The president has set the goal of enlarging the national nuclear submarine fleet and roster of surface vessels

President Vladimir Putin has announced plans for the future development of Russia's Navy.

The president made the comments on Thursday in Murmansk, during a meeting with the crew of the Arkhangelsk nuclear submarine, a Yasen-M class vessel that equipped with Zircon hypersonic missiles.

Moscow sees its Navy as a cornerstone of the country's security and a key counterweight in the global strategic balance, Putin said.

He announced plans to build five more vessels of the same class, three more smaller Borei-A class submarines as well as a number of surface ships by 2050.

Here is Putin's speech in full:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Comrades, good evening.

I am glad to see you all. It is a pleasure for me to once again visit a missile cruiser like this, or any missile ship. This is my first time on a missile-carrying submarine of this kind. I have visited other submarines, as you probably know, and taken part in their exercises. But your submarine is special since it is our latest model.

You see, we launched its construction in 2015, launched it in 2023 and the cruiser was handed over to the Armed Forces and joined the Navy in 2024. This, I must say, is a very solid timeframe for complex units like this one. This is a state-of-the-art vessel.

We saw another submarine of this kind today and took part in its launch. It is quite similar, while adding the capability to carry and launch the Zircon missiles, which is something we can be proud of. After all, to some extent, the Zircon missiles can be viewed as strategic weapons.

Considering how effective, precise and fast this weapon is, it can certainly be considered a strategic system.

We are aware of the role of the Navy. Russia has been a major naval power for centuries, and we will do our utmost to maintain this status, building new naval surface vessels and submarines and improving their performance. They must meet modern requirements while remaining combat-ready and effective in the immediate - in every sense of the word - historical perspective, because these weapons that should serve our country for decades, form the basis of our strategic security.

We will do everything towards this, just as we will do everything necessary to train professionals like you. These are one-of-a-kind men, if I may say so. Their jobs call for a special character and readiness to implement any tasks to ensure national security. You are such people. I have no doubt about that.

The traditions of our Navy were established long ago, and you continue to honor them. There is a special bond in the brotherhood of naval officers, especially in the submarine fleet.

I would like to congratulate you on being appointed to serve on this warship, our most modern vessel armed with the latest equipment and capable of fulfilling a wide range of missions. You know this better than many, but it is an extremely important issue. You can work against surface and submerged targets, as well as stationary ground targets. It is difficult to name the tasks which our missile carriers or similar warships cannot fulfill. They can do anything, and we will continue to improve all their capabilities. I have just now spoken with the commander-in-chief, your commander. Everything must be adjusted to modern and future requirements. We must look to the future.

I am happy to see you. I congratulate you on being appointed to serve here. As I have said when we were outside, I also congratulate all our naval personnel on today's event, the launch of the Perm, a new submarine of the same class.

It is our belief that the Navy is one of the main guarantees of Russia's state security and global strategic stability, because there is a certain strategic balance between Russia and the United States, and we will treat this balance with the utmost care. We will act in a measured and timely manner.

Historically, Russia has faced certain challenges at all times. Being a land power, with a huge territory, there is still a reason that Russia began shaping its traditions of shipbuilding and the Navy under Peter the Great. In fact, some of them existed even before that, but Peter the Great created a solid foundation to rely on, which was new. We, in turn, will make every effort to preserve this major component of the Russian Armed Forces, and to strengthen it.

We have just witnessed the launch of the fifth Project Yasen-M cruiser. Plans are in place to build five more such ships and three more Borei-A ships. However, our plans for the development of the Armed Forces and the Navy are not limited to this. Other plans call for building surface ships and strategic missile carriers.

I will not go into details now. There are different opinions and different approaches to achieving our ambitious plans. Still, disputes and debates among researchers, designers, the Armed Forces, and various enterprises are part of a positive process aimed at choosing the best, optimal ways to develop the Navy. This is what we need to do.

I will not go into details now, although I am deeply immersed in them. The commander knows - we do not meet as often as we should, but this discussion is ongoing nonetheless, and decisions are also made eventually. This is not just about adjusting our respective stances - these discussions lead to decisions on the development of the Navy. We made long-term, future-oriented decisions, for decades to come - until 2050 and beyond.

In response to my instructions, a strategy for the development of the Navy is currently being drafted, along with a program for the construction of surface ships and submarines until 2050. You will be part of this work as well.

There was no irony in what I just said. I meant it seriously, because feedback from those who operate the equipment - ships in this case - drives our future development plans. I hope that during your service, if you notice something or have an idea, please share it. We will be glad to hear your practical comments.

To put it briefly, we are gradually moving towards achieving all the objectives we set for ourselves at the start of the operation. Some would have liked these advances to happen at a quicker pace, but we have gathered steady momentum and have been confidently advancing our positions. But I would like to frame this question in a different way.

What I want to say is that we were not the ones who started or launched hostilities. It all started in the wake of the 2014 coup d'etat in Ukraine. Western countries supported it, and this was how hostilities broke out in southeastern Ukraine.

We tried to resolve these issues by peaceful means for eight years. Taking Crimea and its people, as well as the people of Sevastopol under our wing was something we had to do. And we went to great lengths and were unrelenting in our efforts to resolve all matters concerning Donbass and Lugansk by peaceful means.

It turned out, and everyone knows this today, that both the Ukrainian authorities and their Western curators were unfortunately misleading us and trying to trick us. Former leaders who used to stand at the helm of several leading Western nations, including former President of France Hollande and Ms Merkel, the former German Chancellor, stated openly that they needed these Minsk agreements merely to deliver more weapons to the Ukrainian regime and to prepare it for a military confrontation with Russia. However, during these eight years, the people in Donbass, Lugansk and Donetsk faced outright genocide, and I mean real genocide. But the Ukrainian regime's Western curators preferred to turn a blind eye to these developments, forcing us to try to stop the war which started in 2014 by military means. We were not the ones who started it.

By the way, even when the armed conflict escalated into open confrontation in 2022, we were still offering to settle all the outstanding issues by peaceful means. Moreover, as I have said many times, we reached an agreement with Ukraine during our talks in Istanbul. I must mention that we had an agreement on matters that are being raised all the time these days and are viewed as something impossible. I am referring to de-Nazifying and demilitarizing efforts. In fact, we had a deal on these issues, and it was all set forth in the agreement, I mean its draft. Ukraine's head negotiator initialed a summary of this document. They initialed and signed this document, which means that it was acceptable to them.

We know what happened next. After that, their European curators arrived, including former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who convinced the Ukrainian leadership to keep fighting until there are virtually no Ukrainians left and to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.

He probably forgot that we have crews like the one you are in, and that we have means like this submarine. He probably forgot, or maybe they ignore altogether what the Russian people represent, what they stand for and what they have in their hearts and souls when it comes to defending their Fatherland.

Overall, we can clearly see what is happening right now. Our troops have the strategic initiative along the entire contact line. Only recently, I said that we would squeeze them into a corner, but now we have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off. I think that people in Ukraine need to realize what is going on.

Our Armed Forces have been gathering momentum and acting increasingly effectively. Major General Mikhail Gudkov, who took part in combat action, can tell you about it.

He commands the Pacific Fleet's 155th Naval Infantry Brigade. I believe that this is one of the best brigades in our Armed Forces. The Defense Minister and the Chief of the General Staff believe that Major General Gudkov's achievements must be replicated across our Armed Forces, primarily by the naval infantry units, which have been quite effective in combat. They are actually very good. It would not be an exaggeration to say that these are elite units within the Armed Forces, just like the paratroopers and the special operations units.

Although I should note that earlier today, just before arriving here, I received another report from the Chief of the General Staff. Other units of the Armed Forces have gained significant momentum.

Regarding the marines, I have already stated that they are performing superbly. Since both the Defense Minister and the Chief of the General Staff believe that your experience should be replicated across other units, I have decided to transfer you to a new position, elevating your level of responsibility. You are hereby appointed Deputy Commander of the Navy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

Your area of responsibility will include command over all Marine Infantry of the Navy, as well as all missile and artillery coastal forces.

The task is straightforward yet extensive: despite the fact that all marines are demonstrating exemplary performance, these units must be brought to the same level of combat readiness and effectiveness that you have achieved with the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade of the Pacific Fleet.

Additionally, the General Staff of the Defense Ministry has approved a program to reorganize the Marine Infantry. We will gradually transition brigades into Marine Infantry divisions. This year, two divisions, including the 155th Brigade, will be established; next year, two more divisions; and the following year, another division.

This is a major undertaking that requires, first and foremost, the organization of combat training, informed by your experience in commanding the 155th Marine Infantry Brigade of the Pacific Fleet during active operations. Consideration must be given to structural changes as brigades transition into divisions, as well as to weaponry, communications systems, and other matters. In essence, this constitutes a substantial endeavor.

I will shortly outline further immediate steps. The Commander has endorsed this proposal, and I am confident that you will succeed. I wish you good luck.

As regards the situation along the line of contact, let me reiterate, emphasize: across the entire frontline, the strategic initiative lies unequivocally with the Russian Armed Forces.

The Lugansk People's Republic has been 99 percent liberated, while the Donetsk People's Republic, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions stand at over 70 percent. Our forces, our troops, are advancing daily, liberating territory after territory, area after area.

I understand that everyone in the world and in our country is closely following [negotiations between Russia and the United States]. In this regard, I would like to state - first and foremost - that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons - I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.

It is clear that the conflict I have just mentioned and briefly characterized in terms of recent developments, remains complex and requires thorough discussion and consideration.

We stand for resolving all these issues by peaceful means, as I have just stated, reinforcing the measures we have taken from the very beginning - first, second, and third.

Therefore, we advocate resolving these issues through peaceful means, but with the elimination of the root causes that have led to the current situation. We must undoubtedly ensure Russia's security from the long-term historical perspective. Any step taken to achieve this objective will be welcomed by us, and we will work with any partners who strive towards this goal. This includes not only the United States but also the People's Republic of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, all BRICS nations, and many others, such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with which we have a signed treaty. Article 4 of this treaty outlines in detail our mutual obligations for support. Cooperation with this country is also progressing in both military-technical and defense spheres.

We are prepared to work with Europe as well, despite their inconsistent behavior and constant attempts to lead us up the garden path. Nevertheless, we have grown accustomed to this. I trust we will avoid making mistakes rooted in excessive trust towards our so-called partners.

But in general, they have a problem over there, which is never highlighted, just mentioned in passing. I am highlighting it. What is it? Ultranationalists have had considerable influence in Ukraine from the start, in fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These people hold openly neo-Nazi views, and they even use the term in Ukraine, so we were not the ones who invented it. Curiously, few people mention this now, either.

In 2017, the United States Congress added a provision to the government spending bill that prohibited financing or having any relations with units like the Azov militia unit. An American lawmaker directly described that paramilitary group as terrorist and anti-Semitic.

Moreover, although the amendment was not supported by the Senate at that time, in a year or two, its sponsors, including the oldest member of the US Congress, supported that legislation, and it was adopted by Congress. The US Congress recognized Azov as a terrorist, anti-Semitic, and neo-Nazi organization.

Has anything changed since then? No. Essentially, Azov has not changed. It has remained the same. However, in 2022, the State Department decided that US military aid could go to that controversial unit because it had been integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine - apparently, the bill allowed this interpretation. The fact that it was integrated into the official armed forces changed nothing. Their views and actions remained the same as they were at the start.

If anything, it has become worse, because now they plan to strengthen these units, including Azov, and elevate them to divisions. This means that such people now have even more weapons at their disposal. They have more supporters, people they have persuaded to fight for them by implanting their views.

What happens next? As a result, the current civil authorities in Ukraine have no legitimacy in accordance with the country's constitution. Ukraine has held no presidential election, while according to the constitution, all key officials are to be appointed by the president, including regional government bodies, governors and so on. So, if the president is illegitimate, so are all the others.

So, under these circumstances of de facto illegitimacy, neo-Nazi formations receive additional weapons and recruit new personnel. What does this lead to, what could it lead to? It results in de facto power being in their hands. This, in turn, means that it is already unclear with whom to sign documents and what effect such documents might carry, for tomorrow new leaders may come to power through elections and declare: "We do not know who signed those papers, so goodbye."

The issue is not just this uncertainty; it is that these neo-Nazi formations, such as Azov, among others, are effectively beginning to run the country. This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?

In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.

In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries - and certainly with our partners and allies - the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognized worldwide as consistent and reliable.

This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity - and perhaps no possibility - to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice, as I have already noted.

Ultimately, we advocate for the resolution of all conflicts, including this one, through peaceful means. But not at our expense.

As you know, the economy and finance of our state can be described, thankfully, as satisfactory, to put it mildly. The situation is stable in terms of government finances and the economy as a whole.

Of course, there is never enough money. I do not remember in my current capacity over the past years anyone in charge of the economy and finance saying, "We have money to spare." This never happens. On the other hand, when oil prices were high, we had enough money to keep it in a reserve fund. It had a different name, but this does not matter.

Overall, even when we had enough money to keep in reserve, it was never sufficient. Here is what I mean: if you do not keep money in reserve, you will have macroeconomic problems, including inflation. You must have a reserve fund, using the rest to devise programs connected with budget spending.

The situation is the same now. It is stable and normal. With a 4.1 percent economic growth rate, Russia is the fourth largest country in the world in terms of the size of its economy and purchasing power parity. The top three are China, the United States and India, then Russia. All the other economies, including Japan and Germany, are smaller.

I am not talking about Great Britain, which is pouncing at us and otherwise behaving aggressively, while its economy is only the ninth or tenth largest. This explains the size of its armed forces, which 170,000 or 180,000 personnel. This is the armed forces Great Britain has.

What did I say? I said that you are always short of something. The commander-in-chief [of the Navy] attended a meeting today. As for the development of closed towns, the Closed Administrative-Territorial Unit, I believe that we have allocated over 39 billion rubles over the past two or three years for this purpose, for the development and improvement of these closed towns.

Today I listened to what your commander-in-chief reported on the development plans for these closed towns in light of the growing size of our armed forces and navy, as well as the build-up of our ground forces.

That is why I have issued instructions for the Government and the Finance Ministry, which will implement them, to approve the allocation of at least ten billion rubles annually over the next few years.

I hope that our achievements are visible to all. I mean spending on kindergartens and schools, on the improvement of housing and utility services, your streets and courtyard spaces, etc. I hope this is something you can see.

In short, we will do it. We have a program, and the funds will be earmarked for it.

Thank you.