript is
exceptionally interesting!
Reports are beginning to surface
about Russian President Vladimir Putin saying the end to the special military
operation in Ukraine is close. I am embedding the full press conference
video below as only part of his remarks
has been translated and transcribed.
President Putin is asked for his
overall impressions of the Victory Day events, and the context of the ceasefire
against the backdrop of a request by U.S. President Donald Trump. As with
most things Russian, the nuance is often between the lines.
[RU Transcript] – “President of Russia Vladimir Putin:
Good evening. Happy holiday once again, happy Victory Day.
Question: Let me start with today and the way
you view it, if I may. Today is a great and momentous day. Earlier, US
President Donald Trump came up with an initiative to declare a three-day
ceasefire. You supported it, so did Zelensky. However, on the eve of May 9,
there were still a number of grave and provocative statements coming from Kiev.
How would you assess today and the way events unfolded? Even the
military parade was held in a somewhat reduced format due to security concerns.
Could you share your overall assessment of the day? Were there any
provocations?
Vladimir Putin: As for provocations, as you can
see, I am here, and so far, the Defence Ministry has not reported anything of
that nature to me, so I cannot comment on it.
Regarding the parade. You know that this year – which is not an
anniversary year but nevertheless it is Victory Day – we decided that the
celebrations would go ahead in any case but without a display of military
hardware, and not for security concerns but primarily because the Armed Forces
should focus on the decisive defeat of the enemy within the framework of the
special military operation.”
“As for the provocative statements, all of those decisions had been made
much earlier than all those provocative statements were issued, as you said.
As for the statements, we have responded to them, as you know. The
Defence Ministry issued a certain initial statement – it is well known – that
in case an attempt were made to disrupt our celebration events, we will respond
with massive missile strikes on Kiev. Was there anything unclear about it? This
is what was intended to be a response.
We did not limit ourselves to it. It was followed by a Foreign
Ministry’s note, which is an official document, not just a declaration. But we
did not stop there. We started working with our major partners and friends,
primarily with our friends from the People’s Republic of China, India and some
other nations, including with the US administration. What did this work
involve? We simply presented our friends, colleagues, and partners with a
picture of what the situation could develop into. We have no desire to worsen
or damage relations with anyone. Such a situation could arise given that all
the command and decision-making centres in Kiev are located in close proximity
to the diplomatic missions of a number of countries – several dozen, in fact.
That is precisely the issue. When we began this dialogue with
the US administration, we drew their attention to this matter,
outlined the potential consequences, and asked them to do everything
necessary to ensure the security of their country’s diplomatic mission.
As a result of all these discussions, US President Donald Trump proposed
an additional two-day ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during that period.
We immediately agreed to this proposal, particularly because, in my
view, it was fully justified, motivated by respect for our shared victory over
Nazism, and clearly humanitarian in nature.
By the way, a few days earlier, on May 5, we had also submitted a
proposal for a prisoner exchange to the Ukrainian side and provided a list of
500 Ukrainian servicemen held in Russia. The initial response was that they
needed to review the proposal more carefully – perhaps not all 500, but maybe
200 – and after that they effectively disappeared from contact and later stated
directly that they were not prepared for such an exchange. They did not want
it.
Therefore, when the proposal from US President Donald Trump was put
forward, we, of course, immediately supported it. We hope that, in this case, the
Ukrainian side will ultimately respond positively to the proposal of the US
President. Unfortunately, so far, we have not received any
response.”
SEGMENT 2
Alexei Konopko: Good afternoon. May name is Alexei Konopko,
Rossiya Channel.
Mr President, you have held a veritable marathon of bilateral
meetings. Can you tell us about the main issue addressed during these
talks?
If I may, I would like to ask an additional question
on a related subject.
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Alexei Konopko: We often saw representatives of one
more former Soviet republic, Armenia, at our Victory parades. They have
not come this year. But several days ago, Pashinyan met with Zelensky, who used
that opportunity to make threats towards Russia.
What is your attitude to this? How can relations with Yerevan
develop?
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Speaking about my bilateral meetings
and what they focused on, the main issue for Russia
and for other countries, in this case, friendly countries,
as we say, whose representatives have come to Moscow
for celebration events, was Victory Day. Our conversations focused
on it, on the common result we achieved in the fight
against Nazism, on ways to perpetuate the memory of heroes
of the Great Patriotic War and World War II,
and on using this memory as the foundation for efforts
to prevent a repetition of these events in the future.
Of course, we also discussed bilateral relations. Of primary
importance are certainly our relations with our closest allies
and partners – Belarus, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Our trade with Belarus is more than $50 billion. Isn’t this
an impressive figure for a country with barely 10 million
of population? There is a great deal we have to discuss; there
are really many issues of mutual concern.
This is also true about Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which are
rapidly developing economies. We have solid plans, including
in investment. We have common interests with Kazakhstan
in the framework of the EAEU. We also have common interests
with the countries whose representatives I have held meetings with,
for example, Laos. It is an important partner. Our mutual trade
in US dollars is very modest, but the outlook is good,
and the country is advantageously located. ASEAN is an important
region for us.
There were issues to discuss in each particular case,
and the talks were substantive and pragmatic.
As for the plans of Armenia
and the Armenian authorities, you know that we have not specially
invited anyone because this is not a jubilee. But we forwarded information
to all countries saying that we would be glad if they will come, that we
do not shut our door to anyone. No official invitations have been sent
out, and so not only Armenia but also many other countries that are our
good neighbours, partners and friends have not been represented here
today. I do not regard this as anything strange.
However, those who have come here have demonstrated a degree
of personal courage, because they only learned about certain arrangements,
including President Trump’s initiative to extend the ceasefire
period, exchange prisoners, and so on, they only learned about
a certain easing of tensions after they have come here. They did not
know about them before, yet they decided to be here with us, which
deserves special respect. However, I would like to repeat that we do
not regard the absence of other people as strange.
As for Armenia’s plans to join the EU, this
certainly requires special consideration. We discussed it with Prime Minister
Nikol Pashinyan on several occasions, and do not see anything strange
about it. Actually, he can confirm that I have told him several times,
and can repeat this in public now, that we will support everything
that will benefit the Armenian people. We maintained special relations
with the Armenian people for centuries. And if the Armenian
people consider any decision as beneficial, we will certainly have nothing
to say against it.
However, of course, we should keep in mind some circumstances
that are important both for us and for our partners. What does
this mean? For instance, our trade with Armenia has decreased now; it was
much bigger last year and the year before last – $7 billion
in 2025 was quite good. Given that the country’s GDP is $29 billion,
this is a serious amount, and Armenia also enjoys considerable
advantages in the EAEU. They concern agriculture, manufacturing,
customs and other duties and so on and so forth. They
concern migration. And I think it would be right with respect to the people,
the Armenian citizens, and to us as its main economic
partner, if a decision was made as soon as possible,
for instance, at a referendum. This is not our business, but
as a matter of principle it would be logical to ask
the Armenian citizens what their choice will be. On seeing it we will
make the relevant conclusions and take the path
of a gentle, intelligent and mutually beneficial divorce.
We are currently living through everything that is happening
in respect of Ukraine. And how did it start? It started with
Ukraine’s joining or attempting to join the EU. They completed
the first stage, only the first stage. Even then we started
discussing it, including with the Europeans. We told them: listen,
phytosanitary standards are absolutely different in your countries –
in the EU – and in Russia. By the way, our
phytosanitary standards are much stricter. It is impossible for your
products to come to the Russian market via Ukraine. We cannot
allow this – at that time we had free borders, a free trade zone
with Ukraine – and we will have to close our borders.
The same relates to many industrial goods.
Frankly speaking, I was surprised by such a tough,
straightforward position on the Europeans’ part. They took
a harsh stand: No, no, no on each issue. In the end,
the then President Yanukovych read [the association agreement] more
carefully, figured it out, and said: No, I am probably not ready
for this yet. The reason is that it meant too much damage
to the economy of Ukraine. He did not decline to join. He
said: I should return to it once again and analyse everything.
All this has later led to the state coup, to the Crimean
story, to the stand taken by the south-eastern regions
of Ukraine, and combat operations. That’s what it’s all led to. It is
a serious question.
Therefore, they should not take it to the extreme; they just
need to say in a timely manner that they will do this
and that. There is nothing strange in it. Everything must be
calculated. Both by the Armenian side and our side should do it.
While I am answering I think that this issue may well be raised
at the next EAEU summit.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon. My name is Andrei
Kolesnikov, Kommersant.
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Mr President, you said some time ago that
you would announce a ceasefire from May 8.
Vladimir Putin: Yes.
Andrei Kolesnikov: And Zelensky immediately said that
he would announce a ceasefire from May 6. You have not said anything
to that. Why?
And one more thing. The media wrote that Robert Fico was
to convey a message to you from Vladimir Zelensky. Has he
conveyed it? Nothing has been said on this score. We don’t know anything.
Maybe it is because you still need to force yourself to deal with
Vladimir Zelensky?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: First, about the ceasefire.
The issue of May 9 celebrations was raised during my latest
telephone conversation with US President Trump. Incidentally, I think he
spoke very well about that. He recalled our alliance in the fight
against Nazism.
I told him about my plans to declare a ceasefire
on May 8 and 9. Why May 8? Because victory is celebrated
in Europe on May 8, and Ukraine has accepted this too,
and I think that they now celebrate Victory Day on May 8.
But this is not important. What matters is that President Trump actively
supported that initiative, which we made public a day later. However, our
announcement has not produced any reaction. A day or two later, when
Kiev considered the matter and saw that the US Administration
supported our idea, they saw fit to react to it. How could they
react? They probably deemed it unprofitable to simply accepting our
initiative, and that is why they advanced their own idea, a ceasefire
starting May 6.
You know that May 9 is not a comedy show combined with piano
playing for us in Russia. It is a sacred day for us because
every family has suffered. The Russian Federation has lost about 70
percent out of the 27 million lives laid on the altar
of Victory in the Soviet Union. According to post-war
documents, the Russian Federation lost nearly 70 percent or more
precisely more than 69 percent.
How many lives has Russia lost if the total number is 27 million?
Nearly 19 million lives. Of course, this is an event that concerns
every citizen of the Russian Federation, every family. We are not
playing games here.
We made our proposal, and there was no reaction for two days.
And then they suddenly started playing games. We don’t play such games.
However, since the US President later proposed a prisoner
swap, which we also suggested doing on May 5 – you can ask [FSB Director
Alexander] Bortnikov, who won’t conceal that we sent a list of 500
names – we welcomed the idea and were ready to implement
it. And we did so. We extended the ceasefire for two days hoping
to exchange prisoners. I hope that we will ultimately do it.
What was the second part of the question about?
Andrei Kolesnikov: It is about the message.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, Mr Fico told me about it; he told me
about his meeting. Actually, there was no special message, I just heard
once again that the Ukrainian side, Mr Zelensky, is ready to hold
a personal meeting. Yes, I’ve heard it. But this is not the first
time that we hear it.
What can I say in this regard? That we have never refused,
and I have not refused to hold it. I do not propose this
meeting, but if someone does, we are ready for it. Let the one who
proposes arrive. Let him come in Moscow, and we will meet.
We could meet in a third country, but only after reaching
final understandings on a peace agreement, which should be designed
for a long historical perspective, so that a meeting is held
to sign it. However, it should be the final point, not negotiations
themselves because we know what negotiations themselves are.
I was personally closely involved in this process
in Minsk during the drafting of the Minsk agreements. You
can talk for hours, endlessly, day and night, and all to no
avail. Professionals should work everything out, doing everything to make
the documents clear to both sides and coordinate all aspects
of these understandings. In this case we can meet anywhere either
to put the signature or to attend the signing.
Alexander Yunashev: May I ask for more details
about Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin: You are welcome.
Alexander Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Live.
Good afternoon, Mr President. Happy holiday.
Vladimir Putin: Good evening.
Alexander Yunashev: In view of what you have said
about negotiations, what do you think, in general, about continuing
to work with the Americans on the settlement
of the Ukraine conflict? The pause has been protracted;
the last round of talks took place in winter. Given that Rubio
said that maybe it is not worth investing time in it at all.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, this primarily concerns Russia
and Ukraine. If someone wants to help us and is doing so,
and we can see that the current US Administration
and the US President are sincerely, I want to emphasise it,
seeking a settlement – they obviously have no need for this
conflict, and have many other priorities – then we can only be
thankful to them. However, this is, above all, a matter
for Russia and Ukraine.
Pavel Zarubin: Good evening. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya Channel.
The developments around Iran have been the hottest
international topic for the past two and a half months,
of course. How will the situation in the Middle East, in the Persian
Gulf will develop? Do you think there is a real possibility
of a peace agreement between the United States and Iran?
I also can’t help but ask this question. You have recently said
that the terrorist threat is growing, meaning the Kiev regime. We can
see that such strikes are targeting cities located far away from
the border, such as Yekaterinburg, Perm, and recently,
Cheboksary. Is the West going too far? The West has admitted that
the Kiev regime would not have survived several days without its support,
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: What exactly is the West?
I believe that it is the so-called globalist part
of the Western elites. It is them who are fighting against us
by proxy of Ukraine. They have it pretty good in this respect,
of course, having provoked this conflict. I have already spoke about
how it all started. I have not invented anything about the initial
reference point. Strangely, it all began with Ukraine’s decision to join
the EU. They could go ahead by all means, but this has led to a military
conflict. Why has this happened? Because they had no regard for Russia’s
interests whatsoever.
Moreover, seeking to use Ukraine as an instrument
for attaining their geopolitical goals, these people in the West
lied to everyone, as they have now openly admitted. They started
to lie to us about the non-expansion of NATO
to the east at the beginning of the 1990s. They
told us that NATO would not move a single step eastward. Well, where are
they now?
Taken together, all this has provoked the current situation. They
are fighting against us, which has become clear to everyone, by proxy
of Ukraine.
We have recently discussed this issue with our colleagues, remembering
how it all started. We concluded an agreement with the Ukrainians
and initialled it in Istanbul in 2022. And then one
of my colleagues – frankly, it was Macron who did it –
called me and said, “Ukraine cannot sign such documents with a gun
to its head.” This is a direct quote; we have the tape
of that conversation. I asked him, “What should we do?” He said, “Can
you withdraw troops from Kiev?” We have done it. One member
of the show business popped up, the then Prime Minister
of Britain. What did he say? He said that the agreement cannot be
signed because it is unfair. Who says what is fair and what is not? Why is
it unfair if the head of the Ukrainian negotiating team has
initialled the document? Who is the judge? Next, they promised
assistance [to Ukraine] and started fostering confrontation with Russia,
which is continuing to this day. I believe that the matter is
coming to an end, but this is really a serious matter.
The question is why they are doing this. First, they expected a
“crushing defeat” of Russia, as we know, the collapse of Russian statehood
within a matter of several months. It did not work out. And then they got stuck
in that groove, and now they cannot get out of it. That’s the problem. There
are certainly clever people over there, those who certainly understand the
essence of the current events. I hope that these political forces will
gradually return to power or will take power into their own hands with support
from the overwhelming majority of European countries.”
Regarding relations between Iran and the United States, this
is a highly difficult and complex conflict. It places us
in a sensitive position because we maintain good relations with Iran
and, without exaggeration, friendly relations with the countries
of the Persian Gulf. We remain in contact with all sides
and hope this confrontation can be brought to an end as quickly
as possible.
In my view, there are no longer many actors interested
in prolonging this conflict. Of course, we understand that any
agreements must take into account the interests of all nations and states
in the region. There are different options, and while
I would prefer not to discuss specific scenarios as we see them
now, it is possible to imagine what form they can take and that they
can be reached.
By contrast, if the situation continues to escalate into
a higher level of confrontation, everyone stands to lose.
Segment 3
Rossina Bodrova: Happy Victory Day! Rossina Bodrova, Zvezda
TV Channel.
Mr President, we know there is a “coalition
of the willing” supporting Kiev and Ukraine, but recently there
also seems to be a growing – or perhaps re-emerging –
“coalition of the willing” interested in restoring contacts with
Russia. The President of the European Council mentioned this
yesterday, adding that they are looking for an ideal candidate
to represent Europe in such contacts.
Question: Who would you personally prefer for negotiations? Do you
think there are still pragmatic politicians left in Western Europe with
whom dialogue is possible?
Vladimir Putin: Personally, I would prefer former
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Otherwise, Europeans should choose
a leader they trust, someone who has not badmouthed Russia. We have never
closed the door to negotiations. It was not Russia that refused
dialogue; it was our counterparts.
Anna Kurbatova: Good afternoon, Mr President. Anna
Kurbatova, Channel One.
It is a difficult question, if I may, about what we are seeing
now.
Vladimir Putin: Is it really necessary to ask
a difficult question? Today is a holiday.
Anna Kurbatova: The skies over the Baltic region
are now becoming a corridor for Ukrainian drones. The drones
used in strikes against Russia are assembled in factories within
the European Union. The Russian Ministry of Defence has even
published locations and details. What does Russia intend to do with
this information?
And another point – this question has already been asked, but
I would like to elaborate: Russia has been expanding a security
buffer zone in border regions, but drones continue to strike deeper
inside Russia, including places such as Perm, the Leningrad Region,
and Tuapse. Does this mean the security zone may need to expand
further? Maybe to the western borders of Ukraine, where…
Vladimir Putin: You have answered your own question. Our
objective is to ensure that no one can threaten Russia. That is what we
will continue to pursue.
We know that Ukraine receives technology from Europe and that some
systems are assembled there. They are playing for the upper hand, but
judging by what has just been said, they are already seeking contacts with
us, realising that this play for the upper hand could be costly.
Please go ahead.
Hassan Nassr: Thank you very much. Hassan Nassr, RT Arabic.
Mr President, I would like to return to the issue
of the developments in the Persian Gulf. One
of the strict demands the United States continues to insist
upon is the removal of highly enriched uranium.
Russia previously offered its own territory as a site
for that transfer, but the United States keeps rejecting
the proposal. At the same time, Iran has stated that it wants
to retain the uranium. Under these circumstances, what solution do
you see to this deadlock?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I will let you
in on something, although it is not much of a secret
really.
Not only did we make such an offer; we already implemented it once
before, back in 2015. Iran has complete trust in us, and not
without reason. First, we have never violated any agreements, and second,
we continue to cooperate with Iran on peaceful nuclear energy
programmes. We built the Bushehr [nuclear power plant], which is now
operational, and we are carrying on with our work there. Our
cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear energy continues
regardless of the current developments. So, we already carried out
this arrangement in 2015, and it became the foundation
for the agreement reached between Iran and all
the interested parties, playing a highly constructive role. We
therefore have practical experience in this matter,
and as I have already mentioned, we remain ready to do it
again.
At the outset – and this is somewhat sensitive
information – everyone agreed to the idea: representatives
of the United States agreed, as did Iran and Israel.
However, later the United States toughened its stance, insisting that
the materials be transferred exclusively to its territory.
In response, Iran also hardened its own position. Mr Ali Larijani visited
[Russia]. Sadly, he has since passed away, which is a great loss. He was
someone with whom it was possible to have a constructive dialogue; he
listened carefully, and responded thoughtfully. So back then, he arrived
and said: “You know, we have revised our position as well. We are no
longer prepared to export this enriched uranium anywhere. Instead, we are
proposing a new format of cooperation with Russia – establishing
a joint venture on the Iranian territory and jointly
diluting the uranium there.” I replied: “Okay, that is acceptable
to us. The most important thing is reducing tensions.” But
I also said that I doubted anyone else – neither the United
States nor Israel – would agree to such a proposal.
And that is what happened. Frankly speaking, the situation
in this area has now reached an impasse.
Our proposals remain on the table, and I believe
they are reasonable. Why? First, if everyone agrees to them, Iran could
feel fully confident that the materials will be transferred
to a friendly country – one that cooperates with Iran
and intends to continue cooperating in the peaceful use
of nuclear energy. Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no ambitions
related to nuclear weapons or other military nuclear programmes.
There is also the fatwa issued by the previous Iranian supreme
leader, and we have heard repeated public statements on this matter.
Moreover, the IAEA has never stated that it possesses evidence showing Iran
is pursuing nuclear weapons. At the same time, I believe
the other participants in the process could also be interested
in such a solution and find it acceptable.
First, everyone would know exactly what materials exist, in what
quantity, and where they are located. Second, everything would remain
under IAEA supervision. And finally, the process of diluting
the uranium would also take place under IAEA oversight,
in a transparent and safe manner. For our part, we do not
need anything from this. At the same time, we don’t need anything
merely to, excuse the expression, flex political muscle and claim
that nothing can be done without us. We simply want to make our fair share
of contribution acceptable to all sides toward easing tensions.
And if this proposal does not suit everyone, then so be it.
In any case, we will support any arrangement or solution that helps
break the deadlock and opens the path toward a peaceful
settlement. I also believe there are still nuances and areas where
compromise is possible, although I will not go into those details right
now.
As is known, extensive preparations are underway for your
upcoming visit to China, and a meeting between
President Trump and President Xi Jinping is also expected. Is
there any connection between these diplomatic contacts? And,
if I may ask, what key issues would you like to discuss with Xi
Jinping?
Vladimir Putin: “There is no secrecy here.
First, we constantly emphasise that cooperation between Russia
and China is an essential factor stabilising international relations
today. We now have very few remaining agreements regulating international
security, disarmament, and nuclear arms control. In this context,
cooperation between countries such as Russia and China serves
as an important factor in deterrence and strategic
stability.
Second, China is our largest trade and economic partner. Bilateral
trade exceeds $140 billion – which is an impressive result –
and continues to grow.
Third, this trade is increasingly diversified, particularly through
cooperation in high-technology sectors. I would like to express
my gratitude to the leadership of the People’s
Republic of China – and personally to President Xi Jinping,
whom I have every reason to call my friend –
for supporting this diversification into advanced technologies. I see
and feel this support directly.
We also have major areas of cooperation in energy, including
nuclear energy. We continue our joint work in China to construct
nuclear power facilities. There are also opportunities for cooperation
in alternative energy, an area in which China has achieved major
progress. In addition, our cooperation extends to space
and traditional energy resources such as hydrocarbons, both oil
and gas. I will not go into details at this stage, but
I can say that we are very close to agreement
on taking a highly significant step forward in oil and gas
cooperation. I will not get ahead of myself
on these matters; according to reports from my colleagues, most
of the key issues have already been coordinated. If we are able
to finalise them during the visit, I would be very pleased.
As for continued contacts between the United States
and China, we regard them as important and welcome them. This is
another factor contributing to global stability.
As they are each other’s major trade and economic partners,
the nature of their relations has a substantial impact
on the global economy. We are following developments closely and hope
there will be no illegitimate sanctions or escalating
economic tensions between these two states. Stability
and constructive engagement between the United States and China
can only benefit us.
Anton Zolotnitsky: Anton Zolotnitsky, Izvestiya Multimedia
Information Centre.
I would like to go back to the subject
of Victory Day. European politicians have put pressure
on the leaders who gathered in Moscow and, at large,
continue their attempts to revise history by erasing the Soviet
Union’s role in the defeat of Nazism.
How do you assess these actions, so to speak? And where do you
think they could ultimately lead Europe?
Vladimir Putin: This kind of stupidity could eventually lead
them to poverty.
Olga Volkova: Olga Volkova, RIA Novosti.
To follow up on my colleague’s question, I would
like to ask about historical memory and its preservation. Why do you
think Europe is now so determined to avoid acknowledging the heroism
of Soviet soldiers and Soviet fighters? They have even gone so far as to ban
St George ribbons.
Given the current sentiment in the West, do you think
this trend will intensify? Is there anything Russia can do in response?
Vladimir Putin: The stronger Russia becomes, the sooner
all of this will begin to fade. That is the first point.
Second, why is this happening at all? In my view, this
is, oddly enough, a form of revanchism on the part
of the same globalist Western elites I have mentioned
earlier – and I should not even bring them up late
in the day.
What do I mean by that? As I have already
said – and we all are aware of this – everyone expected
Russia to collapse quickly. In their view, within six
months everything would have supposedly fallen apart:
businesses would have stopped functioning, the banking system would have failed,
and millions of people would have lost their livelihoods.
Incidentally, Russia currently has the unemployment rate
of 2.2 percent – the lowest among all G20 countries. Yet many
believed they would be able to seize something from Russia and grab
something, if you’ll excuse the blunt expression.
Why did Finland join NATO? Did we have any territorial disputes with
Finland? No. All such issues had long been resolved. Nothing further was
needed, and the Finnish leadership was perfectly aware of that.
So why did they join NATO? Because they expected everything here
to collapse – and they would be quick to snap that up.
Now they are already constructing a border fence along
the Sestra River. I could make a certain gesture or comment
about it, but since I come from the cultural capital, I will
restrain myself. In many ways, I believe what we are witnessing is
driven precisely by this type of thinking.
But now people are beginning to understand that the situation
is not so simple and that serious challenges have emerged, and those
are not easy to overcome. It would be wiser to look for ways
to restore normal relations and move toward mutually acceptable
agreements.
I hope the understanding that this approach was mistaken is
already beginning to emerge and will continue to grow stronger.
And I hope that relations will eventually be restored with many
of the countries that are currently attempting to denounce us.
The sooner that happens, the better it will be for us and,
in this case, for the European countries.
First, Ukraine was/is apparently worried that returning prisoners may not be
in alliance with Ukraine’s war effort. Second, it appears the diplomatic
warning provided by President Putin to President Trump was the impetus for
Trump suggesting an extended ceasefire. Third, from the way Putin is
describing U.S. and Trump contact, it is reasonable to infer the lines of
communication are very open.
[You can use the closed captioning option to review
the full remarks if you want to get ahead of the FULL transcript release.]
FULL PRESSER: Russian President Putin Says Russia Near
“Serious” Oil & Gas Deal With China | AC15
The
outcome equities of the CIA are fact-checked and confronted (PDB)