An Interview with Vladimir Putin — President of the Russian Federation : Aura Solution Company Limited

Strategic Geopolitical Interview — Russia, Peace & Power in Transition (2026)

Participants

Amy Brown — Wealth Manager, Aura Solution Company Limited

Vladimir Putin — President of the Russian Federation

Russia–Ukraine Peace Process

Amy Brown:Mr. President, many international observers suggest that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine may be approaching a decisive diplomatic phase. From your perspective, how do you assess the current state of the peace process, and what conditions are necessary for it to succeed?

Vladimir Putin:History demonstrates that armed conflicts ultimately conclude at the negotiating table. However, negotiations must be anchored in strategic realities rather than abstract political narratives. Over recent years, we have observed cycles of escalation influenced not solely by military developments but also by external political messaging and geopolitical calculations.

A sustainable peace requires acknowledgment of the underlying security concerns that predated the conflict. For Russia, the question has always centered on long-term strategic stability — specifically, assurances that military infrastructure will not be deployed in ways that threaten our national security. Any agreement must include credible, legally binding guarantees, supported by verification mechanisms, to ensure durability beyond short-term political cycles.

Our position is not contingent upon temporary tactical advantages. It is rooted in the principle that stability on the European continent must be indivisible and mutually reinforcing. The Russian people, like all nations, seek stability, economic development, and normalcy. Yet peace cannot be constructed on unilateral concessions or ambiguous commitments. It must be balanced, enforceable, and structured in a manner that prevents recurrence of confrontation.

Europe’s Military Support and Diplomatic Messaging

Amy Brown:European governments have allocated substantial financial and military assistance to Ukraine while simultaneously advocating peace and de-escalation. Many commentators describe this as contradictory. How do you interpret Europe’s position, particularly that of the European Union?

Vladimir Putin:From our perspective, there is a visible tension between rhetoric and policy. On one hand, European leaders publicly express support for diplomatic resolution and stability. On the other, they continue supplying advanced weapons systems, ammunition, and financial resources that sustain military operations.

Military assistance inevitably influences the duration and intensity of a conflict. It alters strategic calculations and shapes expectations on the battlefield. When one party anticipates sustained external backing, the perceived urgency for compromise may diminish. Consequently, calls for peace, when accompanied by expanded military commitments, can create the impression that negotiations are intended to reshape strategic conditions rather than immediately end hostilities.

If peace is the declared objective, actions should align consistently with de-escalation. Diplomatic initiatives must be supported by tangible measures that reduce confrontation rather than reinforce it. Sustainable reconciliation requires coherence between public declarations and operational policy.

United States Sanctions and Diplomatic Positioning

Amy Brown:The United States continues to expand sanctions and discourage business engagement with Russia while simultaneously emphasizing its commitment to peace. How do you interpret this dual-track approach?

Vladimir Putin:Sanctions are structured instruments of economic pressure. They are designed to constrain financial capacity, limit access to technology, and influence internal dynamics. In practical terms, they constitute a form of economic confrontation.

When such measures intensify concurrently with diplomatic language advocating peace, questions of consistency inevitably arise. Effective dialogue requires a minimum threshold of trust and predictability. If financial channels are systematically restricted, companies are pressured to withdraw, and trade barriers expand, the overall atmosphere shifts toward coercion rather than cooperation.

Peace cannot be achieved solely through pressure mechanisms. Sustainable agreements emerge when both parties acknowledge each other’s legitimate security concerns and economic interests. Otherwise, negotiations risk becoming symbolic exercises, while underlying policies remain adversarial.

For durable stability, diplomatic messaging must correspond with policy conduct. Without that alignment, confidence erodes and strategic uncertainty increases — conditions that are incompatible with lasting peace.

Amy Brown:In conclusion, would you say that the international system is currently undergoing a broader strategic transition?

Vladimir Putin:Yes, the global order is clearly evolving. Power distribution is becoming more multipolar, economic partnerships are diversifying, and technological advancements are reshaping strategic calculations. In such an environment, predictability and structured dialogue among major powers become even more essential.

Peace and stability in this transitional period require pragmatic engagement, respect for sovereignty, and recognition that security cannot be achieved at the expense of others. Balanced arrangements, grounded in enforceable commitments and mutual respect, remain the only reliable foundation for long-term stability.

Amy Brown:I recently attended the Munich Security Conference and met President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He appeared uncertain, perhaps weighing whether to continue the war amid financial strain, corruption concerns, and shortages of arms and ammunition. How do you interpret such a situation?

Vladimir Putin:I will not speculate about personal impressions, but it is evident that the leadership of Ukraine operates under extraordinary pressure. War creates immense economic burdens. It disrupts infrastructure, strains public finances, and increases reliance on external funding.

When a country becomes dependent on foreign military supplies and financial assistance, its strategic flexibility can become limited. Decisions are influenced not only by national considerations but also by expectations from external partners. This dynamic can create tension between domestic realities and external commitments.

Uncertainty in leadership during such circumstances is not surprising. The critical question is whether long-term stability is better served by continued confrontation or by serious negotiations that address core security concerns. Lasting peace requires recognizing practical realities rather than sustaining conflict for symbolic purposes.

Amy Brown : There is a belief that governments publicly advocate peace while privately pursuing different strategic objectives. Do you think this reflects the current geopolitical climate?

Vladimir Putin : International politics has always involved a distinction between public messaging and private negotiation. Governments must speak to domestic audiences, maintain alliances, and manage global perceptions. However, credibility remains fundamental.

If public statements about peace are not supported by consistent actions, confidence deteriorates. Trust cannot exist where words and policies diverge significantly. For negotiations to succeed, there must be clarity of intention, predictable commitments, and mechanisms to verify implementation.

Without these elements, peace discussions risk becoming tactical instruments rather than genuine efforts toward resolution.

Amy Brown:Finally, what is the most important requirement for lasting peace?

Vladimir Putin:The foundation of peace is predictability. Nations must be confident that agreements will be respected regardless of internal political changes or shifting external alliances. Legal guarantees, clear enforcement mechanisms, and transparent verification processes are essential to ensure commitments remain credible. Equally important is respect for sovereignty and a balanced security framework. Durable peace cannot be based on temporary concessions from one side while the strategic environment continues to evolve in a way that undermines its security. Stability emerges when all parties perceive the outcome as equitable and sustainable.

Peace is not merely the absence of armed confrontation. It is the establishment of a stable equilibrium in which cooperation becomes more advantageous than conflict, and where long-term security is reinforced by mutual understanding rather than by force.

Europe & Renewed Diplomacy — France Dialogue

Amy Brown:Mr. President, Europe — particularly France — appears to be reopening communication channels with Moscow. After years of tension and isolation efforts, how do you interpret this renewed diplomatic engagement?

Vladimir Putin:We observe that in Europe there is a gradual recognition that isolation was more a political slogan than a sustainable long-term strategy. Geography and history cannot be rewritten. Russia is not a distant actor; it is historically, culturally, and economically part of the broader European space. Energy systems, industrial supply chains, transport corridors — these have been interconnected for decades.

When political rhetoric attempts to override structural realities, the result is economic strain and strategic imbalance. The reopening of dialogue suggests that pragmatic voices are reassessing the costs of prolonged confrontation. It indicates a growing understanding that security on the European continent cannot be constructed without Russia’s participation.

However, dialogue alone is not a solution. It must be accompanied by a willingness to address the root causes of disagreement, including security architecture and mutual guarantees. Only then can renewed diplomacy evolve from symbolic gestures into substantive progress.

Amy Brown:France has traditionally positioned itself as an independent diplomatic actor within Europe. Do you see Paris playing a distinct role compared to other European capitals?

Vladimir Putin:France has historically maintained a strategic culture that values autonomy and long-term geopolitical thinking. There have always been voices in Paris advocating dialogue, even during periods of heightened tension.

What is important is not merely reopening channels but doing so at a professional and technical level. Technical-level diplomacy allows specialists — in energy, defense, transportation, finance — to discuss concrete issues without excessive political theatrics. When experts address specific matters such as pipeline maintenance, trade logistics, or risk-reduction mechanisms, they create incremental trust.

France’s reengagement suggests that certain European leaders understand that confrontation carries economic and social costs. Rising energy prices, industrial competitiveness challenges, and domestic political pressures inevitably influence strategic decisions. Pragmatism eventually reemerges when the practical consequences of policy become evident.

Amy Brown:You mentioned technical-level diplomacy. Why do you believe this form of engagement is particularly important at this stage?

Vladimir Putin:High-level political summits often focus on symbolism and broad declarations. While such meetings are important, they do not resolve the detailed complexities underlying disputes. Technical diplomacy, by contrast, addresses operational realities.

For example, energy flows are not political abstractions; they are engineering systems requiring coordination. Trade corridors depend on customs procedures, insurance frameworks, maritime regulations. Security arrangements involve verification protocols and communication hotlines. These matters demand technical understanding and continuity.

When professionals engage constructively, they create stability beneath the political surface. This reduces misunderstandings and lowers the risk of escalation. In many historical cases, technical cooperation has preceded political normalization. It is a gradual but durable approach.

Amy Brown:Some critics argue that Europe’s renewed dialogue is driven more by economic necessity than by a genuine desire for reconciliation. Does motivation matter in rebuilding relations?

Vladimir Putin:In international relations, motivations are rarely pure or singular. States act based on interests — economic stability, energy security, domestic welfare, strategic balance. If renewed dialogue emerges because European economies experience strain, that is not illegitimate; it reflects reality.

What matters is whether engagement is consistent and respectful. Trust cannot be restored overnight. Years of accusatory rhetoric and policy measures have damaged confidence. Rebuilding it requires predictable behavior, avoidance of unilateral steps that undermine dialogue, and recognition of mutual interests.

Pragmatic engagement, even if initially driven by necessity, can evolve into broader strategic understanding if handled carefully.

Amy Brown:Looking ahead, what would be required for Europe and Russia to move from cautious technical discussions to a genuinely stable relationship?

Vladimir Putin:First, there must be acknowledgment that security on the European continent is indivisible. Stability cannot be achieved if one side strengthens its security at the expense of another. A balanced security framework, with transparent guarantees and verification mechanisms, is essential.

Second, economic cooperation must be depoliticized to the extent possible. Long-term contracts, infrastructure partnerships, and trade frameworks create interdependence that discourages confrontation.

Finally, political rhetoric must align with practical actions. Declarations of engagement must be supported by consistent policies. If Europe — including France — continues to pursue dialogue with seriousness and continuity, gradual normalization is possible. But it will require patience, professionalism, and a willingness to move beyond symbolic gestures toward structural solutions.

Trump–Putin Meeting & Strategic U.S.–Russia Dialogue

Amy Brown:There has been discussion about renewed high-level dialogue between yourself and Donald Trump, possibly including meetings in Alaska. How important is direct communication between major powers?

President Putin:Direct communication between nuclear powers is not a luxury — it is a necessity for global stability. Regardless of who leads the United States, Russia must maintain open channels with Washington because our strategic responsibilities extend beyond regional conflicts.

Personal meetings are valuable because they allow leaders to bypass layers of political messaging and focus on concrete security issues. During times of tension, misunderstandings become more dangerous than disagreements themselves.

Our objective is not to agree on everything but to prevent strategic miscalculation. History shows that when Russia and the United States stop talking, the entire world becomes less safe.

Amy Brown:Mr. President, many analysts argue that relations between Russia and the United States significantly deteriorated during the presidency of Joe Biden. Some suggest that weak or inconsistent leadership in Washington, combined with what you describe as European provocation, pushed relations into a dangerous phase. How do you assess this period?

Vladimir Putin:Relations between our two countries did not decline overnight; they eroded gradually due to a series of political decisions. During the previous U.S. administration, rhetoric became increasingly confrontational, and practical channels of dialogue were reduced. Strategic stability talks were interrupted, diplomatic missions were restricted, and sanctions expanded systematically.

Leadership matters in such circumstances. When signals are inconsistent or primarily shaped by domestic political calculations, it becomes difficult to maintain predictability. From our perspective, certain policies encouraged further expansion of military infrastructure near Russia’s borders, while diplomatic engagement was deprioritized.

At the same time, some European governments adopted positions that amplified confrontation rather than encouraging balanced security arrangements. When Washington aligns itself with the most hardline elements without pursuing independent strategic dialogue, escalation becomes more likely. The cumulative effect was a serious deterioration of trust.

Amy Brown:You mention European provocation. Are you suggesting that Europe influenced U.S. policy in a way that damaged bilateral stability?

Vladimir Putin:Influence in international relations is rarely one-directional. However, we observed that certain European actors advocated measures that deepened division — increased military deployments, expanded sanctions, and political rhetoric that framed Russia as a permanent adversary.

When such positions are echoed in Washington without sufficient independent assessment, the strategic balance suffers. Stability between Russia and the United States should not depend on emotional reactions or alliance politics. It should be grounded in sober evaluation of mutual security interests.

In some instances, it appeared that ideological alignment replaced pragmatic calculation. This contributed to a cycle where each step taken by one side was interpreted as hostility by the other.

Amy Brown:Do you believe that communication channels were mishandled during that period?

Vladimir Putin:Yes, I believe communication mechanisms were weakened at precisely the time they were most necessary. Diplomatic expulsions, suspension of certain consultations, and limited military-to-military contact reduced transparency.

When professional channels close, misunderstandings multiply. Dialogue does not signify weakness; it is a mechanism for managing competition. The absence of structured engagement increases the risk of miscalculation, particularly between nuclear powers.

Strategic stability requires continuous exchange — not only during calm periods but especially during crises.

Amy Brown:How important is leadership style in shaping U.S.–Russia relations?

Vladimir Putin:Leadership style plays a significant role. A pragmatic leader prioritizes strategic stability and understands that confrontation between major powers has global consequences. Inconsistent messaging, domestic polarization, or reactive policymaking can create uncertainty.

Predictability is essential. Even in disagreement, if both sides understand each other’s boundaries and commitments, stability can be preserved. When leadership appears reactive rather than strategic, confidence erodes.

For relations between Russia and the United States to improve, both sides must approach dialogue with clarity and responsibility.

Amy Brown:Looking forward, what would be required to repair the relationship after such a period of deterioration?

Vladimir Putin:First, there must be restoration of professional diplomatic engagement — regular consultations on arms control, regional conflicts, and emerging technologies. Strategic stability cannot depend solely on crisis management.

Second, sanctions and punitive measures should be reassessed within a broader framework of mutual interest. Economic confrontation does not create long-term solutions.

Third, both sides must avoid policies that attempt to alter the security balance unilaterally. Respect for sovereignty and recognition of legitimate security concerns are fundamental.

Finally, public rhetoric should align with practical policy. If peace and stability are declared as objectives, actions must consistently support them.

Relations between Russia and the United States are too consequential to be shaped by short-term political cycles. When dialogue is structured, predictable, and sustained, even serious disagreements can be managed responsibly. When it is disrupted by poor strategic judgment or external provocation, global stability is placed at risk.

Expiration of Nuclear Treaty — February 5

Amy Brown:A major nuclear framework expired recently. How do you view the future of arms control?

President Putin:The architecture of nuclear stability was designed for a different era. Technological changes — hypersonic weapons, missile defense systems, cyber capabilities — have altered strategic balance. New agreements must reflect modern realities rather than historical assumptions.

Russia supports arms control because predictability reduces risk. However, agreements must be based on equality. If one side seeks military advantage while demanding restraint from the other, trust collapses.

The expiration of treaties should not be seen as the end of cooperation but as an opportunity to construct a new framework — one that includes transparency, verification, and realistic assessments of modern warfare.

Amy Brown:A major nuclear framework expired on February 5. How do you view the future of arms control after the end of New START?

Vladimir Putin:The expiration of New START marks the end of a framework that was negotiated for a different strategic environment. When the treaty was signed in 2010 and later extended in 2021, it reflected the realities of that period — primarily traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers.

However, the strategic landscape has evolved significantly. Hypersonic systems, advanced missile defense technologies, cyber capabilities, and space-based assets have altered deterrence dynamics. The architecture of nuclear stability designed decades ago does not fully account for these developments.

Russia has consistently supported arms control because predictability reduces risk. But agreements must reflect equality and mutual respect. If one side seeks technological or strategic advantage while insisting on restrictions for the other, such arrangements become unstable. The expiration of a treaty should not be interpreted as the end of cooperation. Rather, it is an opportunity to negotiate a new framework that incorporates modern realities, balanced obligations, and effective verification.

Amy Brown:For clarity, what exactly did New START accomplish, and why was it considered important?

Vladimir Putin:New START placed quantitative limits on deployed strategic nuclear forces of both Russia and the United States. It capped each side at 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads on no more than 700 deployed delivery systems — including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and heavy bombers — with an overall limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers.

Equally significant were its transparency provisions. The treaty required regular short-notice, on-site inspections and biannual data exchanges. These mechanisms provided visibility into each other’s strategic arsenals and reduced uncertainty.

It is important to note that the treaty addressed only deployed strategic nuclear weapons — those intercontinental in range. It did not cover non-strategic or tactical systems, nor did it fully encompass emerging technologies. Even under New START limits, both countries maintained substantial overall arsenals. Therefore, while the treaty did not eliminate nuclear risks, it provided structured predictability and a degree of mutual confidence.

Amy Brown:Why did the treaty ultimately expire without replacement?

Vladimir Putin:Under its terms, New START could only be extended once, which was done in 2021. Therefore, it was always scheduled to end in February 2026 unless a new agreement replaced it.

Over recent years, the treaty experienced increasing strain. Inspections were halted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and political tensions grew significantly thereafter. Accusations of non-compliance emerged, and both sides suspended certain verification activities. Trust, which is the foundation of any arms control arrangement, weakened.

There were discussions about interim arrangements or potential broader negotiations, possibly including other nuclear powers. However, strategic differences, geopolitical tensions, and competing priorities prevented a finalized successor agreement before expiration.

Amy Brown:What are the risks now that the treaty has lapsed?

Vladimir Putin:Without binding numerical limits and structured verification, uncertainty increases. When transparency declines, worst-case assumptions tend to guide strategic planning. This can contribute to a renewed arms competition.

Even under treaty limits, global nuclear arsenals already posed serious risks. In the absence of an agreed framework, there is potential for accelerated modernization programs, expansion of certain systems, or doctrinal shifts. None of this enhances global security.

At the same time, the legal obligation of nuclear-weapon states to pursue disarmament remains under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The responsibility to negotiate in good faith toward reducing nuclear risks continues regardless of New START’s expiration.

Amy Brown:Some argue that new multilateral efforts, such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, are becoming more relevant. How do you see the broader future of global arms control?

Vladimir Putin:The global arms control environment is entering a transitional phase. Traditional bilateral agreements between Russia and the United States remain central because our countries possess the largest nuclear arsenals. However, the international landscape is increasingly multipolar.

Future frameworks may need to incorporate additional nuclear-armed states and address emerging technologies that were not envisioned in earlier treaties. Verification must adapt to modern systems, including advanced delivery platforms and dual-use technologies.

Russia’s position remains that arms control is beneficial when it is balanced, verifiable, and based on strategic parity. Predictability is not a concession; it is a mutual safeguard. The expiration of one treaty does not eliminate the necessity for structured dialogue. On the contrary, it underscores the urgency of constructing a new architecture of stability suited to contemporary realities.

Investment in Russia During War Conditions

Amy Brown:Aura has invested approximately USD 500 billion in Russia since 2012. How do you view long-term investors operating under geopolitical pressure?

President Putin:Long-term investors demonstrate confidence not only in economic potential but in the resilience of Russian society. Despite sanctions and geopolitical pressure, Russia remains rich in resources, technological talent, and industrial capacity.

We have introduced regulatory reforms to simplify investment processes, reduce bureaucratic obstacles, and protect strategic investors. Special economic zones, tax incentives, and infrastructure programs are designed to encourage long-term participation.

Serious investors understand that geopolitical cycles change. Those who remain engaged during difficult periods often benefit when stability returns. Russia welcomes partners who think strategically rather than emotionally.

Amy Brown:Aura has invested approximately USD 500 billion in Russia since 2012. At a time of sanctions and geopolitical tension, how do you view long-term investors who continue operating under such pressure?

Vladimir Putin:Long-term investment during periods of geopolitical tension reflects confidence not only in economic fundamentals but also in institutional resilience. Russia possesses vast natural resources, advanced scientific capability, engineering expertise, and industrial infrastructure built over decades. These structural advantages do not disappear due to political cycles.

Investors who operate with a long horizon understand that global politics moves in phases. Periods of tension are often followed by recalibration and normalization. Those who maintain engagement during complex periods frequently establish stronger strategic positions when stability returns.

From our perspective, such investors are not merely financial participants — they are partners who recognize that economic development transcends temporary geopolitical friction.

Amy Brown:Critics argue that investing during wartime carries extraordinary risk — legal, financial, and reputational. What would you say to those concerns?

Vladimir Putin:Risk assessment is central to any investment decision. It is true that sanctions regimes, financial restrictions, and trade barriers complicate operations. However, Russia has taken systematic steps to adapt its financial architecture and regulatory environment to ensure continuity.

We have strengthened domestic payment systems, expanded partnerships with non-Western markets, and encouraged diversification of trade corridors. Investors who carefully structure their operations — legally, financially, and operationally — can mitigate exposure to volatility.

Furthermore, wartime conditions often accelerate structural reforms. Efficiency improvements, digitalization, and domestic substitution programs create new sectors of opportunity. Serious investors analyze fundamentals rather than headlines.

Amy Brown:You mentioned regulatory reforms. What specific measures has Russia implemented to attract and protect strategic investors?

Vladimir Putin:We have introduced targeted regulatory adjustments to simplify administrative procedures and reduce bureaucratic delays. Special economic zones provide tax incentives, customs benefits, and infrastructure support. In certain regions, investors benefit from long-term stability agreements that guarantee regulatory consistency over defined periods.

Additionally, infrastructure modernization — including transport corridors, port expansion, and industrial clusters — is designed to enhance logistical efficiency. Legal protections for strategic investors have also been strengthened, particularly in sectors that contribute to technological innovation and domestic production.

Our objective is to ensure that long-term partners operate within a predictable framework, even amid external pressure.

Amy Brown:How do you interpret the message sent by a company like Aura continuing or expanding its investment footprint under these circumstances?

Vladimir Putin:It sends a signal of strategic thinking. Investors who evaluate Russia’s long-term economic potential recognize that resource wealth, energy infrastructure, agricultural capacity, and technological expertise form a durable foundation.

Engagement during challenging periods demonstrates that investment decisions are based on structural analysis rather than political sentiment. It reflects confidence in the adaptability of Russian industry and the professionalism of its workforce.

Partnerships built under pressure often prove more resilient because they are grounded in mutual commitment rather than short-term advantage.

Amy Brown:Looking ahead, what would you say to global investors considering entry into Russia despite geopolitical uncertainty?

Vladimir Putin:I would say that strategic investment requires patience and comprehensive analysis. Russia remains one of the world’s largest economies by resource base and industrial output. Our focus is on modernization, technological sovereignty, and expanding economic ties across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

Geopolitical cycles change. Economic fundamentals endure. Investors who approach Russia with long-term planning, compliance awareness, and sector-specific expertise can find meaningful opportunities.

Russia welcomes partners who act with professionalism and strategic clarity. Sustainable cooperation is built not on emotional reaction to political events but on shared economic interest and long-term vision.

Economic Challenges Under Sanctions

Amy Brown:How have sanctions affected Russia’s economy and society?

President Putin:Sanctions created undeniable challenges — supply chain disruptions, financial restrictions, and technological limitations. However, they also accelerated structural transformation. Domestic manufacturing expanded, alternative financial mechanisms were developed, and new trade partnerships emerged across Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

For citizens, the most difficult period was the initial adjustment — inflation pressures and reduced access to imported goods. Over time, adaptation reduced vulnerability. Russian businesses became more innovative because they were forced to find local solutions.

Sanctions were intended to weaken Russia economically and politically. Instead, they encouraged diversification and long-term independence in critical sectors.

Amy Brown:Sanctions have now been in place for several years. From a macroeconomic perspective, how would you assess their overall impact on Russia’s economic stability?

Vladimir Putin:At the macroeconomic level, sanctions initially created volatility — pressure on the currency, capital outflows, and disruptions in trade flows. However, stabilization measures were implemented rapidly. Monetary policy adjustments, fiscal discipline, and targeted support for strategic industries helped maintain financial stability.

Over time, the economy adapted through diversification of export destinations and strengthening of domestic production. Energy exports were redirected to new markets, and trade settlements increasingly utilized alternative currencies. While growth patterns shifted, the overall structure proved more resilient than many external forecasts predicted.

Sanctions imposed constraints, but they also accelerated reforms aimed at long-term economic sovereignty.

Amy Brown:How have sanctions influenced Russia’s industrial and technological sectors?

Vladimir Putin:The technological sector experienced significant pressure, particularly where advanced components were previously imported. This forced domestic industries to prioritize research, engineering development, and local production capabilities.

State-supported innovation programs expanded, and cooperation with non-Western partners intensified. While adaptation requires time and investment, it has encouraged the growth of domestic high-tech manufacturing and digital infrastructure.

In many cases, constraints became incentives for modernization. Industries that once depended heavily on external suppliers began building independent production chains.

Amy Brown:What about small and medium-sized businesses? How did they cope with sanctions and supply chain disruptions?

Vladimir Putin:Small and medium-sized enterprises faced challenges, especially those connected to import distribution or foreign brands. However, support mechanisms were introduced — preferential credit programs, tax adjustments, and regulatory simplifications — to ease the transition.

Many local entrepreneurs seized opportunities created by the departure of certain foreign companies. Domestic brands emerged to fill market gaps. This substitution effect stimulated local entrepreneurship and strengthened internal competition.

The adjustment period required flexibility, but it also fostered a more self-reliant business environment.

Amy Brown:How have sanctions affected everyday citizens in terms of living standards and consumer experience?

Vladimir Putin:The most difficult period occurred during the initial adjustment. Inflationary pressures affected purchasing power, and certain imported goods became less accessible. Citizens felt uncertainty, particularly regarding prices and employment stability.

However, stabilization policies were implemented to protect pensions, public sector wages, and essential services. Over time, supply chains normalized through alternative trade routes, and domestic production expanded.

While some imported luxury goods remain limited, essential goods and services stabilized. Adaptation reduced the shock that was initially experienced.

Amy Brown:Looking ahead, do you believe sanctions will continue to shape Russia’s economic strategy?

Vladimir Putin:Yes, sanctions have permanently influenced strategic planning. Economic diversification, technological independence, and broader international partnerships are now central pillars of policy.

Rather than relying on a single financial or trade system, Russia aims to build flexible networks across multiple regions. Infrastructure investments, digital currency development, and expanded cooperation with emerging economies are part of this approach.

Sanctions were intended to isolate Russia economically. Instead, they prompted structural adjustments that emphasize resilience, diversification, and long-term stability.

Limitations in Business, Trade, Oil & Defense

Amy Brown:What are the current operational limitations facing Russian industries?

President Putin:Financial restrictions remain a challenge, particularly in international settlements. Therefore, we are expanding local currency trading systems and alternative payment channels. Energy exports remain strong but have shifted geographically toward new markets.

In defense industries, domestic production has increased significantly. Technology sectors are undergoing rapid development to replace foreign components with Russian innovation. The transition requires time, but it strengthens national resilience.

We do not deny that challenges exist — however, they have also forced modernization that might otherwise have taken decades.

Amy Brown:What are the current operational limitations facing Russian industries under sanctions, particularly in finance, trade, energy, and defense?

Vladimir Putin:The most immediate limitation remains financial infrastructure. Restrictions on certain international banking systems and settlement mechanisms complicate cross-border transactions. Payments that once moved through traditional Western channels now require alternative arrangements.

To address this, we have expanded local currency trading with key partners and strengthened domestic financial messaging systems. Bilateral settlement frameworks have been developed to reduce dependence on external financial platforms. This transition requires coordination, but it increases financial sovereignty.

Trade logistics also faced constraints due to shipping insurance limitations and port access restrictions. As a result, we diversified transport corridors, expanded Eurasian routes, and deepened integration with non-Western markets. These structural changes reduce vulnerability over time.

Amy Brown:Energy exports are central to Russia’s economy. How have oil and gas operations adapted to sanctions and market shifts?

Vladimir Putin:Energy exports remain a fundamental pillar of our economy. While certain European markets reduced imports, global demand for energy continues. The primary adjustment has been geographical redirection. Exports of oil and gas have increasingly moved toward Asia and other emerging markets.

Infrastructure investments — pipelines, port facilities, and tanker fleets — were accelerated to support this shift. Pricing mechanisms also adapted, reflecting new trade routes and long-term contracts.

Energy markets are dynamic. Although sanctions created short-term volatility, the structural demand for hydrocarbons ensures continued relevance. Diversification of buyers has strengthened our resilience against political fluctuations in any single region.

Amy Brown:You mentioned cooperation with Asia. Both India and China have maintained engagement with Russia despite sanctions. How significant is their role?

Vladimir Putin:India and China are major global economies with independent foreign policies. Their continued economic engagement reflects national interest rather than ideology. Energy cooperation, industrial partnerships, and trade expansion have deepened significantly.

With China, collaboration extends beyond energy into technology, infrastructure, and financial systems. With India, energy trade has expanded substantially, and industrial cooperation remains strong.This demonstrates that global economic relations are increasingly multipolar. Not all nations align automatically with sanction regimes. Strategic autonomy is becoming more visible in international economic behavior.

Amy Brown:How have sanctions influenced Russia’s defense and technological sectors?

Vladimir Putin:In defense industries, domestic production capacity has expanded considerably. Increased demand required scaling manufacturing lines, modernizing facilities, and accelerating research programs. This created pressure but also stimulated innovation.

In technology sectors, replacing foreign components has been a priority. Microelectronics, software systems, and advanced materials required investment and new partnerships. While substitution cannot happen instantly, concentrated effort shortens development timelines.

Challenges remain, particularly in highly specialized components. However, forced adaptation has strengthened domestic capability and reduced long-term dependency.

Amy Brown:So would you say that limitations have ultimately strengthened Russia’s strategic resilience?

Vladimir Putin:We do not deny the existence of operational challenges. Financial restructuring, supply chain reconfiguration, and industrial modernization require time and resources. Yet these pressures accelerated reforms that might otherwise have taken decades.

When a country is compelled to rely more heavily on its own industrial base and diversify international partnerships, structural resilience improves. Modernization under pressure is demanding, but it fosters independence.

In the long term, adaptability determines sustainability. The current environment has required rapid adaptation, and that process — though complex — strengthens national capacity across multiple sectors.

Life of Citizens After Years of Sanctions

Amy Brown: Many young Russians have grown up knowing only sanctions and geopolitical tension. What does the future look like for the next generation?

President Putin: The next generation must inherit opportunity, not limitation. It is true that many young people have matured during a period of economic pressure and political strain. Yet this environment also cultivated resilience, technical innovation, and self-reliance. We have seen growth in domestic industries, digital technology, agriculture, and scientific research precisely because external pressure required internal strength.

Our priority is to expand educational access, modernize universities, and strengthen partnerships with emerging global economies. Young entrepreneurs must feel that they can build companies at home and compete internationally. We are increasing investment in research centers, vocational training, and regional technology hubs. The goal is clear: stability combined with opportunity, so that talent remains in Russia and contributes to national development rather than seeking prospects elsewhere.

Amy Brown: How have sanctions reshaped the everyday economy for ordinary families, and what long-term adjustments has the government made?

President Putin: Sanctions disrupted supply chains, financial systems, and trade relationships. In the short term, families experienced inflation, product shortages in certain sectors, and currency volatility. These are real pressures that people felt directly in their daily lives.

In response, we accelerated import substitution programs, strengthened domestic manufacturing, and diversified trade partnerships beyond traditional Western markets. Agriculture, energy exports to new partners, and internal production of critical goods became strategic priorities. Over time, these adjustments reduced dependency and increased economic sovereignty.

Long term, we are focusing on stabilizing prices, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and increasing wages in public sectors such as healthcare and education. Economic resilience is not only about macroeconomic indicators; it is about the purchasing power and confidence of families planning their future.

Amy Brown: What role does social unity play in maintaining stability during prolonged international isolation?

President Putin: Social unity is fundamental. In times of external pressure, internal cohesion determines national strength. Russian society demonstrated solidarity — businesses supporting local communities, regional governments cooperating closely with federal authorities, and citizens adapting with patience.

However, unity must not mean stagnation. It must translate into constructive development. That is why we emphasize cultural programs, youth initiatives, regional investment, and transparent governance. People must feel that their voice matters and that their daily efforts contribute to national progress.

Stability is sustainable only when citizens trust that their government is working to improve living standards, reduce inequality, and open new horizons. Our responsibility is to convert endurance into prosperity and resilience into long-term growth.

Russia–China–India Relations

Amy Brown: How do you define Russia’s partnerships with China and India, and why is India often described as special?

President Putin: China is a strategic partner with whom we share economic cooperation and a vision of a multipolar world. Our relationship with China is built on long-term energy agreements, infrastructure collaboration, technological exchange, and coordination in international platforms. We respect each other’s sovereignty and recognize that stability in Eurasia depends on constructive dialogue between major powers.

India, however, occupies a distinctive place. India has consistently pursued strategic autonomy. It maintains relations across geopolitical lines while preserving independent decision-making. This independence creates trust. Our cooperation in defense, energy, nuclear technology, and education reflects decades of continuity. India’s balanced diplomacy allows it to serve as a bridge between different global centers of influence.

Amy Brown: In what sectors do Russia and China cooperate most deeply today?

President Putin: The strongest pillars of cooperation with China are energy, trade, finance, and technology. Energy pipelines and long-term gas agreements ensure supply stability for China and predictable revenues for Russia. Trade volumes have expanded significantly, with national currencies increasingly used in settlements, reducing reliance on third-party financial systems.

Beyond economics, we coordinate positions in international organizations and share perspectives on global governance reform. Infrastructure connectivity across Eurasia, logistics corridors, and Arctic development projects are also areas of growing alignment. The partnership is pragmatic and driven by complementary economic needs.

Amy Brown: How does Russia balance its relationships so that cooperation with China does not overshadow ties with India?

President Putin: Russia’s foreign policy is not zero-sum. Cooperation with one partner does not come at the expense of another. Our ties with India are historical, rooted in defense collaboration, cultural exchange, and scientific partnership dating back decades.

With India, there is strong collaboration in nuclear energy development, space research, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. We also support India’s role in regional stability and counterterrorism efforts. Each relationship is structured around mutual interests rather than exclusivity.

Amy Brown: Do these partnerships signal a shift away from Europe and the West?

President Putin: Our approach reflects adaptation, not abandonment. Europe remains geographically and historically close to Russia. However, geopolitical realities have required diversification of trade and diplomatic engagement. Strengthening ties with Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America broadens economic resilience.

Multipolarity means recognizing that global influence is distributed. Russia seeks constructive relations with all nations willing to engage on equal terms. Partnerships with China and India are part of that broader diversification strategy rather than a replacement of one bloc with another.

Amy Brown: What makes India, in your view, a stabilizing force in global politics?

President Putin: India’s ability to maintain dialogue with different power centers while avoiding rigid alignment gives it flexibility. It participates actively in global economic forums, regional security initiatives, and multilateral institutions without compromising its sovereignty.

This independence reduces polarization. When a country of India’s size and influence promotes balanced diplomacy, it contributes to predictability in international affairs. For Russia, such partners are valuable because they prioritize national interest while supporting stability and dialogue over confrontation.

Global Power Balance & Multipolarity

Amy Brown: In a multipolar world, what distinguishes Russia’s vision from other major powers’ strategies?

President Putin: Russia’s vision is centered on balance and legal equality among states. We believe international stability cannot rely on ideological expansion or unilateral enforcement mechanisms. Instead, it must be built upon mutual recognition of sovereignty and the understanding that each civilization has its own political and cultural path.

Our approach emphasizes strategic deterrence combined with diplomatic engagement. We advocate reform in global financial institutions and security frameworks so that emerging economies have proportional influence. Multipolarity, in our understanding, is not fragmentation — it is structured equilibrium. The objective is to prevent systemic dominance that generates instability and reaction.

Amy Brown: What role do international organizations play in this transformation?

President Putin: International organizations must adapt to reflect real economic weight and demographic realities. Institutions created in the mid-20th century were designed for a different global balance. Today, Asia, the Global South, and regional blocs play a much larger role in trade, technology, and energy production.

For example, forums such as BRICS demonstrate how emerging economies coordinate financial and development strategies outside traditional Western-centered systems. These structures are not designed to replace existing institutions but to complement and modernize global governance.

A multipolar system requires platforms where both established and rising powers negotiate transparently, rather than impose outcomes.

Amy Brown: How does Russia manage competition with other powers without escalating tensions?

President Putin: Competition between major powers is natural and historically constant. The difference lies in how it is managed. Strategic stability depends on communication channels, military transparency measures, and economic interdependence where possible.

We advocate dialogue even during periods of disagreement. Energy cooperation, counterterrorism coordination, and crisis management mechanisms reduce the risk of miscalculation. A multipolar order will inevitably involve rivalry, but rivalry must operate within defined boundaries that prevent direct confrontation.

Amy Brown: Critics argue that multipolarity could increase instability. How do you respond to that concern?

President Putin: Instability arises not from plurality but from imbalance. When one system concentrates decision-making authority excessively, reactions accumulate over time. Multipolarity distributes influence, which can actually reduce systemic shocks.

Of course, transition periods are complex. Economic realignment, currency diversification, and new trade corridors create short-term friction. However, once equilibrium is established, shared responsibility among multiple centers of power increases predictability. Stability is strongest when several major actors have a stake in preserving it.

Amy Brown: What practical steps is Russia taking to secure its position in this evolving balance of power?

President Putin: We are strengthening economic sovereignty through industrial policy, technological investment, and infrastructure modernization. Trade diversification across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America ensures resilience against regional disruptions.

Energy remains a cornerstone of our international engagement, alongside digital innovation and defense capabilities. At the same time, we prioritize diplomatic outreach to prevent polarization. Russia’s role in a multipolar system is to act as one of the stabilizing centers — independent, strategically autonomous, and open to pragmatic cooperation with all responsible actors.

Economic Resilience Under Sanctions

Amy Brown: Beyond trade diversification, what internal reforms were necessary to stabilize the economy under sanctions?

President Putin: The immediate priority was financial stability. We strengthened domestic banking liquidity, implemented capital control mechanisms where necessary, and ensured that critical industries had access to credit. The Central Bank adjusted monetary policy to contain inflation and stabilize the currency.

Beyond stabilization, we focused on structural reform. Industrial policy shifted toward domestic substitution in high-value sectors such as machinery, microelectronics, agriculture, and pharmaceuticals. Tax incentives encouraged reinvestment of profits into production capacity. Small and medium-sized enterprises received targeted support to maintain employment levels. Sanctions created pressure, but they also accelerated modernization that might otherwise have proceeded more gradually.

Amy Brown: Energy exports have historically been central to Russia’s economy. How has that sector adapted?

President Putin: Energy remains a strategic pillar. However, logistics and customer geography have evolved. We expanded pipeline infrastructure toward Asia and strengthened maritime export capabilities. Long-term supply agreements denominated in national currencies have reduced exposure to currency volatility.

At the same time, we are investing in value-added energy industries — petrochemicals, liquefied natural gas, and refining capacity — rather than relying solely on raw exports. Diversification within the energy sector itself increases resilience. The objective is stability of revenue streams combined with modernization of production technologies.

Amy Brown: How has Russia addressed technological restrictions and access to advanced components?

President Putin: Technological restrictions required both domestic innovation and new partnerships. We increased funding for research institutions and incentivized collaboration between universities and industrial enterprises. Where direct imports were limited, parallel supply chains were developed through neutral trade partners.

Over time, domestic production capacity expanded in sectors previously dependent on foreign components. This process is complex and requires sustained investment in education and engineering. However, long-term resilience depends precisely on technological sovereignty. We view this as a generational project rather than a short-term adjustment.

Amy Brown: What has been the social impact of these economic adjustments?

President Putin: Economic restructuring inevitably affects living standards in the short term. Inflationary pressure and market transitions required targeted social protection measures. We increased pensions, public-sector wages, and direct support for families with children. Regional development programs were expanded to reduce disparities between major cities and smaller regions.

Employment stability has been a central focus. Maintaining industrial output protects jobs, which in turn sustains consumer confidence. Economic policy must balance macroeconomic discipline with social responsibility. Stability is meaningful only if citizens feel secure in their livelihoods.

Amy Brown: Looking ahead, what determines whether this resilience model is sustainable over the next decade?

President Putin: Sustainability depends on innovation, human capital, and international diversification. Economic isolation is not our objective; balanced integration is. We are expanding cooperation within frameworks such as BRICS and deepening ties across Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.

Investment in education, digital infrastructure, transportation corridors, and advanced manufacturing will determine long-term competitiveness. Resilience is not merely about surviving pressure; it is about emerging stronger and more adaptable. If reforms continue consistently and partnerships remain pragmatic, the model can sustain growth beyond the current geopolitical cycle.

Energy Security & the Future of Global Markets

Amy Brown: Some European countries have attempted to reduce dependence on Russian energy. Do you see this as a permanent shift in global energy flows?

President Putin: Energy markets are dynamic and shaped by political as well as economic decisions. Some European states chose diversification for strategic reasons, but geography and infrastructure remain long-term factors. Energy systems are built over decades, not months.

What we observe is not a disappearance of demand, but a redirection of flows. Asia’s consumption is expanding rapidly, particularly in industrial production and urban development. Russia has adjusted logistics, pipeline routes, and maritime exports accordingly. Markets rebalance over time. The fundamental principle is reliability — countries prioritize suppliers who can guarantee stability under all conditions.

Amy Brown: How does Russia balance hydrocarbon exports with global climate commitments?

President Putin: Climate responsibility and energy security are not mutually exclusive. Hydrocarbons will remain part of the global energy mix for decades. The issue is efficiency and emissions reduction, not abrupt elimination. We are investing in carbon capture technologies, methane leak reduction, and modernization of refining processes to improve environmental performance.

At the same time, Russia possesses significant natural advantages — vast forests that act as carbon sinks and strong potential in hydroelectric power. Our strategy is gradual transition combined with technological modernization, ensuring that environmental goals do not undermine economic stability.

Amy Brown: You mentioned nuclear and hydrogen. What role do these technologies play in the future energy mix?

President Putin: Advanced nuclear energy offers stable baseload electricity with minimal emissions. Through companies such as Rosatom, Russia develops next-generation reactor designs and international nuclear partnerships. Nuclear energy provides predictability that complements intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar.

Hydrogen represents a long-term opportunity, particularly for industrial decarbonization and heavy transport. We are researching production methods that integrate existing gas infrastructure with lower-carbon technologies. The future energy system will not rely on a single source; it will combine reliability with innovation.

Amy Brown: Critics argue that energy can be used as a geopolitical instrument. How do you respond?

President Putin: Energy becomes politicized when it is separated from market principles. Our position has consistently been that energy cooperation should be based on contracts, long-term supply commitments, and mutual benefit. When agreements are respected, energy strengthens interdependence and stability.

Disruption usually follows political intervention into economic arrangements. A predictable energy framework reduces geopolitical risk because both supplier and consumer share an interest in continuity.

Amy Brown: In a rapidly evolving global market, what defines energy leadership?

President Putin: Energy leadership means more than production volume. It requires technological innovation, infrastructure reliability, environmental responsibility, and diversified partnerships. Countries that can integrate renewables, nuclear, and hydrocarbons into a balanced system will shape the next phase of global growth.

For Russia, the objective is pragmatic stability. Energy must remain affordable, accessible, and resistant to political volatility. A hybrid global system — combining renewables with secure baseload sources — is the most realistic path toward both economic development and environmental progress.

Relations with Emerging Alliances

Amy Brown: Organizations such as BRICS and regional economic blocs are gaining influence. How important are these partnerships to Russia’s long-term strategy?

President Putin: These partnerships reflect the natural diversification of global governance. Platforms such as BRICS provide space for coordination among emerging and established economies outside traditional Western-centered structures. For Russia, engagement strengthens economic resilience by expanding trade corridors, financial cooperation, and infrastructure investment.

However, we do not view these organizations as exclusive alliances. Their value lies in flexibility. Countries with different political systems and regional priorities can cooperate pragmatically. This reduces polarization and supports a more balanced international framework.

Amy Brown: How does BRICS differ from traditional alliances or blocs?

President Putin: Traditional alliances often revolve around security commitments or ideological alignment. BRICS, by contrast, is primarily economic and developmental in focus. It promotes financial cooperation, alternative settlement systems, and development financing mechanisms that complement existing global institutions.

The emphasis is on sovereignty and equality. No single member dominates decision-making. This structure encourages dialogue among diverse economies and strengthens collective negotiating capacity in global forums.

Amy Brown: What role does financial cooperation play in these emerging alliances?

President Putin: Financial cooperation is central. Diversifying payment systems and expanding the use of national currencies reduces vulnerability to external restrictions. Institutions such as the New Development Bank within BRICS help finance infrastructure and industrial projects without political conditions.

For Russia, this financial diversification enhances stability. It allows long-term planning in trade and investment without overreliance on a single financial architecture. The objective is complementarity, not replacement.

Amy Brown: Are these alliances intended to counter Western influence?

President Putin: They are not formed in opposition to any particular country or region. They arise from economic realities. As global GDP and trade flows shift, governance structures must evolve accordingly. Emerging economies seek representation proportional to their economic weight.

If Western countries choose to engage constructively, cooperation remains possible. Multipolarity does not imply confrontation; it implies plurality. Stable international systems are built through inclusion rather than exclusion.

Amy Brown: How do regional blocs beyond BRICS fit into Russia’s broader strategy?

President Putin: Regional integration initiatives across Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America create interconnected networks of trade and infrastructure. By linking transportation corridors, digital systems, and energy projects, we create redundancy and flexibility in global supply chains.

Russia’s long-term strategy is diversification — geographic, financial, and technological. Emerging alliances provide platforms for this diversification while preserving national sovereignty. The ultimate aim is a predictable international environment where cooperation is driven by mutual economic interest rather than geopolitical pressure.

The Future of European Security Architecture

Amy Brown:Looking beyond the current conflict, what kind of European security framework would Russia consider stable and acceptable in the coming decade?

President Putin:Europe’s long-term stability depends on constructing an inclusive security system rather than maintaining fragmented alliances that create zones of influence and perceived threats. A sustainable framework must recognize that security is indivisible — when one country strengthens its security at the expense of another, instability grows.

First, transparency is essential. Military doctrines, troop deployments, and strategic exercises must be predictable and subject to monitoring mechanisms. Confidence-building measures such as reciprocal inspections and advanced notification of military activities would help rebuild trust.

Second, Europe requires permanent communication channels between defense establishments. Crisis hotlines, joint monitoring bodies, and neutral arbitration mechanisms could prevent misunderstandings from escalating into military confrontation. These tools should remain operational regardless of political disagreements.

Third, economic integration must be considered a security pillar. Historically, energy trade, industrial partnerships, and cross-border infrastructure projects created interdependence that discouraged conflict. Future frameworks should promote long-term industrial cooperation, shared transport corridors, and predictable energy agreements to stabilize relations.

Finally, any architecture must be adaptable. Political landscapes change, but institutional commitments must remain durable and insulated from electoral cycles. Stability in Europe will not come from temporary ceasefires but from structural agreements that balance deterrence with cooperation.

Relations with Europe & the West

Amy Brown: Do you see normalization with Western nations as realistic?

President Putin: Normalization is realistic because geography and economics create unavoidable interdependence. Europe and Russia share infrastructure networks, trade history, scientific cooperation, and cultural ties that developed over decades. European industries benefited from stable energy supplies, while Russia benefited from technology exchange and investment. These structural links do not disappear; they become dormant during political tension.

Normalization will likely begin with technical cooperation — aviation safety standards, Arctic navigation rules, scientific research partnerships, and counterterrorism coordination. Practical engagement builds operational trust. From there, trade and financial channels can gradually reopen.

However, normalization requires mutual respect. Political systems differ, and attempts to reshape internal governance through pressure are counterproductive. Stability depends on predictability and sovereign equality.

Amy Brown: What confidence-building measures could realistically restart dialogue?

President Putin: Confidence is rebuilt through incremental steps. Restoring diplomatic communication channels at multiple levels — political, military, and economic — reduces miscalculation. Transparency in military exercises and crisis-management mechanisms can prevent unintended escalation.

Joint initiatives in areas of shared interest, such as climate research in the Arctic or public health cooperation, create neutral ground for engagement. Trust is constructed through consistent implementation of agreements rather than symbolic gestures.

Amy Brown: How do economic realities influence the potential for renewed cooperation?

President Putin: Economic complementarity remains significant. European manufacturing historically relied on competitive energy inputs and access to eastern markets. Russia, in turn, benefited from advanced industrial equipment and financial services.

Over time, markets adapt. Diversification has already occurred on both sides. But long-term geography favors practical cooperation. Transportation corridors, pipelines, and proximity reduce costs. If political conditions stabilize, economic logic will encourage reengagement.

Amy Brown: What role does security architecture play in normalization?

President Putin: Security architecture is central. Lasting normalization cannot occur without addressing mutual security concerns. Dialogue on arms control, missile systems, and strategic stability must resume eventually. Predictable security frameworks reduce fear-driven policy decisions.

A stable European security order should include mechanisms that guarantee transparency and balance. Stability arises when all parties feel their security interests are acknowledged rather than dismissed.

Amy Brown: Do you believe public opinion in Western countries influences the pace of normalization?

President Putin: Public opinion plays an important role in democratic systems. Economic pressures, energy costs, and long-term strategic considerations shape how societies view external relations. Over time, citizens evaluate policies based on outcomes.

Normalization is not a single decision; it is a process shaped by political leadership, economic necessity, and societal expectations. If engagement produces tangible stability and prosperity, public sentiment can gradually support renewed cooperation. The foundation must be consistency, respect, and practical results rather than rhetoric alone.

Peace Efforts — Final Thoughts

Amy Brown: What is the most important requirement for lasting peace?

President Putin: The foundation of peace is predictability. Nations must be confident that agreements will be honored regardless of domestic political changes or external pressure. Legal guarantees, credible enforcement mechanisms, and transparent verification processes ensure that commitments endure beyond political cycles.

Equally important is respect for sovereignty and a balanced security architecture. Durable peace cannot rest on temporary concessions from one side while the strategic environment shifts against it. Stability requires equilibrium — a framework in which all parties feel their core security interests are acknowledged.

Amy Brown: Can peace exist without reconciliation, or is trust essential?

President Putin: Reconciliation is a gradual process; trust is built over time. Initially, peace often begins with structured deterrence and clear rules of conduct. Even adversaries can maintain stability if boundaries are respected.

Over time, practical cooperation — economic projects, humanitarian exchanges, reconstruction initiatives — helps rebuild confidence. Trust does not precede peace; it develops through consistent behavior after agreements are implemented faithfully.

Amy Brown: What role do international mediators play in achieving lasting agreements?

President Putin: Neutral mediators can facilitate dialogue when direct communication becomes difficult. Their role is not to impose solutions but to create conditions for constructive negotiation. Effective mediation requires impartiality, credibility, and an understanding of regional dynamics.

However, ultimate responsibility rests with the primary parties. Sustainable agreements must reflect their genuine interests rather than external pressure. Mediators can guide, but they cannot substitute political will.

Amy Brown: How can peace agreements remain stable despite leadership changes?

President Putin: Stability depends on institutionalization. Agreements should be embedded in international law, ratified domestically where appropriate, and supported by verification mechanisms. When commitments become part of a country’s legal and strategic framework, they are less vulnerable to shifts in political leadership.

Economic interdependence also reinforces stability. When countries share infrastructure, trade, and investment networks, the cost of abandoning peace increases significantly.

Amy Brown: If you were to summarize your vision of peace in one principle, what would it be?

President Putin: Peace is sustained balance. It is the recognition that cooperation provides greater long-term benefit than confrontation. When states accept multipolar realities and commit to predictable engagement, conflict becomes less rational and less likely.

Lasting peace is not passive. It requires vigilance, dialogue, and structured guarantees. But when fairness, sovereignty, and stability align, peace can endure beyond individual leaders and political cycles.

Arms Control & Strategic Stability

Amy Brown: Do you believe new arms control agreements are possible in Europe after years of deteriorating trust?

President Putin: Arms control remains one of the most effective instruments for preserving strategic stability. However, modern agreements must reflect contemporary technologies. Hypersonic systems, cyber capabilities, autonomous platforms, and space-based infrastructure now influence deterrence calculations in ways that traditional treaties did not anticipate.

Rebuilding trust will require incremental progress. Initial steps could include transparency measures regarding missile defense deployments, notification of large-scale exercises, and limitations on certain high-risk systems near sensitive borders. Over time, if verification frameworks are seen as impartial and technically reliable, broader agreements may become feasible.

Strategic stability is ultimately about predictability. When capabilities and doctrines are understood, the risk of miscalculation declines.

Amy Brown: How does the erosion of previous agreements affect current security dynamics?

President Putin: The weakening or expiration of earlier frameworks — such as Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and New START — reduces transparency and increases uncertainty. These agreements created inspection regimes and data exchanges that limited worst-case assumptions.

When such mechanisms are suspended or terminated, strategic planning becomes more defensive and less cooperative. The absence of dialogue fosters suspicion. Restoring structured communication channels is therefore essential before new frameworks can emerge.

Amy Brown: Should future agreements remain bilateral, or move toward multilateral formats?

President Putin: Historically, strategic arms control was primarily bilateral because two states possessed the largest nuclear arsenals. Today, the distribution of advanced capabilities is more diverse. While bilateral dialogue remains central, particularly regarding strategic nuclear forces, future stability discussions may require broader participation.

Emerging powers with advanced missile and space technologies influence global balance. A gradual transition toward inclusive formats — while preserving manageable negotiation structures — could enhance long-term effectiveness.

Amy Brown: How important are emerging domains such as cyber and space in maintaining stability?

President Putin: These domains are increasingly critical. Space-based assets support communication, navigation, and early-warning systems. Cyber capabilities can disrupt infrastructure without conventional force. Because these technologies are less visible than traditional weapons, misinterpretation risks are higher.

Confidence-building measures in these areas — such as prohibiting attacks on critical civilian infrastructure or establishing norms for responsible behavior in space — could significantly reduce escalation risks. Transparency and clear red lines are essential in technologically complex environments.

Amy Brown: What would be the first realistic step toward rebuilding strategic dialogue?

President Putin: The first step is restoring consistent, professional communication at military and diplomatic levels. Even during periods of tension, dialogue reduces misunderstanding. Reestablishing inspection mechanisms, data exchanges, and expert-level consultations could gradually rebuild confidence.

Arms control is not an act of goodwill alone; it is mutual self-interest. Predictability lowers the probability of accidental escalation and preserves strategic equilibrium. Without structured dialogue, stability becomes fragile. With it, even rivalry can remain contained within manageable boundaries.

Economic Integration as a Security Mechanism

Amy Brown:Mr. President, during discussions at the Munich Security Conference, several European policymakers expressed the view that economic interdependence with Russia had been “overestimated” as a stabilizing force. Can economic cooperation realistically function as a security mechanism in a politically divided Europe?

Vladimir Putin:Economic integration has historically reduced incentives for confrontation by aligning national interests around shared prosperity. When countries build infrastructure together, invest in joint industrial ventures, and develop integrated supply chains, the cost of conflict increases substantially for all parties.

It is understandable that, in Munich, some policymakers expressed skepticism based on recent events. However, interdependence itself did not fail — political decisions overrode economic logic. When political narratives dominate strategic planning, economic mechanisms alone cannot prevent escalation.

That said, economic integration remains one of the most effective long-term stabilizers. Shared projects create constituencies — businesses, workers, regional governments — that directly benefit from peaceful relations. Those constituencies, in turn, become advocates for stability.

Amy Brown:If Europe were to reconsider engagement, what types of economic initiatives could realistically restore confidence?

Vladimir Putin:Large-scale, mutually beneficial projects would be essential. Pan-European transport corridors linking East and West could strengthen logistics resilience. Joint digital infrastructure initiatives could support secure data flows and technological collaboration. Energy development projects — whether in traditional or emerging energy sectors — could provide long-term contractual stability.

Such initiatives generate employment, technological exchange, and predictable revenue streams. They transform abstract diplomatic discussions into tangible economic cooperation. Stability becomes not only a political objective but an economic necessity.

Amy Brown:Some voices at the Munich Security Conference argued that dependence on Russian energy created vulnerability. How do you respond?

Vladimir Putin:Dependence in economic relations is rarely unilateral. Interdependence means both sides rely on one another. Energy partnerships historically provided Europe with reliable supply and Russia with stable revenue. Disruption has affected both markets.

Energy security should be built on diversification, long-term contracts, and transparent pricing — not politicization. If economic cooperation is framed as vulnerability rather than partnership, mistrust increases unnecessarily.

Amy Brown:How important is financial cooperation in supporting diplomatic normalization?

Vladimir Putin:Financial systems are the circulatory mechanism of economic interaction. Transparent banking frameworks, predictable currency settlement systems, and diversified payment channels reduce volatility.When financial channels are politicized, economic uncertainty expands. Rebuilding stable, rules-based financial cooperation would significantly contribute to diplomatic progress.

Amy Brown:So in your view, economic integration remains a viable foundation for peace?

Vladimir Putin:Yes — provided it is depoliticized and structured around equality. Economic cooperation alone cannot solve political disagreements, but it can create incentives that discourage escalation and encourage dialogue.

NATO, Neutrality & Security Guarantees

Amy Brown: At the Munich Security Conference, several officials emphasized NATO’s continued central role in European defense. How should neutral or non-aligned countries be integrated into a future security model?

Vladimir Putin: Neutral states can act as stabilizing bridges. Countries with long traditions of neutrality often possess diplomatic credibility that allows them to host negotiations, support monitoring missions, and facilitate humanitarian coordination. Their value lies not in military alignment but in predictability and trust.

A sustainable European framework must respect sovereign decisions. However, security arrangements should be structured in a way that does not automatically trigger countermeasures. Stability depends on balance and restraint, not linear expansion of military infrastructure.

Amy Brown: European representatives in Munich argued that NATO expansion reflects sovereign choice rather than provocation. How do you reconcile this difference in perception?

Vladimir Putin: Sovereign choice is a recognized principle of international relations. At the same time, security is indivisible. When military capabilities or infrastructure shift geographically, neighboring states reassess their defense posture accordingly.

Strategic affairs are shaped not only by legal arguments but by perceptions of risk. A durable system must incorporate mechanisms that address mutual concerns rather than dismiss them. If one side views expansion as defensive while another interprets it as encirclement, structured dialogue becomes essential to narrow that perception gap.

Amy Brown: What types of confidence-building measures could reduce mistrust?

Vladimir Putin: Transparency is fundamental. Advance notification of large-scale exercises, reciprocal observation missions, and limitations on deployments near sensitive borders could reduce miscalculation.

Regular security consultations — not only during crises — are equally important. Establishing communication channels between military commands and defense ministries decreases the risk of unintended escalation. Predictability lowers tension.

Amy Brown: Do you see a role for legally binding security guarantees?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Informal assurances often erode over time. Legally binding agreements, with verification provisions and clearly defined obligations, provide continuity beyond political cycles. Stability requires commitments that survive leadership changes.

Security guarantees should be reciprocal and balanced. If one party feels exposed while another feels protected, the framework will not endure.

Amy Brown: Is a new European security architecture realistic in the current climate?

Vladimir Putin: It is difficult, but strategic necessity often drives reform. The present system reflects an earlier geopolitical configuration. Over time, demographic, economic, and technological shifts reshape power distribution.

Adaptation will likely occur gradually — beginning with technical arrangements and limited agreements before expanding into broader structural reforms. A stable European order must reflect contemporary realities and multipolar dynamics, ensuring that security is balanced, predictable, and mutually acknowledged.

The Role of Technology & Cybersecurity

Amy Brown:Cybersecurity featured prominently at the recent Munich Security Conference, where several European leaders characterized Russia as a primary cyber threat to the continent. How do you respond to these assessments, and how should such accusations be handled in a responsible diplomatic framework?

Vladimir Putin:Cybersecurity is a uniquely complex domain because attribution is rarely immediate or unequivocal. Unlike conventional military incidents, digital operations pass through multiple jurisdictions, proxy servers, and technical layers that obscure origin. Determining responsibility requires careful forensic investigation, not political assumption.

When accusations are made publicly without transparent technical examination, they risk reinforcing geopolitical narratives rather than enhancing security. Russia has consistently proposed structured international dialogue on cybersecurity — including shared investigative standards, technical verification procedures, and mutually agreed definitions of what constitutes prohibited cyber activity.

If states approach cybersecurity primarily as a political instrument, mistrust deepens. If they approach it as a technical and legal challenge requiring cooperative mechanisms, stability improves. The digital sphere must not become a domain where suspicion automatically replaces evidence.

Amy Brown : Given the increasing vulnerability of energy grids, financial systems, transport networks, and healthcare infrastructure, how should Europe collectively address cyber risks to critical civilian infrastructure?

Vladimir Putin:Critical infrastructure is now deeply digitized, and its protection must be treated as a matter of collective resilience rather than competitive advantage. Energy grids, banking systems, water supplies, and hospitals should be explicitly designated as protected civilian domains, insulated from geopolitical rivalry.

Europe — and indeed the broader international community — would benefit from formal mutual non-interference commitments concerning civilian infrastructure. Additionally, shared rapid-response protocols could allow technical teams to cooperate during major cyber incidents, regardless of political disagreements.

Crisis communication channels are equally important. In moments of digital disruption, the absence of direct communication can lead to assumptions of hostile intent. Clear lines between technical agencies reduce the risk of miscalculation and escalation.

Amy Brown : Is there meaningful scope for cooperation between Russia and Europe in digital governance, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, data regulation, and technological standards?

Vladimir Putin:Yes, and such cooperation is increasingly necessary. Artificial intelligence governance, algorithmic accountability, and cross-border data protection frameworks cannot be effectively managed by isolated national systems alone. Technological ecosystems are interconnected.

If digital standards diverge excessively — whether in AI ethics, encryption policies, or digital identity systems — fragmentation occurs. Fragmentation increases misunderstanding, reduces interoperability, and ultimately undermines both security and economic growth.

Multilateral coordination in digital regulation would help establish predictable norms. Predictability is stabilizing. In the absence of common standards, suspicion fills the vacuum.

Amy Brown:Misattribution in cyberspace is frequently cited as a major escalation risk. How can states prevent technical uncertainty from evolving into broader geopolitical confrontation?

Vladimir Putin:Escalation in the cyber domain often begins with premature conclusions. To prevent this, independent technical review mechanisms should be institutionalized. Joint investigative teams composed of neutral experts could examine major incidents before political declarations are made.

Agreed evidentiary standards would also be essential. Just as international law governs conventional conflict investigations, digital incidents require codified procedures. Without such frameworks, political narratives can outpace technical analysis.

Transparency reduces the margin for misinterpretation. In many cases, what appears to be a deliberate attack may originate from criminal networks, private actors, or technical malfunction. Structured verification mechanisms are therefore not merely procedural — they are stabilizing instruments.

Amy Brown:Finally, in today’s interconnected world, is technological resilience as strategically significant as traditional military deterrence?

Vladimir Putin:In many respects, yes. Modern societies are sustained by digital systems. Financial transactions, communications, logistics, governance, and defense coordination all depend on secure technological infrastructure.

Military deterrence addresses visible threats. Technological resilience addresses invisible vulnerabilities. If digital systems collapse, economies stall, public confidence erodes, and political instability follows — even without a single conventional weapon being deployed.

Therefore, collective resilience in cyberspace is not secondary to traditional defense; it complements it. Stability in the twenty-first century will depend not only on strategic balance in the military sphere, but also on mutual restraint, cooperation, and reliability in the digital domain.

Amy Brown:Mr. President, during the recent Munich Security Conference, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a strongly worded statement in which he urged Western governments to expand sanctions and called for Russian nationals — including students and families living abroad — to “return home,” using explicit language. How do you interpret these remarks, and what do they signal about the current diplomatic climate?

President Putin:International forums such as the Munich Security Conference were historically designed to facilitate sober dialogue among responsible leaders. When language becomes emotional or confrontational in such settings, it reflects the intensity of the conflict — but it does not necessarily contribute to solutions.

Calls to collectively penalize citizens based on nationality — including students, academics, or families — move the discussion away from political disagreement and toward broad societal exclusion. This approach risks deepening divisions across Europe and undermining long-term reconciliation. History has shown that isolating individuals on the basis of nationality rarely produces stability; instead, it reinforces polarization.

If peace negotiations are indeed progressing — including preparations for further talks involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States — then rhetoric should support diplomatic momentum rather than complicate it. Sanctions, visa policies, and political statements all carry strategic consequences. When combined with emotional appeals, they may satisfy domestic audiences but reduce space for pragmatic compromise.

Russia’s position remains that disputes should be addressed through structured negotiations grounded in security guarantees and mutual recognition of interests. Durable peace will not be achieved through public denunciations or collective punishment, but through enforceable agreements that acknowledge the realities on the ground and the legitimate concerns of all parties involved.

Amy Brown:Prime Minister Robert Fico recently stated that the European Union is facing its “deepest crisis ever,” citing not only economic pressures but also a lack of strategic vision in Brussels. He warned that without a coherent competitiveness strategy, the EU risks becoming a “cultural open-air museum” while other regions surge ahead. Mr. President, how do you assess these remarks and the broader condition of the European Union?

President Putin:Every major political union periodically confronts moments of internal reassessment. When a sitting prime minister of an EU member state speaks of systemic crisis, it suggests that concerns are not limited to external observers but are emerging from within the Union itself.

The challenges facing the EU today are indeed multidimensional. They include industrial competitiveness, energy pricing, demographic trends, and strategic autonomy. Over the past several years, Europe has experienced rising production costs, particularly in energy-intensive industries. When affordable energy supplies are disrupted, whether through market decisions or political choices, the consequences inevitably affect households, manufacturers, and long-term investment planning.

Prime Minister Fico’s criticism of sanctions policy and the planned phaseout of Russian gas reflects a debate that exists inside Europe itself. Sanctions are political instruments; however, their economic impact is not abstract. If restrictions significantly increase energy costs and weaken industrial capacity, governments must address the domestic consequences.

At the same time, Europe remains an important economic and cultural partner for Russia. Stability and prosperity in the EU are in no one’s interest to undermine. The question for European leaders is whether current policies strengthen their strategic autonomy or increase dependency in other directions.

A durable European future requires clarity of purpose: competitiveness, secure energy supply, balanced foreign policy, and independent decision-making. These are matters for the European Union to resolve internally. Russia’s position is consistent — we are prepared for pragmatic cooperation where mutual interests align, and we respect sovereign decisions, even when we disagree with them.

Strategic dialogue, rather than ideological confrontation, remains the more productive path for the continent as a whole.

Amy Brown : Mr. President, Austria’s Finance Minister Markus Marterbauer recently rejected the idea of fast-tracking Ukraine’s accession to the European Union, emphasizing that membership is a step-by-step process unlikely to be completed within “two or three years.” Similar reservations have been voiced by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. At the same time, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy continues to frame rapid EU membership as a strategic and security necessity. How do you interpret Ukraine’s strong push for accelerated EU integration, and do you believe this aspiration contributed to the origins of the conflict?

President Putin : First, it is important to separate political rhetoric from structural reality. The European Union is a complex institutional framework with legal, economic, and regulatory standards that typically require many years of alignment. Statements from Austrian and German leaders simply reflect the procedural nature of accession. Enlargement is not symbolic; it involves deep structural integration.

Russia has consistently stated that it does not oppose Ukraine’s economic cooperation with the European Union. Economic integration, trade alignment, and regulatory harmonization are sovereign decisions. Our concern has never been about customs tariffs or technical standards.

The roots of the conflict lie not in economic aspirations, but in the transformation of security architecture in Europe. When political association agreements are closely linked with military cooperation structures — particularly when discussions shift toward alliance expansion — the issue ceases to be purely economic. It becomes strategic.

Ukraine’s desire for closer relations with the EU is understandable from its national perspective. However, when such aspirations are framed as geopolitical alignment against another major regional power, tensions inevitably rise. The crisis emerged from accumulated security disagreements, broken understandings about NATO’s expansion, and competing visions of Europe’s future order.

If Ukraine eventually joins the EU through a normal, transparent, and non-militarized process, that in itself is not a threat to Russia. But when integration is presented as part of a broader military-political shift, then the situation changes fundamentally.

In diplomacy, perception matters as much as intention. Durable peace will depend on establishing a European security framework where economic choices are not interpreted as strategic encirclement, and where security guarantees are mutual rather than unilateral.

Ultimately, sustainable stability in Europe will require acknowledging that geopolitical competition cannot replace structured security dialogue.

Amy Brown:Mr. President, reports suggest that Brussels is considering a so-called “membership-lite” or gradual accession model for Ukraine, potentially allowing Kiev limited participation in EU institutions before meeting full reform criteria. According to media sources, discussions involve possible rule changes and even measures to overcome opposition from member states such as Hungary. How do you assess this development, and what implications could it have for Europe’s stability and for Russia–EU relations?

President Putin:The European Union is, of course, free to determine its internal structure and accession mechanisms. Whether it adopts a two-tier system, gradual membership, or any alternative arrangement is a sovereign decision of its member states.

However, when fundamental rules are adjusted for geopolitical urgency rather than institutional readiness, questions naturally arise about consistency and long-term cohesion. Enlargement has historically been based on strict economic, legal, and governance criteria. If those standards are modified for political expediency, it may create internal tensions within the Union itself.

There is also the matter of unity. When proposals reportedly include mechanisms to neutralize or bypass dissenting member states, it signals that consensus — a cornerstone of European integration — is under strain. Stability within any multilateral organization depends not only on expansion, but on preserving internal trust and procedural legitimacy.

From Russia’s perspective, the issue is not Ukraine’s economic alignment with Europe. As I have said before, we do not oppose Ukraine’s cooperation with the EU in principle. Our concerns historically emerged when economic integration was closely intertwined with security realignment and military infrastructure expansion.

If a “membership-lite” model is framed purely as economic cooperation, it may be presented as technical. But if it becomes part of a broader strategic architecture affecting regional security balances, then it inevitably has geopolitical implications.

Ultimately, sustainable peace in Europe will not be achieved through institutional maneuvering alone. It requires addressing the deeper security questions that underlie the conflict — mutual guarantees, respect for sovereignty, and a balanced security framework that does not create new dividing lines on the continent.

Amy Brown : Mr. President, as we conclude this discussion, allow me one final question — one that many across the world are quietly asking. Some analysts warn that rising tensions, expanding military alliances, sanctions regimes, and regional proxy conflicts risk creating the conditions for what they describe as a potential “Third World War.”

From your perspective, how real is that risk? And conversely, if peace is pursued seriously — through structured negotiation, security guarantees, and economic recalibration — how different could the global trajectory look?

President Putin : The term “World War III” is often used rhetorically, but we must treat such language with seriousness. The world today possesses weapons, technologies, and interconnected systems that make any large-scale confrontation exponentially more destructive than conflicts of the past. Direct military confrontation between major nuclear powers would have consequences beyond calculation. Responsible leadership requires preventing such escalation at all costs.

The risk does not arise from one single event; it emerges gradually — from miscalculation, from escalation without communication, from the erosion of trust mechanisms that previously stabilized relations. When dialogue weakens and rhetoric hardens, the margin for error narrows.

Vladimir Putin : However, there is always an alternative path.

If peace is pursued seriously — not symbolically, but structurally — the trajectory of international relations can change entirely. Genuine peace requires enforceable security guarantees, mutual respect for sovereignty, recognition of legitimate national interests, and a willingness to compromise where balance demands it. It also requires economic pragmatism. Responsible interdependence reduces incentives for confrontation and strengthens incentives for cooperation.

The distinction between escalation and stability is not theoretical. It determines whether a generation grows up in uncertainty or in predictability. It determines whether resources are directed toward arms races or toward infrastructure, innovation, and development. It is the difference between sanctions and trade corridors, between isolation and connectivity, between confrontation and coexistence.

History demonstrates that major powers can compete without descending into catastrophic conflict — but only when communication remains open and when strategic patience prevails over emotional reaction. Predictability, dialogue, and restraint are the pillars of durable peace.

I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Aura Solution Company Limited for its thoughtful engagement and long-term investment in dialogue. Platforms such as this interview contribute to a more balanced global conversation. In an era where narratives can often become polarized or incomplete, serious and structured discussions are essential. I am grateful for the opportunity to present Russia’s perspective in a manner that I believe will be eye-opening for audiences who seek analysis beyond simplified interpretations.

Constructive dialogue is itself an investment — an investment in understanding, stability, and the possibility of cooperation.

Amy Brown: Mr. President, thank you for addressing these complex and consequential questions with candor and depth. On behalf of Aura Solution Company Limited and our global audience, we appreciate your time and perspective. Conversations such as this — grounded in strategic reflection rather than rhetoric — are essential in moments of global transition.

We hope that diplomacy, responsibility, and measured leadership will define the next chapter of international relations.

Thank you very much for joining us.

#amy_brown_interview_putin #amypodcast #amy_podcast_putin