He also writes:
4. THE AIM IS TO DISARM THE ENEMY.
We have already said that the aim of all action in War is to disarm the enemy, and we shall now show that this, theoretically at least, is indispensable.
If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand; but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better. Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the War should therefore be a change for the worse. The worst condition in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of War, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it. From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of Warfare. Now War is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making War; therefore, what we have just said as to the aim of action in War applies to both parties. Here, then, is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, he may defeat me; then I shall be no longer my own master; he will dictate the law to me as I did to him. This is the second reciprocal action, and leads to a second extreme (SECOND RECIPROCAL ACTION)

So why I think Putin made a joke? Because demilitarization as the goal is essentially a tautology. War is demilitarization and the goal is demilitarization. We fight war to have war.
Going back to the previous post, Clausewitz finishes with this sentence:
>disarmament [...] It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.
He writes this because he doesn't talks about a particular war, but he created a theoretical work, an abstraction from all the historical examples. He can't possibly note all the possible causes why wars broke out. But when a war is put into practice, those causes the real reasons why politicians, leaders of countries reached for the tool of war are also lose their meaning, because when a war already broke out the only thing they have to concentrate, the only thing they have to achieve is the disarmament of the enemy.