Vladimir Putin spoke at the plenary
session of the 22nd St Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
May 25, 2018
18:00
St Petersburg
St Petersburg International Economic Forum plenary
session. Photo: TASS
Foreign heads of state and government,
heads of major Russian and international companies and banks,
leading experts and politicians from around the world were invited
to the forum. Honorary SPIEF guests include French President Emmanuel
Macron and Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe.
The plenary session participants also include
IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde as well as Vice President
of the People's Republic of China Wang Qishan.
The forum’s theme this year is Creating
an Economy of Trust.
* * *
Excerpts from transcript of St Petersburg
International Economic Forum plenary session
Panel moderator, Editor-in-Chief of Bloomberg
News John Micklethwait: Thank you very much. It is a great pleasure
to be here.
This is, as, I think, you can all see,
an extraordinary panel. I think we have roughly a third
of the world’s GDP. We have maybe a quarter of its
population, though with Madame Lagarde here we can perhaps claim we have
a 100%.
I have searched in vain to find
a panel that includes as many world leaders on one panel, even
if you look at it from an Asian perspective. It is very rare
to find the leaders of… such leaders from China, Japan and Russia
in one room.
I think the coming together is
a tribute to Mr Putin’s energy and power of persuasion. But
it may also just be a sign of Donald Trump’s unique ability
to bring people together. (Laughter. Applause.) Without
him…although he could be… he likes surprises… and he often changes.
The format is each of the panellists
will come up and deliver some brief opening remarks, and then we will
have a discussion between all of us. The aim is
for the first remarks to be relatively brief so we can have a full
and frank discussion afterwards.
The first panellist to talk is our host,
the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr
Emmanuelle Macron, Mr Shinzo Abe, Ms Lagarde, Mr Wang Qishan,
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
I am delighted to welcome all of you
to the 22nd St Petersburg International Economic
Forum, Russia.
The St Petersburg meetings have become
a good tradition. We value the forum’s atmosphere of trust
and openness. We have just exchanged opinions, as they say,
on the sidelines, about the forum, and Ms Lagarde just told
me that she was pleasantly surprised by this friendly atmosphere.
Such a discussion and an informal
dialogue are particularly important today when the international
political, economic and trade system is undergoing a major strength
test, and the environment for doing business and making
investments, as well as everyday life, going through dynamic changes
too.
The quality, sustainability, nature
and speed of growth of the global economy are increasingly
determined by new competences and human knowledge, advanced
technology and means of communications, which were simply
unimaginable a short while ago.
The one who will be able to effectively
use these growth factors, to provide a breakthrough
in the economy, social sphere, research and education, will
significantly improve the quality of life of the people.
We identified these goals as our national
priorities. In the near future, the newly formed Government
should deploy them into specific action programmes, national projects
and legislative initiatives, and provide for the necessary
resources to achieve these goals.
In our development we are going to rely
on our human, creative and labour potential. We are ready
to learn and adapt the world’s best practices, and,
of course, to use our own successful experience in tackling
the most complicated structural tasks.
We will act primarily proceeding from our national
interests. This is natural for any sovereign state.
However, it is possible to pursue one’s
interests in different ways – either by ignoring others
or respecting the position of one’s partners based
on the understanding that the modern world is interconnected
and countries are mutually dependent, and every state, especially
the world’s major economies, bears an enormous responsibility
for the common future.
Russia is part of the global economy. We
are taking an active part in integration processes and exerting
serious influence on the energy, food and other markets. This
country and our companies are deeply involved in international trade,
financial and production ties.
This is why we are attentively studying what
strategies of economic, technological and social growth other
countries are planning to carry out. Naturally, we are not indifferent
to what global trends prevail in long-tern perspective.
Until recently, global development was based on two
most important, determining principles. The first is the freedom
of business, trade and investment, which is recorded
in the general rules adopted by the participants
in international relations. The second is sustainability
and predictability of these rules, which is guaranteed
by clear-cut legal mechanisms.
Based on these values and principles,
the world economy managed to achieve impressive results and put
into the orbit of development the overwhelming majority
of international players, the majority of countries.
However, today we are witnessing not even
erosion – and I say this with regret – but
the undermining of these foundations. The system
of multilateral cooperation that was built for decades is being
crudely destroyed instead of undergoing natural and needed evolution.
Violating rules is becoming a rule.
Open markets and fair competition are
gradually replaced by all kinds of exemptions, restrictions
and sanctions. Different words can be used to describe these notions
but the meaning remains the same. Many countries now use these
approaches as their official trade policy tools. And some countries
simply had to adapt to this environment, respond and come up
with tit-for-tat measures.
Let me highlight a fact that is quite telling.
Until recently, a joint statement was issued following practically every
leaders’ meeting of the G20 or APEC with calls to refrain
from creating new protectionist barriers. Of course, these statements were
non-binding, since new barriers kept creeping up, unfortunately. Today,
however, we are unable to agree even on symbolic steps.
Let me give you another example: free trade
agreements are losing momentum. This process started five or seven years
ago. In 2010, the WTO was notified of more than 30 agreements
of this kind, but last year this figure was down to just ten. There
is a feeling that this downward trend can carry on.
Finally, we used to face what we can refer
to as traditional protectionist measures that were also regrettable,
of course, and consisted of introducing import duties, technical
requirements and covert subsidies. Now, however, we are facing a new
kind of protectionism. What is the purpose of all these
far-fetched pretexts and references to national security interests? Their
purpose is to suppress competition and extort concessions.
The spiral of sanctions
and restrictions is only widening, harming more and more countries
and companies, including those that never expected to face any trade
restrictions or problems of this kind.
Arbitrary action and lack of control
inevitably create a temptation to use restrictions more and more
at a much broader scale and in any circumstances, without
regard for political loyalties, solidarity or pre-existing agreements
or cooperation ties dating back many years.
There are many businesspeople
in the audience, and you know all too well that when one
of the parties to a contract withdraws from the legal
framework, the breakdown of agreements always creates substantial
risks and losses. This is a fundamental truth for any business.
On a global scale, when entire countries and centres
of gravity act this way, this may pave the way to the most
destructive consequences. This rings especially true today, when disregard
for the existing norms and the loss of mutual trust
may overlap with the unpredictable nature and turbulence
of the ongoing radical technology transformation.
This combination of factors may trigger
a system-wide crisis that the world has never faced or has not
faced for a long time. It will affect all participants in the world
economic relations without exception.
Global mistrust is calling into question
the prospects of global growth. The logic of economic
egotism does not fit in well with the current specialisation
of countries and companies and the building of complicated
global production chains. In effect, this may throw the global
economy and trade far back into the past, into the era
of subsistence farming when every household had to produce everything
itself. This inevitably reduces economic efficiency, lowers labour productivity
and wastes scientific and technological achievements that can change
life for the better.
We are already witnessing alarming trends.
The stability of business ties is undermined. Disintegration
processes are gaining in strength. Forms of multilateral cooperation
are devalued and the efficiency of international institutions
and agreements is reduced.
Thus, the international community has so far
failed to find acceptable solutions in the World Trade
Organisation (WTO), which despite all difficulties and contradictions
remains a key link in the global trade system
and a major universal venue for resolving disputes
and conducting dialogue on the issues that concern all economic
actors without exception.
Needless to say, the WTO is not ideal.
At the same time, there are no insoluble problems in its system.
Giving it up without any replacement means destroying the established
balance. In this case there will be neither complainants nor defendants
in trade disputes. Force alone will decide who is right.
Naturally, the aim is not to freeze
or mothball the existing order and turn into dogma
the ideas that have outlived themselves and are no longer viable.
Naturally, the world is changing and institutions and rules
should be changing with it.
But one thing is clear: these rules must be
transparent and uniform for all and should be observed
by all international economic players.
It is very important for us to draft
and introduce together a legitimate mechanism of changes, which
will allow the international community to get rid of obsolete
and sometimes inefficient and archaic norms, preserving all
the best practices and creating new instruments that meet
the requirements of the time.
For example, the spheres where
multilateral “rules of the game” are still being formed are
of particular importance for the global trade agenda. I am
primarily referring to the development of new technological
markets, such as e-commerce, access to information
and transparency, protection of intellectual property
and the rights of consumers of new, digital services.
Talks on the majority of these
subjects have been launched. Much painstaking work, patience
and perseverance will be needed. But let me repeat that there is no
alternative to the joint development of rules
in the global economy and mechanisms capable
of guaranteeing their enforcement.
What we need today is a full-scale trade peace
rather than trade wars or even temporary trade armistices. The theme
of this year’s St Petersburg forum is Creating an Economy
of Trust. I am convinced that experience shows that the role
of trust as a development factor will grow.
Look at how hi-tech companies, start-ups,
science, advanced innovative spheres are outgrowing existing traditional legal,
corporate regulations. The work being done by partners, even if
relations between them are complicated, is largely based on mutual trust.
I know that this subject was repeatedly broached in discussions
at this forum and on different venues.
Of course, we are not trying to idealise
the situation. There has always been rivalry and clashes
of interests; there still is and, of course, there will continue
to be in the future. But it is important to maintain
respect for each other. The guarantee of progress,
the source of progress is in the ability to deal with
differences and in fair competition rather than its restriction. This
is the basis for each country’s confident, sustainable development
and for tapping the huge scientific and technological
potential that has been accumulated in the world
as a whole.
Russia favours trade freedom, economic integration,
and constructive partner-to-partner dialogue and calls on our
partners from Europe, from America, from Asia and other regions to advance
together towards the sustainable development goals
and the development of a growth model that would provide
the most fitting response to modern challenges.
What I mean is overcoming inequality
of opportunity, solving demographic and environmental problems,
preserving national cultures and identities, improving people’s wellbeing,
and using the advantages of the new technological wave
on a broad scale.
All countries run into such challenges one way
or another. However, we are faced with all of them at once.
For us to remain who we are, Russia, we must address all these
challenges at the same time.
For us, state sovereignty and national
identity have unconditional value. However, we need to make a major
breakthrough in our development, to join the advanced countries
in terms of life expectancy and quality of life,
and to become a global technology leader.
Our vision of the country's future is
based on four key principles.
First, we plan to build our policy around
people, their well-being, interests and needs. I am convinced that
the only way for our country to be strong and successful is
to make sure that our people can fully realise their potential.
To do so, we will continue to modernise
our economy and create modern jobs, to support wage growth, and to make
our healthcare and education systems among the world’s best.
We plan to use best practices in planning
our cities and villages, organising comfortable spaces for life,
work, and recreation, to significantly boost housing construction
and to make housing affordable primarily for middle-income
households and families with children. Improving the environment is
critical, and will be another of Russia's contributions
to resolving global environmental issues.
Everyone should have a chance to excel
in social and volunteer activities, in manufacturing, business,
and public service, and have a good start
for a successful life and career. Social mobility
and improving human capital are the cornerstones of our
country's progress.
We launched a whole series of projects
to support and promote talented and goal-oriented schoolchildren
and students, as well as established professionals,
and also projects to expand the mentoring movement.
To make this work part
of the system, an autonomous non-profit organisation,
Russia – Land of Opportunity, is being created. Many in this
audience are aware that a corresponding executive order has been signed.
Along with existing agencies, such as the ASI, we will coordinate
this work between the two organisations and work on the goals
which I just mentioned.
Second, we will expand the space
of freedom. This is something we talk about all the time, but these
are critically important things. For this reason, I believe that it
is my duty to say this once again, since it is essential
for the emergence of an empowered civil society,
for promoting economic, social, scientific and cultural development.
The policy of removing barriers
and liberalising laws is primarily designed to meet
the interests and aspirations of our citizens. We will seek
to create a business climate for operating in Russia that
would meet the highest standards. This includes supporting business
initiatives.
One year ago, in my remarks here
in St Petersburg, I stressed the need to make active use
of project financing mechanisms. Today, we see that a new mechanism
was put in place to create a project financing factory
of sorts, which, of course, is a positive development.
Agreements to fund new investment projects worth more than 700 billion
rubles will be signed at this forum, while the annual amount is
expected to exceed 1 trillion rubles.
The Bank of Russia, the financial
and economic ministries and agencies within the Government,
and Vnesheconombank worked together on this programme. We have been
able to break up some of the bottlenecks related to bank
oversight, guaranteeing investor interests, which enabled us to attract
a substantial amount of private investment with minimal budget
spending. Let me emphasise that we relied on a market-based,
transparent mechanism when we took decisions to fund projects.
It will depend to a large extent
on the regions, their efforts and effectiveness, whether our
plans and projects to promote economic, social
and infrastructure development plans succeed. I believe in the importance
of continuing the policy of bringing new people into regional
teams. It is at this level that the new governance culture is taking
shape alongside modern approaches to attaining economic and social
objectives. It is at this level that inclusive interaction between
the state and the society can be promoted so that people become
actively involved in local governance and are able to overcome
challenges they face in their everyday lives. As you know,
a number of successful governors joined the newly appointed Government
of the Russian Federation.
Today, regions are competing against one another
to provide the best business environment. They are competing
for investors and for the best human resources. What this
means is that we have been able to launch a mechanism
of continual change. The National Investment Climate Ranking played
a major role in achieving this result.
As always, I would like
to congratulate this year’s winners: the Tyumen Region, Moscow
and the Republic of Tatarstan. The top five also includes the Tula
Region, and for the first time ever St Petersburg,
my hometown, which is particularly pleasing for me. Let me note
the positive momentum in Russia’s Far East, as well
as in Buryatia, Kaliningrad, Pskov, Novgorod and Yaroslavl
regions. I strongly believe that all our regions will keep up their
efforts.
Third, for a technological breakthrough,
and in order to be competitive in today's dynamic world, we
must be receptive to innovative ideas and technologies that make
a difference in people's lives and determine the future
of the country and the world.
We adopted a major comprehensive digital
development programme which will be among our priorities
for the coming years. Above all, it is about developing
and using end-to-end digital solutions in public administration,
the economy, housing and utilities, and the social sphere,
as well as energy, industry and transport. We are open
to working with all stakeholders, making use of advantages together
and responding to the risks of the digital age.
I would like to take this opportunity
and invite everyone to take part in the Second Global
Manufacturing and Industrialisation Summit to be held next year
in the city of Yekaterinburg, in Russia’s Urals, which will
focus on the use of advanced and prospective technologies
in the economy, industry and other areas.
The fourth and final key principle behind
our development includes our country's openness and focus
on participation in global processes and integration projects.
This, in particular, includes the implementation of major
infrastructure projects which are an important part of our national
agenda.
Developing Russia’s transport, energy
and digital backbone, we plan to effectively integrate it into
the global infrastructure and thus open up more opportunities
for our citizens, domestic and foreign businesses in Russia,
and to improve our country’s role in the global transport
and information and communication system.
Colleagues, friends,
I have already mentioned how the modern
world is interdependent. Working on the tasks at hand
and achieving breakthroughs across all areas, we will create technologies
and solutions which will not only improve the quality of life
of Russian citizens, but also be used in other countries
and benefit their development. Of course, as we move toward our
goals, we plan to use and borrow best practices and achievements
from other countries who are our partners.
A prosperous future cannot be created
by working in isolation. Indeed, only cooperation and combined
efforts can open up unlimited possibilities. Russia is committed to this
kind of interaction. I am sure we will certainly be successful if we
strengthen mutual trust and the spirit of partnership.
Thank you.
<…>
John Micklethwait: Thank you very much.
We have had five very eloquent speeches,
and now is the time for questions, and I hope direct
answers. The conversation has gone all the way from football
to endoscopy and climate change, but now I wanted to centre
on that idea of trust, and especially look at three areas
where this is an issue.
We have the Iranian nuclear accord, which
broke up, we have North Korea where there has been news about Donald Trump,
and we have the US-China trade war. And then we will go look
at Russia’s relationship with the rest of the world.
Mr Putin, as the host, will you take
the first question? I hope that you will set the fashion
for making a direct answer.
There was a nuclear deal signed with Iran
in 2015. Donald Trump as we all know has unilaterally withdrawn from
it. You have condemned this, Mr Macron has condemned this. We all know you want
to keep the deal. You say you are a man of action. What
actions will you take to keep the Iranian nuclear deal alive now?
Vladimir Putin: The Iran nuclear deal has
been formalised by an appropriate UN Security Council Resolution. It
is a multilateral international document. If we want our actions
to be predictable, we must comply with common rules.
Unilateral actions lead to a dead-end
and are always counterproductive. This is why everyone, all parties
to this process must talk with each other openly and look
for solutions. An idea occurred to us yesterday when President
Macron and I discussed this problem.
The United States holds presidential elections
every four years. If international legal documents are reconsidered every three
or four years at the most, we will have a zero planning
horizon. This would create a nervous atmosphere and mistrust.
On the contrary, if we respect our agreements, this would lead
to stability and initiate the search for mutually
acceptable solutions.
John Micklethwait: Can I push you
on a particular thing? If during the previous sanctions regimes
Russia supported the sanctions against Iran, and you followed
the rules, this time you disagree with what has happened. If
the Americans impose sanctions on Iran selling oil, will you buy
the oil, perhaps in exchange for wheat, or something like
that, and allow Iran to get round the deal?
Vladimir Putin: This is a simple question,
because we do not buy oil, we produce and sell it. Russia is a major
oil supplier in the international market.
As for sanctions, Russia supported
the sanctions against Iran that were adopted by the UN Security
Council, but we never supported anything that is enforced by anyone
unilaterally. I always said so and always considered such actions
to be harmful and counterproductive.
Experts in Russia and the West
recall the speech I made in Munich in 2005, when
I spoke about the unacceptability of the exterritorial use
of national legislation, or more precisely, US legislation. Many
people in the United States and Europe were angry with me. But
this is exactly what I warned everyone about. And now we see this
in full bloom. “Dinner is served, enjoy.” (Applause.)
If we look carefully at what is happening
and react in good time, there will be fewer such problems. We
supported everything that was proposed by the international community
to convince our Iranian partners to accept these arrangements.
It should be noted that our Iranian partners made
many compromises and are honouring their obligations now. I have
recently met with the IAEA Director General – he is a respected
person and the head of a respected organisation that is
trusted universally. He told me once again that according to IAEA data,
Iran is fully honouring its commitments. Why should it be punished then?
I do not understand this. This is the first part.
The second part concerns what will happen if
this deal is destroyed. Would this benefit anyone? Would this benefit
the international community and the region? Will
the regional countries, including Israel, with which we have very good
ties, feel safer? Mr Netanyahu has recently been in Moscow. Moreover, he
attended the events we held to mark the victory over Nazism,
and he marched on Red Square with a photograph
of a WWII hero. It was a unique gesture and evidence
of the good trust-based relations between us.
But will Israel be better off if Iran withdrew, is
forced to withdraw from or is pushed out of this deal?
In this event, Iran’s nuclear activities will be hidden from everyone,
and we will not know what is happening there. What risks will this create?
Look, we are still grappling with North Korea. There are many problems there,
and none of them has been settled.
Do we want to create one more problem
of this kind, or even a bigger problem, considering
the explosiveness of the region? I do not think so.
Therefore, I believe we must not get worked up. We should conduct a dialogue
calmly in a considerate and professional manner, and we
must find a solution.
As for sanctions, I have said that
we always supported legitimate actions approved by the UN Security
Council, and we never supported anything that was enforced unilaterally.
<…>
John Micklethwait: Mr Putin, I will come
straight to Mme Lagarde in a second, but do you have any advice
for the world in terms of how to deal with President
Trump, because you were somebody who was associated with the election
of President Trump. And yet you can look and see what happened,
there are many here who are under sanctions. He has just withdrawn from
the Iran deal; there are doubts about the North Korean deal. What do
you think you have got from the relationship with him? This is
the same question that I asked Mr Macron.
Vladimir Putin: Provocator. I was not
related to Mr Trump’s election campaign. (Laughter.)
But of course, we cannot be satisfied with
the level and nature of Russia-US relations. We are ready
for this dialogue. Mr Trump suggested having a meeting specifically
on the issue but we have not had a chance to have it yet,
there have been too many issues to address. However, we are ready
to have a substantive dialogue on a great number
of issues. I think it is high time we did this. Donald has expressed
concern over a potential new arms race and I fully agree with
him.
The steps we are discussing now, both
on the North Korean problem and Iran, they are not bringing us
closer, that is for sure. And this is also a reason
to discuss them.
Emmanuel said that Europe and the United
States have mutual obligations. Europe depends on the US
in terms of security. But there is no need to worry, we can help
with security. At any rate, we will do everything we can to prevent
any new threats. I think we need to take this road. This is
the first thing.
Second, as concerns the United States
and the US President losing by withdrawing from the Iran
nuclear deal, I will talk this over with the French President.
I do not think so. I do not think that President Trump lost. First
of all, because he is fulfilling his election obligations. And in that,
he has won in his domestic policy, to a certain extent. However,
if the deal gets completely ruined after all, many will indeed lose. We
must do everything we can to prevent this from happening.
Of course, this requires working with all
participants, first and foremost, with the United States. Why?
Because – let me take you behind the scenes of this deal –
the main dialogue took place between the US and Iran.
The other participants in the talks only adjusted
the process slightly, including Russia. I am not going to hide
this, we often did it to protect Iran’s interests. Eventually, after
rather extensive bilateral talks between Iran and the US, everybody
reached a compromise. This means that, despite all the difficulties,
the two countries managed to agree.
Even now, the US President is not closing
the door on talks. He is saying that he is not happy about many
of the terms of the deal. But in general, he is not
ruling out an agreement with Iran. But it can only be a two-way
street. Therefore, there is no need for unnecessary pressure if we want
to preserve something. Doors must be left open for negotiation
and for the final outcome. I think there are still grounds
for hope.
<…>
President of France Emmanuel Macron (retranslated):
I just wanted to say that I am not saying the Iranian agreement
was Trump's defeat; I was talking about the climate agreements.
I said that he cannot threaten this agreement with Iran
at the international level. I am just explaining what
the consequences might be, but these are agreements between us.
As for security, I would like
to assure Vladimir that I am not at all afraid, because France
has an army that alone can defend the country. However, I have
certain obligations with regard to other European allies. I think
that the European security architecture I just spoke about is our
responsibility. But in any case, we will not turn our backs, and this
should not be done to the detriment of other European states.
I think we can act this way, so I am not afraid and I want
to fulfil my responsibility.
Vladimir Putin:It is a pity. You do not need
to be afraid, of course, but the practice is already
accumulating. Look, we all are focusing on Iran now. After all, European
economic operators have already faced US sanctions – 9 billion for Paribas,
a French bank, and Deutshe Bank – just for violating
unilateral sanctions. So what? They paid. And a Japanese bank went
through the same thing. It is necessary to end this, as it is
unacceptable. That is what this is about.
What if this continues? What good will it do? It is
destroying the existing world order. We must certainly agree with our
American partners about some common rules of conduct. This is extremely
important, because it is precisely what is at the heart of our
discussion today – trust. Either there is trust, or there is not.
If there is no trust, nothing good will ever come
about. Then really, as I said in my remarks, force will
remain the only element that is left in international affairs,
and this can simply lead to tragedy in the end.
Emmanuel Macron: I share your point
of view. I fully share your point of view, all your economic
and financial reasoning. Indeed, there is no doubt. I have also
spoken about this. We really need to build a useful world order,
and a stable one. Indeed, this depends on sovereignty, and on a multilateral
approach to cooperation.
Sovereignty means respect
for the interests of citizens and companies that depend
on their government. From this point of view, we have full agreement.
We need to have the appropriate means, and we must agree on this
with the United States of America.
To be clear, I want to put
an end to this insufficient sovereignty, which, perhaps, was
the case in Europe before. The first decision I took with
respect to France was precisely this. I completely agree.
I think that there should be no uncertainty about security. We have
a common history, so we need to find the right line
of action in this regard. There is a collective security system
and defence. This is very important for the European part
and for the United States.
I think that the mistake that was made
in the last 20 years was that we in NATO failed to fully
comply with all the obligations we had taken on, and this caused
certain fears, quite reasonable ones. And we did not have the trust
that Russia rightfully expected. If so, as far as NATO is concerned,
should we turn our backs on the US in this partnership? No.
Otherwise I would have lied.
I came here to tell you the truth.
Yes, indeed, as regards economic and financial sovereignty,
I agree, but as for collective defence and security, indeed
the European Union, France and Russia should try and build
a new architecture that would allow us to move forward
in an atmosphere of trust.
This is something else. I think that we should
not confuse these two topics, but I completely agree with the first
point.
<…>
John Micklethwait: Before I come to Mr
Abe, and Ms Lagarde, can I just ask President Putin something?
President Putin, if you look around this room, you would seem to see
evidence that sanctions do not work. Virtually everyone I meet here has
been sanctioned in some way, and yet Russian business continues
to thrive. Do sanctions still have any effect at all?
Vladimir Putin: You see, today we already mentioned
sports, and my good friend, Mr Prime Minister imagined Russia
and Japan playing in the World Cup final. This is not
a good idea. What if we lose? It would be an unimaginable disaster.
But that is beside the point. The point
is we are seeing in the world today a situation where everyone
pretends to be playing football, while actually following the rules
of judo. What an interesting game that is: not at all football,
and not judo either, just chaos. This is where we are headed, and it
causes us concern.
This is not just about the so-called sanctions
or restrictions. There are people here who feel and understand what
this means, and have first-hand experience in this matter. This
applies to a vast majority of those present here, since
the sanctions truncheon, as has been mentioned here already, is
increasingly used against many, not only Russia. Is it good or bad? Can
this be overcome or not?
It is clear that the Russian economy has now
gained a more stable footing despite the double and triple blows
that came with the drop in prices of our traditional
exports – energy, metals and chemical products, exacerbated
by the pressure of sanctions. We had to face all this
at the same time.
However, we were able to find a way
through, and have even gone further by strengthening our economy
somewhat. I am very grateful to Christine [Lagarde] who said today
that she sees positive developments on the macroeconomic side
of Russia’s economy. But the losses are still felt by everyone,
and development is held back.
In any case, these restrictions hold back
the development of Russian businesses, which are unable to fully
refinance their loans on international markets, and so forth.
At a certain stage, this creates constraints, but once solutions are
found, a breakthrough still happens, and everything goes back
to normal. For this reason, this policy ultimately makes no economic,
political or military sense.
As for the military aspect,
I have already mentioned this. One of the reasons behind
the attempts to contain Russia is to prevent
the development of defence technology. We have shown recently that
Russia is now ahead of many of our partners in defence
technology despite the sanctions. Therefore, it is pointless, but still
pernicious.
<…>
John Micklethwait: Mr Putin, the theme
of this conference is “Building trust.” As you know
in the rest of Europe, the newspapers over the past
couple of days have looked at one particular issue to do with
Russia. Yesterday, the Dutch investigation team into the destruction
of Malaysia Airlines plane MH17 came forward and said it had proof
that the Buk missile that hit the plane came from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft
Missile Brigade of the Russian Army based in Kirkuk. When you
were asked about this yesterday, you said you did not have an explanation.
I wondered now, what is the explanation? Have they made this up?
Or was the missile allowed to cross into Ukraine? What happened
to the chain of command on this particular issue?
Vladimir Putin: I discussed this issue
yesterday, and I can repeat that, unfortunately, we were not allowed
to take part in a full-fledged investigation. Therefore, we have
no reason to completely trust the results of this investigation.
We are not involved in it. The commission conducting this
investigation does not heed the arguments we present so that they could be
taken into account during the investigation.
I would like to note once again that this
is a terrible tragedy. Yesterday, Emmanuel rightly said that we must
always remember the families of the people who perished
and the people who died as a result of this terrible
disaster. Of course, it goes without saying that we will always remember
this. But, for some reason, no one even recalls the fact that Ukraine
had failed to fulfil its obligations stipulated by the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and did not close the air space
over the conflict zone.
There are different versions of what happened
in this tragedy, but no one considers them. Therefore, it will be very
hard for us to accept the findings of this commission,
which is working without us, unless there is a full-fledged investigation.
That is it.
Unfortunately, we have experienced some other
tragic incidents linked with Ukraine. Some time ago, they downed a Russian
aircraft flying from Israel over the Black Sea and did not admit
their guilt. They did later, but did not pay any compensation whatsoever.
Unfortunately, we have a negative history.
Regarding this specific tragic incident, we would
like to take a full-fledged part in the investigation.
John Micklethwait: One last question, are you
saying this was not a Russia missile? This was not a Russian army
missile?
Vladimir Putin: Of course, not.
I repeat: There are several versions
of what happened, including a Ukrainian army missile,
an aircraft and so on. But, I repeat, there is nothing that
would make us trust these findings. This will not happen, unless we fully
participate in the investigation.
<…>
John Micklethwait: President Putin, what is your
goal for Russia and West? Where do you want to see Russia
and the West? Despite all these misunderstandings, we could have gone
through many other ones, where do you actually want to take Russia? Do you
want St Petersburg, this place, which is seen as the symbol
of the Western capital of Russia, can you image this again being
integrated into Europe in the sort of way that Mr Macron
described?
Vladimir Putin: Each country has its own national
priorities and its own interests. I spoke about this
in my remarks today. We will certainly strive to attain our
national interests. What are they, today and in the near future?
First of all, internal development. We need
to ensure the growth of labour productivity in our economy,
create an attractive environment for investment, because without
investment, it is impossible to meet another important goal –
to diversify our economy.
Ms Lagarde here told me about it yesterday
and hinted again today. But we had a 4.4 percent growth in fixed
investment last year, and 11.5 percent economic growth. This is
a good sign –accelerated growth in investment, but this is not
enough at all. Absolutely not enough!
To attract capital from friendly companies
and countries, we need good relations with Europe, and with
the whole world, including the United States. We understand this
perfectly and are aware of this.
But if we are faced with a choice –
either to remain a sovereign state or to suffer certain
restrictions – then, of course, we choose the first option.
Because these are too disparate substances to be thrown into
the balance: either existence as an independent state,
or investment thrown as a bone.
We seek only one thing: we want new rules
of the game developed, or the old ones returned
in the sphere of security and global economic politics with
the help of international institutions that have already been established
need to be further developed.
This is the groundwork we need to attain
our next goal – to diversify our own economy, and make it
innovative. We want to work on artificial intelligence,
on robotics, and so on and so forth.
By the way, Christine has voiced concerns
about robotics and job losses. This is not so terrible, actually, although
such fears do exist, and so does the danger, to be honest.
Still, according to experts, including international experts, only 5
percent of jobs worldwide can be entirely automated and only 10
percent of those have been automated so far. So there are good prospects
for both our economy and the world economy.
Actually, we need this to achieve our main
goal: to improve the lives of our people, to reduce
the number of people living below the poverty line,
and to raise the main indicator of welfare, life
expectancy, to 78 years by 2024 and to 80 plus
by 2030, as I already said.
All these tasks are absolutely solvable, but,
of course, we need favourable external conditions. We will work
for this in every way, not forgetting that it is in our national
interest as well, yet we certainly cannot sacrifice our sovereignty
and our deep, fundamental interests. I hope that this balance will be
found between Russia and our partners.
John Micklethwait: Can I ask you one final
question? Who will win the World Cup?
Vladimir Putin: The winners will be
the organisers, those who organise this wonderful event
at the proper level for the entire international community,
for all lovers of this great international game. In any case,
this is how we see our mission.
As for the teams, may the best
one win, as they say. I would really like it to be a real
celebration for everyone who loves sport: for the footballers
and for our guests alike. We will make every effort to ensure
that fans, experts and players all feel at home in Russia.
No comments:
Post a Comment