Путин о манерах Вашингтона, миротворцах в Донбассе и судьбе
Серебренникова
Vladimir Putin answered
Russian journalists’ questions following his visit to China to take
part in the BRICS Summit.
September 5, 2017
10:00
Xiamen
At a news
conference following BRICS Summit.
Vladimir Putin summed up
the results of the BRICS Summit and his talks with foreign
leaders on the Summit’s sidelines, and shared his perspective
on pressing international issues.
* * *
Transcript
of the news conference for Russian journalists
0:44 -- President of Russia
Vladimir Putin: Let us start with your questions, please.
Question: The BRICS
Summit has just closed. As we all know, BRICS countries account
for 31 percent of the global GDP.
Could you share your
perspective on the future of this association
in the follow-up to the discussions
at the Summit? What are its main outcomes and what are Russia’s
priorities regarding BRICS?
Vladimir Putin: Let me
remind you that BRICS emerged at Russia’s initiative back in 2005
when we first brought to the same table representatives
of the People’s Republic of China, India and Russia. This
is how three countries started working together, and later expanded
to five countries.
There is no doubt that BRICS
has great prospects. At its core is the convergence of interests
in a number of areas, not some kind of ideological
principles.
This primarily has
to do with economic structure and our common commitment to make
the global economy more fair and noble, so to speak.
Overall, we succeeded
in coordinating our positions on a number of major,
fundamental issues over the past years.
You may have noticed that
BRICS countries regularly meet not only at specialised summits like
the one here in the People’s Republic of China, but also
on the sidelines of various international events before
the start of those events. For example, BRICS leaders regularly
meet ahead of G20 meetings.
Please note that
the new Development Bank has been established and is already
functioning. You must have also noted (I mentioned this
at the expanded meeting and at the Business Council
meeting) that Russia is already receiving funding for three projects.
One has to do with
water purification systems in the Volga basin, another with
the development of Russia’s judicial system, primarily new buildings,
facilities and the informatisation of the judicial system
of Russia. There are other interesting projects, not as large
perhaps, but still important for our country.
These are just
the first steps. The pool of reserve currencies is beginning
to work. We promote contacts between business leaders. The Business
Council grows more active, and Russian initiatives are gaining support
among others.
You may have heard about
women's entrepreneurship as well. In my opinion, this is
an important thing – the right thing. Almost all countries make
efforts to support women's entrepreneurship.
There are other important,
interesting and promising undertakings. I am confident that this
association will work effectively in the future.
The Chinese Presidency
has managed to preserve all that has been built up so far, including our
joint work in Russia, in Ufa, and create new impulses.
This was a successful
summit, including the involvement of the ‘outreach’ countries’
leaders – those states that represent emerging markets from various
regions of the world.
I would like
to congratulate our Chinese friends on the absolute success
of this major international event.
Question: Mr President, you
have had an extensive bilateral agenda on the sidelines
of the summit. You met with the President of Egypt, with
many other leaders.
Can you please tell us more
about the meetings? For example, have you discussed
the restoration of air transportation with the President
of Egypt? Have you accepted his invitation to visit Egypt
and participate in the signing of the nuclear power
plant contract?
Also, you have had two
telephone conversations, with the Prime Minister of Japan
and the President of South Korea. Can you please give us more
details?
Vladimir Putin: If
I talk in detail about all these meetings and telephone
conversations, we will not have enough time. You have seen these bilateral
meetings.
This visit began with
a bilateral meeting with the Chairman of the People's
Republic of China – basically, that was part of a separate
working visit.
As for the BRICS
countries, I had meetings with the Prime Minister of India
and the President of South Africa. Those primarily dealt with
bilateral relations. With each of these countries, we have an extensive
agenda, including very diverse economic ties.
Regarding the countries
invited to this year’s BRICS summit within the outreach format,
a meeting was held with Thailand’s Prime Minister. This is
a fast-growing economy and we are expanding our economic interaction
with this country. As you may know, we have doubled the purchase
of natural rubber and increased the purchase of vegetables
and fruit by 30–40 percent. We are interested in supplying our
products, including high technology ones, to Thailand’s markets. That is
what we discussed.
As for Mexico, we
have our interest there too, direct interests of our companies. Lukoil,
for instance, is going to implement four projects
in the Gulf of Mexico, three of them with French partners,
and one on its own.
We are also doing well
on the Mexican market selling the Superjet-100 aircraft.
Speaking of Egypt, you
know about our far-reaching historical ties and relations.
The relations between Russia and Egypt are on the rise.
President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi extended an invitation to visit his
country, and I will be happy to do so at the right
time.
Speaking of air
transportation services, we would like to resume flights to Egypt
in full. But we agreed that the work of our relevant special
services and transport agencies responsible for flight safety should
continue, and we must be absolutely sure that the safety of our
citizens is guaranteed.
We see that our Egyptian
friends are doing their best to ensure this safety. Relevant agencies are
interacting with each other and working out some issues. I expect us
to solve this task shortly.
Regarding telephone
conversations, both of them – with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe
and the President of the Republic of Korea – were
focused on North Korea’s nuclear tests.
We have agreed
to continue discussing this matter when we meet in person. Tomorrow,
both the South Korean President and the Japanese Prime Minister
will arrive in Vladivostok for the Eastern Economic Forum,
and we will talk about this more.
Yes, please
Question: One
of the top news stories these days is the US decision to shut
down several Russian diplomatic facilities, which in essence amounts
to another instance of seizing diplomatic property.
The Russian Foreign
Ministry has used the words “seizure” and “searches”. You have not
said anything on this matter so far. Will you comment on it now? Will
Russia respond to all this? If so, what response would it be?
Vladimir Putin: The thing is that we have agreed with our partners that Russia
and the United States should have parity in terms
of personnel or diplomats in their missions in each other’s
country. I believe there were 1,300 American diplomats working
in Russia and 455 Russian diplomats in the United States.
We have balanced the figure.
I would like you
to take note of the fact that this figure, 455 Russian diplomats
working in the United States, also includes (provisionally)
the 155 Russians working at the United Nations. Strictly
speaking, they are not diplomats accredited at the US Department
of State but diplomats working at an international organisation.
When the United States
wanted the UN to be headquartered in New York, it pledged
to properly ensure its operation. So strictly speaking, the number
of American diplomats in Moscow should be not 455 but 155 fewer, if
we are talking about parity.
So, we reserve the right
to take a new decision on the number of American
diplomats in Moscow. We will not do this immediately but will see how
things develop.
The Americans had
the right to reduce the number of our diplomatic offices.
It is another matter altogether that they have done this in way that was
absolutely uncivil. This does not do reflect well on our American
partners.
It is difficult to talk
to people who confuse Austria and Australia. But there is nothing we
can do about this; this is the level of political culture among part
of the American establishment.
As for the American
people, America is truly a great nation if the Americans can put up
with so many politically uncivilised people.
Question: Mr President, you
have already mentioned that you touched upon the issue
of the DPRK when you spoke to the Prime Minister
of Japan and the President of South Korea…
Vladimir Putin: Excuse me,
but, with regard to the buildings and structures, this is
unprecedented. As a graduate of the St Petersburg
University law department, I, or any other lawyer for that matter,
can tell you that property rights consist of three elements:
the right to own, use, and dispose of such property.
The United States
stripped Russia of the right to use our property, which is
a clear violation of Russia’s property rights. So, to begin
with, I will ask our Foreign Ministry to file a lawsuit. We will
see how effectively the much-lauded American judicial system works.
Question: Returning
to the DPRK, what is your position? It looks like neither talks (the diplomatic
process), nor threats, nor sanctions work. How can the DPRK situation be
resolved?
Vladimir Putin: This is
the simplest question today.
I discussed this with
my colleagues in private, but I do not think there is any need
to conceal anything here. I will repeat what I said
in private and official conversations, and, in fact, what
everyone should be aware of and anyone with common sense should
understand.
Everyone remembers well what
happened to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Hussein abandoned the production
of weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, under the pretext
of searching for these weapons, Saddam Hussein himself and his
family were killed during the well-known military operation.
Even children died back
then. His grandson, I believe, was shot to death. The country
was destroyed, and Saddam Hussein was hanged. Listen, everyone is aware
of it and everyone remembers it. North Koreans are also aware
of it and remember it. Do you think that following the adoption
of some sanctions, North Korea will abandon its course on creating
weapons of mass destruction?
Russia condemns these
exercises on the part of North Korea. We believe they are
provocative in nature. However, we cannot forget about what I just
said about Iraq, and what happened later in Libya. Certainly,
the North Koreans will not forget it.
Sanctions of any kind
are useless and ineffective in this case. As I said
to one of my colleagues yesterday, they will eat grass, but they
will not abandon this programme unless they feel safe.
What can ensure security?
The restoration of international law. We need to advance towards
dialogue between all parties concerned. It is important for all
participants in this process, including North Korea, not to have any thoughts
about the threat of being destroyed; on the contrary, all
sides to the conflict should cooperate.
In this environment,
in this situation, whipping up military hysteria is absolutely pointless;
it is a dead end. Besides, North Korea has not only medium-range missiles
and nuclear weapons, we know they have that, but they also have long-range
artillery and multiple rocket launchers with a range of up
to 60 kilometres.
It is pointless to use
missile defence systems against these weapons. There are no weapons
in the world that can counteract long-range artillery
or multiple rocket launchers. And they can be located in such
a way that they are virtually impossible to find.
In this context,
military hysteria will do no good, but may lead to a global,
planet-wide disaster and enormous casualties.
Diplomacy is the only
way to solve the North Korean nuclear problem.
Question: My question
is also related to North Korea. The US has declared that it wants
to toughen sanctions and urged Russia to join them. How can such
statements be evaluated given the renowned sanctions law where Russia is
put on the same list as North Korea and Iran?
Vladimir Putin: True,
it does not make sense to put us on the list alongside North
Korea and then ask us to help with sanctions against it. But it is
being done by people who confuse Austria and Australia and then
ask their President to persuade Russia to toughen sanctions.
But that is not
the point, we are not going to pout, hold a grudge or laugh
at anyone. Our position on this issue, as well
as on all other issues, is based on principles.
The point is not that
we have been put on the same list with North Korea, which is
absolutely absurd. I already said why I think (and our Foreign
Ministry spoke about that too) that sanctions have reached their limit and are
completely ineffective.
There is also
the humanitarian side to this issue. No matter which option we choose
to influence North Korea, its leaders will not change their policy,
whereas the suffering of millions could increase many times over.
Regarding Russia, there is
nothing to say here. Absolutely nothing, because our trade is almost zero.
I asked the Energy Minister, who told me that we only send them
40,000 tonnes of oil and petrochemicals per quarter.
As a reminder,
Russia exports over 400 million tonnes of oil and petrochemicals
to the global market, so 40,000 tonnes a quarter is as good
as nothing. Moreover, none of our large vertically integrated
companies exports anything to North Korea. This is the first thing
I wanted to say.
The second issue
concerns the North Korean workforce. Indeed, we have some 30,000 North
Korean workers in Russia. Is this a lot? No, this is perishably few.
Should we leave these people without a means of subsistence? Besides,
the Russian Far East needs more hands. Therefore, there is nothing
to talk about. As the Foreign Ministry has said,
the usefulness of sanctions has been exhausted.
Of course, we are
willing to discuss details, but we need to consider them first. We
will work on this. We are cooperating with all those involved in this
process. Actually, Russia co-authored a relevant resolution, at least
it became a co-author during the debates on this resolution,
which has been adopted and came into force. We are complying with this
resolution in full.
Question: I have
a question about eastern Ukraine. Kiev has recently started promoting
the idea of deploying UN peacekeepers there. Poroshenko speaks about
this often, and there is even a plan according to which
the idea should be taken to the UN General Assembly, which opens
soon, if Russia blocks it at the Security Council. What do you think
about this idea? Is it practicable, would it help?
Vladimir Putin: This is
impossible to do via the General Assembly, because UN peacekeepers
cannot function other than pursuant to Security Council resolutions. But
that is not the point.
You are saying that someone
wants to push something through. In fact, I do not see anything
wrong with that. I have already said many times that I support
the idea of arming the OSCE mission, but the OSCE itself
refuses to arm its field personnel, since it has neither the relevant
people nor the experience of such work.
In this context,
I believe that the presence of UN peacekeepers, not even
peacekeepers, but those who provide security for the OSCE mission, is
quite appropriate and I do not see anything wrong with that;
on the contrary, I believe that this would help resolve
the situation in southeastern Ukraine. Of course, we can talk
only about ensuring the security of the OSCE staff. This is
my first point.
The second point is
that, in this regard, these forces should be located
on the demarcation line only and on no other territories.
Thirdly, this issue should
be resolved only after disengaging the parties and removing
the heavy equipment. This cannot be resolved without direct contact with
representatives of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic
and Lugansk People's Republic.
I believe that if all
this is done, it would definitely benefit resolving the situation
in southeastern Ukraine. We will consider this as instructions
to the Foreign Ministry to submit a relevant resolution
to the Security Council.
Question: Continuing
the theme of Ukraine. Recently, more reports have been coming from
Washington regarding discussions to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine.
How serious do you think this is? If, indeed, such a decision is made,
what consequences might it have?
Vladimir Putin: It is
the sovereign decision of the United States whom to sell
arms to or whom to supply them to free of charge. They
decide what countries will be recipients of such aid. We are unable
to influence this process in any way. However, there are general
international rules and approaches: the supply of weapons
to a conflict zone is not conducive to peace, but only
aggravates the situation.
If this happens in this
situation, the action, or the decision, will not change
the situation fundamentally. It will not affect the situation
in any way for that matter. But the number of victims
could, of course, increase. I want to underscore this
to make it clear for everyone: nothing will change. The number
of victims may increase, which is unfortunate.
There is one more thing that
those who have such ideas should pay attention to: the self-proclaimed
republics have enough weapons, including those seized from the opposing
side, nationalist battalions, and so on.
If American weapons start
coming to the conflict zone, it is difficult to say how
the proclaimed republics would react to it. They may dispatch their
weapons to other conflict zones that are sensitive to those who
create problems for them.
Question: Good
afternoon, Mr President. The Syrian army, with the support
of the Russian Air Force, has nearly succeeded in pushing ISIS
militants out of the city of Deir ez-Zor. Does the new
stage on the Syrian map mean now that the ISIS threat
in that country has passed and will not return and that
the most difficult times for Syrians are over? And what should
the Syrians do in the near future?
Vladimir Putin: As for terrorism in general, it is a complex
global problem. It concerns not only Syria, but also many other countries
in the region, and not only that region. The main problem
in this regard is that the radical groups are reenergized constantly
due to poverty and a low level of education, which are
a breeding ground for radicalism and terrorism.
That is why we meet
at events such as BRICS and G20 summits to address these
global challenges by eliminating the root causes
of the threat of growing terrorism and radicalism.
As for Syria
and military operations, yes, the situation there has turned around
for government troops. You know that the territory controlled
by the government troops has increased several-fold
in the past year and a half or two, and this
process is gaining momentum.
Can we say that we have done
away with ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups forever? It is
probably too early to say so, but it is obvious that the situation is
changing drastically in Syria.
I hope that our
partners will bring the operation in Iraq to an end. Deir
ez-Zor is, in fact, a military rather than a political stronghold
of the radical opposition – radical in the worst sense
of the word, ISIS opposition.
Once the operation
in Deir ez-Zor is completed, it will mean that the terrorists have
been dealt a very serious defeat, and the government forces
and Assad’s government have gained undeniable advantages.
It will be necessary
to take the next step in strengthening the ceasefire
regime, strengthening the de-escalation zones and establishing
a political process. Alongside the political process, it will be
necessary to restore the economy and the social sphere.
That is an enormous job, and without the help
of the international community, it will be difficult
for the Syrian authorities to tackle these challenges.
By the way, we
also spoke about this during the talks at this summit,
on the sidelines and at bilateral meetings. Practically all
my colleagues agree with this and are ready to contribute
to improving the humanitarian situation in Syria.
Question: Over
to Russia, if you please. You have not yet given an assessment
of the situation concerning film director Serebrennikov…
Vladimir Putin: We have many
directors; I cannot do it for each one.
Question: He is now under
house arrest.
Public opinion has split:
some say that everyone is equal in the eyes
of the investigation; others, on the contrary, see this
as pressure on culture and mention Mikhalkov, another director
that receives government funding but faces no charges. In this regard, it
would be interesting to know your opinion of the situation.
Vladimir Putin: Look,
in culture, just like in other areas, the expenditure
of public funds is constantly monitored by law enforcement agencies.
As far as I remember, maybe things have already changed,
the deputy director of the Hermitage museum is under
investigation, and so is the Deputy Minister of Culture. So
what, now everyone needs to be released because they work in culture?
This would seem strange.
Serebrennikov received state
funding. This suggests he did not face any censorship, or pressure,
anything, I mean, the government would have simply not given him
money, and that would be that, if they wanted to limit his
creativity. What does creative activity have to do with this anyway?
Yes, I know, attitudes
differ to various people’s work; Serebrennikov’s work is no exception.
This is simply a matter of taste: some like it, others do not. But if
the government finances something, it means the attitude is
at least neutral, and the funding helps the artist create,
work, that is all.
The only thing
the investigation wants to know is that budget funds are disposed
of legitimately. This is a lot of money. If you look
at the funding, it is some 300 million from the federal
government, and around 700 million from the Moscow government over a period
of two or three years, a total close to one billion. This
is a lot of money.
And if we look
at our other directors, our cultural workers, like Mikhalkov whom they
mention, if the investigative bodies, the supervising bodies find
that the recipient of funds is violating the existing legislation,
they will face the same kind of investigation and prosecution.
As for Mikhalkov,
there have not been any complaints yet, despite the fact that
the monitoring agencies are working to track down all the funds
received from the treasury by all cultural projects. There are
regular inspections. If they spot anything to incriminate Mikhalkov, he
will be inspected. So far, this is simply not the case though.
As for Serebrennikov,
the authorities have no problems with him except one: compliance with
the law in the use of government money. That is all. Even
though he is under house arrest, this does not yet mean he is guilty.
Whether he is guilty
or not only the court can decide. I hope that
the investigative bodies will work quickly and finish their work
as soon as possible. What will happen next – we will see.
Question: Good
afternoon, Mr President. In May of this year, also in China,
I asked you if the time was right to announce if you would run
for President next year. You said “No” then. Four months have passed. Is
the time right now to say “Yes”?
Vladimir Putin: Look,
I have said this many times and I can say it again – what
I will say now is very important.
As soon
as an election campaign begins in Russia, everyone stops
working. I have first-hand experience with this. Everyone starts thinking
about what would happen after the elections, which jobs would go
to whom, and so on.
People must do their job
now, without relaxing attention to the job at hand even
for a minute. Therefore, I am sure that those who plan
to take part in the next presidential election in Russia
will announce their decision within the time stipulated
by the law.
Question: Since we are
in China, I would like to ask about China’s mega project,
the new Silk Road, at least its railway component, because it has
a motorway and marine components as well.
All countries,
in Europe and even across the ocean, would like to join
this project. It is unclear how the route will be laid, where
the railway line will leave China, and whether it will run across
Russia, across Azerbaijan and Turkey, or across Belarus. Most
importantly, it looks as if our Chinese partners are not eager
to build the line across Russia.
Vladimir Putin: No, you
are wrong. Both Russian and Chinese agencies and companies concerned,
as well as partners from other countries, are analysing this matter.
You have said that
the project also includes the motorway and marine components,
which is true. Look, the road across Kazakhstan is almost finished. We
need to accelerate our part of the work. Also, a road is
being built from China.
As for railway
routes, there are several options for China, and it can choose
the route via Kazakhstan and then go southeast towards Iran,
or possibly continue it across Russia.
As you know, China
plans to contribute to the construction of a fast
train line from Moscow to Kazan. We discussed the possibility
of building a high-speed passenger and freight railway line
across Russia during the Chinese President’s previous visit to Russia.
If we implement this
project, trains will be able to move along this route at some 200
kilometres per hour. Freight trains will be a bit slower, but cargos will
be delivered from Asia, or more precisely China, to, say, Germany within three
of four days.
These projects are very
interesting and promising, but we need to work on them some
more. There is nothing in this that should be kept secret from
the general public, but we do need additional expert analysis
and feasibility studies.
As you may know, we are
actively discussing the possibility of cooperation
on the Northern Sea Route. This is fully in keeping with our
common programmes; there are no contradictions whatsoever. We are also
considering and implementing several other routes, for example,
the North-South route.
The Prime Minister
of India and I have announced that the first container
loads from Mumbai have reached St Petersburg via Iran and Azerbaijan,
and returned. We test all options in practice. We are working
on them on a daily basis. We will see which is more effective
during the preliminary trial runs and will choose the best
options.
Question: I would like
to follow-up on the question on relations with the US,
by way of clarification, whether you have grown disappointed with
Donald Trump since his election as US President, and since you talked
with him. The relations have been spiralling, as our side is saying.
Also, do you take into
account, as the Foreign Ministry spokesperson has recently pointed
out, that not all US heads of state stay the full term they were
elected to be in office for? In your analysis have you
considered the possibility of Trump being impeached, and what is
your approach to relations with the US?
Can I ask one question
that has to do with domestic affairs as well but is also related
to foreign policy? The situation concerning the conflict
in Myanmar has given rise to a debate between the federal
government and Ramzan Kadyrov who said that if he is not satisfied with
Russia’s position on Myanmar, he would be against Russia.
In your opinion, does
a senior official have the right to express a position
at odds with the federal government on foreign policy matters,
or should this senior official leave?
Vladimir Putin: I will
start with the last question.
Regarding Myanmar,
I think that after our bilateral meeting with the President
of Egypt the press service was supposed to issue
a statement on Russia’s shared position with Egypt
on the ongoing developments there. We oppose any kind
of violence and call on the government of that country
to take the situation under its control.
As for the opinion
expressed by citizens of Russia on Russian foreign policy, any
person has the right to his or her personal opinion regardless
of the position he or she holds.
This applies to the heads
of regions as well. Let me assure you that this should not be viewed
as a rebellion of any kind by the Chechen leadership.
Everything is fine, no need to worry.
Now, about
the President of the United States. I think that it would
be inappropriate for us to discuss how the situation
in the US could play out on the domestic front. This is
none of our business, and something the United States has
to deal with on its own.
As for whether
I am disappointed or not, your question is very naïve. After all, he
is not my bride, and I am not his bride or fiancé. We hold
public offices, and each country has its own interests. Trump is guided
in his activities by his country’s national interests,
and I am guided by my country’s interests.
I do hope that we will
be able, as the current President of the United States
said, to find compromises in resolving bilateral
and international issues so that they can be settled
in the interests of the American and Russian people,
and in the interests of many other countries, taking into
account the special responsibility for international security that
lies on our two countries.
Question: Excuse me,
I have yet another question about the presidential election. It is
not about your candidacy but about other potential candidates. It is rumoured
that there might be a female candidate.
Vladimir Putin: Never
heard about this.
Question: Some say it
could be Ksenia Sobchak.
Vladimir Putin:Good
luck to her.
Question: It is
a fact that her father has done a great deal for you
and that you are grateful to him for what he did. What would you
say if Ksenia ran for president? Or do you think that there are
better female candidates, such as [Elvira] Nabiullina or [Tatyana]
Golikova?
Vladimir Putin: It is
not for me to decide who would be a better President
for the Russian people. The choice is ultimately made through
elections. But the law allows anyone to stand for office if done
in accordance with and within the framework
of the law. Ksenia Sobchak is no exception to this rule.
I have always respected
her father, and I still respect him. I believe that he was
an outstanding figure in modern Russian history. This is no
exaggeration. I am being completely honest about this. He was also
a perfectly decent person who played a big role in my life.
But such personal
considerations carry no weight when it comes to presidential elections.
Everything will depend on Ksenia’s platform, if she decides to run,
and on how she will organise her election campaign. Her success
or defeat will depend on this.
As for her plans
to run for president, I have never heard about them. I am
sure that there can be, and definitely will be, other candidates.
Question: There is
a large and high profile case underway in Russia, Rosneft versus
Sistema. Rosneft claims that Sistema has as good as stolen assets
and money by withdrawing them from Bashneft. Do you support this
view?
Has either company,
the defendant or the plaintiff, turned to you
for a consultation on this matter? Do you think their dispute
can be settled out of court? Those who represent Sistema say that this
conflict is worsening the investment climate in Russia. We would like
to hear your opinion.
Vladimir Putin: I have held discussions on this issue both with Rosneft
and with Sistema CEOs – Sechin and Yevtushenkov. I heard
what they had to say on this matter.
I think it would be
inappropriate for me to indicate my position on this matter
publicly, but I do hope that it will be settled out of court.
I believe that this would benefit both companies and the Russian
economy as a whole.
I cannot be perfectly
sure what turn this case will take because I have never issued any direct
instructions and believe that it would be counterproductive to do so.
All the best
and thank you.
See also
September 4, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment