Vladimir Putin Updates Reporters and the World on Russia’s Ukraine Policy
4 September 2025 by Larry C. Johnson

Vladimir Putin held a press conference in China Tuesday night Beijing time and provided a thorough update on Russia’s policy regarding Ukraine and negotiations with the United States. You can find the full transcript here.

To begin, I want to draw your attention to President Putin’s reaction to Donald Trump’s juvenile Truth-post where he accused Putin and Kim Jong-un of conspiring against the US. Putin’s response is a classic example of a statesman in action:

E. Mukhametshina: Trump commented on the parade before it even took place, and said, “I hope Xi will remember the American soldiers who helped China during World War II.” He also wrote, “Please convey my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un as they plot against the United States.”

How can you comment on this?

V. Putin: The President of the United States is not devoid of humour – everything is clear, everyone knows it well. I have developed a good relationship with him. We address each other by name.

I can tell you, and I hope he will hear it as well: It may seem strange, but during these four days of negotiations, both informal and formal, no one has ever expressed any negative opinions about the current American administration. This is the first point.

Second. All of my interlocutors, without exception, I want to emphasize, all of them supported our meeting in Anchorage. And they all expressed their hope that President Trump’s position and the positions of Russia and the other negotiators would lead to the end of the armed conflict. This is without any irony or jokes.

Since I’m saying this in public, it will be seen and heard all over the world, and that’s the best way to ensure that I’m telling the truth. Why? Because the people I’ve been talking to over the past four days will also hear this, and they’ll be the ones to say, “Yes, it’s true.” I wouldn’t have done this if it wasn’t true, because it would have made me look bad in front of my friends, allies, and strategic partners. That’s exactly how it happened.

And I would like to return to what I said to your colleague on my right. The activities of the SCO and those of our partners, including our strategic partners, are not aimed at fighting anyone, but rather at finding the best ways to develop ourselves, our countries, our peoples, and our economies.

Putin kept it on the high road, at least with respect to Donald Trump. Mr. Putin had a slightly different reaction to remarks by German Chancellor Merz, who had labeled President Putin as a “war criminal.” This is quite ironic coming out of Merz’s piehole, in light of the tongue baths he has lathered on Bibi Netanyahu — a genuine war criminal.

A. Kolesnikov: Andrey Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.

And if you don’t mind, one more question.  A few hours ago, the German Chancellor, Mr. Merz, called you perhaps the most serious war criminal of our time.  What do you think about that?

V. Putin: When?

A. Kolesnikov: Just a couple of hours ago.

V. Putin: I see. . . .

As for the statements you mentioned, which Peskov also mentioned to me just a few minutes ago, what do I think about them? I think that this is an unsuccessful attempt to absolve himself, not personally, but his country and the “collective West” in general, of responsibility for the tragedy that is currently unfolding in Ukraine.

What do I mean? I have already said this many times: in 2014, the ministers of three European countries came to Kiev and signed a document that was essentially an agreement between the current government, then-President Yanukovych, and the opposition. According to this agreement, all political disputes were to be resolved within the constitutional framework, peacefully and legally.

And just a day or two later, there was a coup d’état, a bloody and brutal one. None of these guarantors did anything to bring the situation back into the legal framework. This is where the conflict began, because immediately after that, events began to unfold in Crimea, and the Kiev regime launched military operations using armored vehicles and aircraft against the civilian population of those regions of Ukraine that did not agree with the coup d’état. They then undermined all our attempts to resolve the issue peacefully and publicly refused to implement the Minsk agreements.

So who is to blame for the tragedy that is happening? Those who have brought us to this situation by completely ignoring Russia’s security interests. If someone believes that it is acceptable to treat the people of our country with such disregard, they should know that we will never allow such a situation where Russia remains passive and does not respond to the events unfolding around it.

Putin is quite clear that he holds the West totally responsible for creating the predicates that led to the Special Military Operation (SMO) in February 2022. His warning to the West is clear: If you treat Russia with disregard, Russia will respond appropriately.

President Putin’s response to a question about the when the SMO will end revealed that Mr. Putin remains hopeful that a deal to end the war can be struck, but he also is ready to end it militarily.

O. Skabeeva: Good evening! Olga Skabeeva, Russia TV channel. . . .

And another important question about the special operation: Vladimir Vladimirovich, is there a chance that it will end in the near future? How do you feel about it, do you feel that we are moving towards the end?

V.Putin: I will probably start with the second part, as it is the key part.

Back in 2022, we suggested that the Ukrainian authorities respect the choice of the people living in the southeast of Ukraine, withdraw their troops, and end the conflict immediately. I must say that this suggestion was not completely rejected.

But after we withdrew our troops from Kiev at the insistence of our Western European colleagues, the situation changed, and we were told, almost verbatim, that we would continue to fight until either you turned your head or we turned ours. I don’t remember if I said this publicly, but it was something like that, albeit in more blunt terms, but it was quite open and, oddly enough, friendly: it was either us or you. This is still ongoing.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that if common sense prevails, it will be possible to agree on an acceptable way to end this conflict. This is my assumption.

Moreover, we can see the mood of the current US administration under President Trump, and it’s not just about their calls, but their genuine desire to find a solution. I believe there is a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel. Let’s see how the situation unfolds. If not, we will have to address our challenges through military means.

Lastly, I encourage you to read Putin’s answers to two questions he received regarding security guarantees and achieving a negotiated outcome. He is not just doing some fancy lawyer tap dancing as he analyzes the Ukrainian constitution… Putin explains very clearly why negotiating with Zelensky is a dead end.

P. Zarubin: Good evening!

Pavel Zarubin, Russia TV channel.

You often talk about the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, and yesterday, by the way, you also talked about the reasons for Ukraine’s accession to NATO. However, we are now witnessing European leaders who claim to provide security guarantees for Ukraine but are primarily focused on deploying their troops in Ukraine. Additionally, many continue to advocate for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.

But we also see that the European Union is rapidly transforming from an economic union into a military-political bloc, with almost constant aggressive decisions and statements.

How can you comment on all these scenarios?

V.Putin: I agree with those who believe that every country has the right to choose its own security system. This applies to all countries, including Ukraine. However, it also means that the security of one party cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of another party, in this case, the Russian Federation.

We have always opposed Ukraine’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but we have never questioned its right to conduct its economic and business activities as it sees fit, including its membership in the European Union.

A. Yunashev: Can we continue about Ukraine?

V. Putin: You can.

A. Yunashev: Alexander Yunashev, Life.

When Russia and the United States are discussing their efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution in Ukraine, the formula of “security guarantees in exchange for territory” is becoming increasingly popular. Does this align with what you discussed with Trump in Alaska?

And what do you mean when you say that Russia is ready to join in developing these guarantees? Who should be the guarantor, in your opinion?

And, if you don’t mind, about Zelensky: is there any point in meeting with him now, in the current circumstances? Is it possible to reach any agreements at this meeting?

Thank you.

V. Putin: The first part, once again.

A. Yunashev: The US efforts – there are some speculations now that there is a formula of “security guarantees in exchange for territories”.

V. Putin: No, we have never raised this issue or discussed it in this way.

Security guarantees are natural, and I often talk about them. We believe that every country should have these guarantees and a security system, including Ukraine. However, this is not related to any exchanges, let alone territorial exchanges.

To be honest, I want to emphasize that we are not fighting for territories so much as we are fighting for human rights and for the right of the people who live in these territories to speak their own language, to live within their own culture, and to follow the traditions that have been passed down from previous generations, from their fathers, grandfathers, and so on. This is the main focus of our efforts.

And if these people, in the course of electoral democratic procedures, including referendums, expressed their support for being part of the Russian Federation, this opinion should be respected. This is democracy – I want to remind those who forget about it. And, among other things, this is fully in line with international law: I would like to recall the first articles of the Charter [of the Organization] The United Nations, which explicitly states the right of nations to self-determination.

But we don’t link one to the other – territories and security guarantees. Of course, we can say that these are related topics, but we don’t directly link them. This was not a topic discussed during the Anchorage discussion.

As for possible meetings with Mr. Zelensky, I have already spoken about this. In general, I have never ruled out the possibility of such a meeting. Is there any point in these meetings? Let’s see.

According to the Constitution of Ukraine – some people may agree with it, some may not, you just need to read the text carefully – there are no provisions in the Constitution of Ukraine for extending the term of office of the President of Ukraine. If you are elected for a five-year term, and five years have passed, your term of office has ended.

There is a provision according to which elections are not held during martial law. Yes, this is true. However, this does not mean that the president’s powers are extended. Instead, it means that his powers expire, and his rights are transferred to the Speaker of the Rada, including his authority as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.

What should the current authorities do if they want to be legitimate and fully participate in the settlement process? First of all, they should hold a referendum: according to the Ukrainian Constitution, territorial issues can only be resolved through a referendum, as far as I remember. However, a referendum cannot be held during a state of war, which is also a provision of the Constitution. Therefore, in order to hold a referendum, the state of war must be lifted. Once this is done, elections must be held. This process will continue indefinitely.

The result of the election is unclear, but whatever the result, it is necessary to obtain a corresponding opinion from the Constitutional Court, as stated in the main law. However, how can one obtain a Constitutional Court opinion when, after the authorities demanded that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine confirm the extension of the president’s powers, and the court effectively refused to do so, what happened in Ukraine? It may sound ridiculous, but the security guards refused to allow the chairman of the Constitutional Court to enter his office.

That’s it, the movie’s over. But not quite, because as far as I know, I don’t know where he is right now, but at one point, he went abroad. However, in recent years, the powers of some members of the Constitutional Court have expired. As a result, the court lacks the necessary quorum to make decisions. Therefore, it is a dead-end path to simply hold meetings with the current head of administration, let’s say, in a delicate manner.

It is possible – I have never refused to do this – if this meeting is well-prepared and leads to some positive possible results. By the way, Donald asked me if it was possible to hold such a meeting. I said yes, it is possible. After all, if Zelensky is ready, he can come to Moscow and the meeting will take place.

This is the key paragraph from his remarks:

according to the Ukrainian Constitution, territorial issues can only be resolved through a referendum, as far as I remember. However, a referendum cannot be held during a state of war, which is also a provision of the Constitution. Therefore, in order to hold a referendum, the state of war must be lifted. Once this is done, elections must be held. This process will continue indefinitely.

I hope President Trump and his envoy, Mr. Witkoff, are paying attention to Mr. Putin’s carefully chosen words.

https://sonar21.com/vladimir-putin-updates-reporters-and-the-world-on-russias-ukraine-policy/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.