Moscow: Russian President Vladimir Putin exuded self-confidence as he fielded four hours of questions in his traditional phone-in marathon, keeping open Russia’s diplomatic and military options on the Ukraine crisis.

Putin basked in the glory of Russia’s lightning takeover of Crimea from Ukraine last month, sitting impassively as dozens of locals in the Crimean port of Sevastopol chanted “Thank you!” in a live link-up.

He said he had no fears of Western sanctions against Russia over the crisis, even against him personally, only expressing irritation that the wife of one of his associates, the billionaire Gennady Timchenko, had her credit cards blocked.

As usual, Putin answered questions on every aspect of life ranging from whether he intended to remarry to the price of cabbages to whether he thought US President Barack Obama would save him from drowning.

But the world, and this time Russia, were only really interested in one question — did Putin intend to send Russian troops into eastern Ukraine?

Fears of a major conflict have grown in recent days after Russia deployed tens of thousands of troops to Ukraine’s eastern border and pro-Russian separatists seized official buildings across east Ukraine.

Putin dismissed as “nonsense” suggestions that Russian special forces were already stirring trouble in east Ukraine but left the door firmly open to sending the army across the border to protect the rights of Russian-speakers in Ukraine.

Putin said he “very much” hoped he would not have to use authorisation granted to him on March 1 by the Russian upper house to send troops into Ukrainian territory.

At the same time, he made clear the Kremlin was not rejecting dialogue, saying Thursday’s talks between top diplomats in Geneva were “extremely important” and negotiations were the best way out of the crisis.

Maria Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Centre in Moscow, said that against the background of Russia’s vitriolic and bellicose state propaganda on the Ukraine crisis, Putin adopted a “peaceful and human tone”.

“He showed self-confidence and magnanimity... and talked about the necessity of dialogue and that we [Russians and Ukrainians] need each other.”

Yet Putin made clear that he was in no mood to give way on the situation in east Ukraine, saying Moscow needed guarantees that the rights of Russian-speakers would be protected.

Without such guarantees, he implied, Russia would not recognise the results of the Ukrainian presidential election on May 25 and the crisis would continue.

Putin may have denied that Russian soldiers were in Ukraine but he acknowledged that Russian troops had been involved in the annexation of Crimea last month - something Moscow had denied at the time.

Sometimes sounding emotional, Putin also argued that eastern and southern Ukraine had only ended up as part of the country after the territory was transferred by the Bolsheviks in the 1920s.

“Why they did this, only God only knows,” he said, recalling that the lands had been won by Russia in famous battles led by Catherine the Great and her favourite Grigory Potemkin.

He pointedly recalled that in Tsarist times the territory from Donetsk across to Odessa after its conquest was known as Novorossiya - New Russia.

He also made a significant comment about the breakaway Moldovan region of Transdniestr, whose parliament and president have asked Moscow to recognise its independence, saying its people should be free to determine their own destiny.

Putin is currently riding the crest of the wave of patriotic euphoria after Russia’s hitch-free takeover of Crimea, with 71 percent of Russians saying they trust the Russian strongman, according to the independent Levada Centre.

Economists have expressed alarm over the effect of the intervention of the Russian economy, which was showing weakness even before the current crisis started. But this has yet to cloud Putin’s outlook, in the short term at least.

Pressed by reporters after the marathon phone-in session, Putin said he did not want to even talk about the question of sending troops into Ukraine in case it had a negative effect on talks.

“From these ambiguous words you can draw the most different conclusions about what is going to happen in the future,” said Lipman.