Either I can't read or you're wrong using plural.

Add that the interviewer asks him about dynasties of presidents, and that this is the question he actually responds to. He is not asked about whether he is ready to cooperate with the US, he is asked what he plans to do with the next president who will be a close relative of a past one.

In your second point you again miss the fact that he talks about 2016. He does not extend any hands on any generic issues at the point. He is asked how he plans to handle the 2016 American president. He explains that in 2016 he will deal with anyone because there is this set of common problems. You miss that because Reuters deliberately cuts his answer out of the actual context in an attempt to create an impression you've actually got from its report.

Yes, these are state-run channels, and I don't get it why you people are so excited about it all the time. It's indeed a purely economical issue: the country needs a free terrestial broadcast for all citizens, so the governments pays for a few basic channels. We have other independent channels, including 24-hour news ones, yet on every single corner you keep pedaling this issue of these few channels being "state-owned". Even here: why is it in the article? What does it add for the reader? Except smear?

On Ukraine: again, Reuters played you nicely. There is no talk of any normalization with the US. Putin is asked about 2016. He says he will work with any new president. Because there are disagreements on some issues. And common goals in some areas. He will work on the common issues with the US. Ukraine is not among them. Ukraine is not anywhere in his actual interview. Yet Reuters skillfully inserts it there, and it clearly works on you.