Vladimir Putin took part in the plenary session of the 15th anniversary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
October 18, 2018
17:50
Sochi
The main topic is The World
We Will Live In: Stability and Development in the 21stCentury.
The plenary session moderator is Fyodor Lukyanov, Research Director
of the Foundation for Development and Support
of the Valdai Discussion Club.
The Valdai Forum opened
in Sochi on October 15. Its participants – 130 experts from
33 countries – are discussing Russia’s political and socioeconomic
prospects as well as social and cultural development
and place in the modern world.
The Valdai Club was established
in 2004. Traditionally, the forum participants meet with Russia’s
senior officials as part of the annual meetings.
Following the plenary session,
Vladimir Putin held an informal meeting with several members
of the Valdai International Discussion Club, including member
of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee
of China’s Communist Party Yang Jiechi, former President
of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, Executive Secretary
of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Lassina
Zerbo, former UN Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno, Research Director
of the Foundation for Development and Support
of the Valdai Discussion Club Fyodor Lukyanov, General Director
of the Hermitage State Museum Mikhail Piotrovsky, and public
activist Natalia Solzhenitsyn.
* * *
Meeting of the Valdai
International Discussion Club
Plenary session moderator Fyodor
Lukyanov: Good afternoon, friends,
Let’s begin our final session.
As per tradition, we have President of Russia Vladimir Putin here
as our guest.
Mr President, in case you have
forgotten, you are here for the 15th time. How are
you?
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: First, I would like to speak to the permanent
participants of our meeting. It is true, 15 years is quite something.
I believe that the Valdai Club, as we called it because
the first events took place in Novgorod, has become a good
international platform over these years, a platform for professionals
who are interested in global politics, the economy, culture
as well as the work of media. Of course,
in relation to Russia.
These discussions have always
presented different and sometimes even opposite points of view.
I think that this is the advantage of this discussion club; we
call it a discussion club because where there is only one, right point
of view, there is no place for discussion.
Truth is born from comparing
different approaches to the same phenomena and various
assessments. Thanks to your participation, we can reach this result.
I see many world-famous
politicians in this hall; here, on my right;
and I would like to welcome them all, including
the President of Afghanistan and our colleagues from
the EAEU. I can also see scientists, cultural figures
and journalists. I hope that today’s meeting will also be not only
useful but interesting as well.
However, I am a bit confused
about the format today. Usually we have several people on this stage,
and the discussion lasts for quite some time. Of course,
I am ready to fly solo, as the organisers suggest, but
I hope that it will not take four or five times longer than usual.
Thank you and let’s just skip
the long welcoming remarks and go straight to our conversation,
our work and our discussion.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President,
it is true that, as you have noted, Valdai has various points
of view. There have always been many opinions, and this year is no
exception.
Especially as we see our
membership expand not only in terms of numbers, but also
in terms of representation of various countries
and regions, which, or course, provides for differing visions.
This year we have a very busy
agenda with a subject that has not been very characteristic
for Valdai recently, because we usually talk about Russia practically all
the time. Last time we talked about Russia was at the 10th meeting.
And you certainly remember that it was a very large event; you
attended, and we decided to return.
Not only because many of our
participants, club members, asked for this, but also because we believe
(Valdai has prepared an annual report for this session)
the world is facing some very serious changes.
It is not only being globally
transformed; but in some sense, we are losing the vision on what
foundations it can be built later. We looked for these foundations
in our previous reports, but now, in fact, we have given this up
and can say that the moment when the changing
of the world could be controlled has passed.
We will talk about this later, but
this means that every country – big or small – should rely
on itself above all, to provide for its own stability
and development. This is why it would be reasonable to consider if we
are ready for this. In this sense, of course, what you say is
really firsthand information.
Unfortunately, our work is darkened
by a tragic event. We have heard the news from Kerch. You talked
about it yesterday, and we also spoke about this tragedy.
What is the main thing here?
Of course the first thought that everybody here –
or everybody everywhere – had was that it was a large terrorist
attack again. Unfortunately, we are getting used to this. But later it turned
out that the situation was a bit different.
Why is this coming back to me
now? Not only because it just happened, but because it also brings up memories
of the first Valdai Forum in Novgorod. You mentioned it; it took
place against the backdrop of the Beslan tragedy.
I attended that forum,
and many of those who are with us today did, too. I remember it
well. The discussion was, of course, erratic as everyone kept
going out to see what was happening on television, for lack of smartphones.
You were at Valdai then, but
during the forum you recorded a televised address
to the nation, which was harsh, understandably so given
the context.
In the address, you said
something that would be quoted later: “The weak get beaten. Some would
like to cut a big piece of our pie. Others help them. Thinking
that Russia, as one of the largest nuclear powers, is still
a threat that must be eliminated. Terrorism is just a tool they use.”
Afterwards, when you talked
to the Valdai members, you said that we had been challenged
and that we would rise up to that challenge. It’s been 15 years; do
you think we have?
Vladimir Putin: That was some long
opening statement. You started with “last time, during the 10th Valdai
Forum; it was the 14th Valdai Forum” (Laughter.)
Fyodor Lukyanov: You are better
at math.
Vladimir Putin: I am
a better listener.
I would like to begin with
what you did in fact, with yesterday’s tragedy. Among other things,
paradoxically this appears to be the result of globalisation. We
have seen whole communities spring up on the internet after
the well-known tragic events in US schools. Young psychologically
unstable people start to believe in false heroes.
This means that we, in Russia
and globally, are failing to respond to the changes
in the world. It means that we are not creating useful, interesting
and essential content for young people, and they turn
to this surrogate heroism that leads to tragedies like this.
There is a demand for true
heroism in our lives. True heroism can manifest itself, in particular,
by defending civilisation from today’s evils. Of course, terrorism is
one of the most serious and challenging evils. I have said
many times, including at the 70thsession
[of the UN General Assembly] in New York, that the only way
to effectively stand up to terrorism is to join efforts.
Unfortunately, in the true
sense of the word, we have not put this cooperation in place
yet. There are some aspects of cooperation where we have succeeded but
this is not enough. By the highest standards, we have failed
to join efforts the way we should so far, while this could be done,
based on the relevant international rules of law and UN
resolutions.
I will try to give you
a straight answer to your question: “Have we achieved
the results we expected to achieve, beginning with those sad, tragic
events which we witnessed or took part in in the mid-1990s
and the early 2000s?”
Generally, yes, of course. Let
us remember that – we tend to very quickly forget the wrongs
done to us, trying to think only about positive things –
a civil war was raging in Russia at the time. It was not
a global war, and it did not involve the whole country but there
were hostilities, a real war.
Warfare with the use
of aviation and military hardware and so on, a huge number
of militant groups on the territory of this country, with
militants coming mostly from terrorist organisations based abroad, including
Al-Qaeda who were active in this country.
Thank God, we got rid of this
but we have not eradicated terrorism per se. Of course, terrorism still
poses a great threat to our country as well, which was why we
launched these operations in Syria.
Terrorism is a great threat
to our neighbours, including Afghanistan – I see President
[Hamid] Karzai here. If he is given the floor, he will tell us what is
going on in his country today – this is also a serious
threat. I mean that we have not defeated terrorism globally,
of course, but we have delivered a tremendous blow to it
and have certainly drastically changed the situation
at home – in the Russian Federation –
for the better.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You are
naturally inducing a different reminiscence. The Valdai conference
from three years ago (in 2015), took place exactly two weeks after
the military operation began in Syria.
I remember one of our
colleagues asked you a question: “Was it actually worth being involved
at all? Because of the costs, the casualties, and it
is not clear how it will end.” And you said your branded phrase, which was
quoted a lot later: “Fifty years ago, I learned one rule in the streets
of Leningrad: if the fight is inevitable, be the first
to strike.”
Well, we struck, and three years
later, the situation in Syria has indeed changed dramatically, but it
is still impossible to say that the problem has been resolved. Recent
events make both positive and negative impressions. So I would like
to repeat the question from three years ago: “Maybe it was not worth
the risk, because the casualties have proven serious?“
Vladimir Putin: I remember this
question, but it sounded like “are casualties possible?” I then said:
“Yes, they are, but we must prevent the worst course of events.”
And what would the worst development be for us? Full
“somalisation” of that region, complete degradation of statehood and infiltration
of a significant part of the militants into
the territory of the Russian Federation and into
the territory of neighbouring states with which we have no customs
barriers, or borders in fact, a visa-free regime. That would
have posed a real, serious danger to us.
But we have largely ruled out that
risk by our actions, because we did a lot of damage
to the terrorists in Syria. Many of them were eliminated,
and some of them, thank God, decided they wanted out: they laid down
their arms after losing faith in the principles they considered
right. This, I would say, is the most important outcome.
The second, no less important
thing, is that we have preserved Syrian statehood and in this sense
helped stabilise the region. We talked about this in some detail with
the President of Egypt just yesterday; he shares this position,
and it is shared by many other countries. Therefore, I believe
we have generally achieved the goals we had set for ourselves
in starting the operation in the Syrian Arab Republic; we
have achieved a result.
Look, after all, for some years
before us, countries that agreed to participate in these
anti-terrorist operations, most often voluntarily, and maybe even with
less than perfect goals and objectives – what result have we seen
in the previous three years? None. While we have liberated almost 95
percent of the entire territory of the Syrian Republic.
This is my first point.
Second. We supported Syria’s
statehood, prevented the state from collapsing. True, there are still many
problems. Now we see what is happening on the left bank
of the Euphrates. Probably, our colleagues know: this territory is
under the patronage of our American partners. They rely
on the Kurdish armed forces.
But they have obviously left
a loose end: ISIS remains in several locations and has begun
to expand its area of influence recently. They took 130 families
hostage – almost 700 people.
I think few of those
present here know that they have made ultimatums, extended demands
and warned that if these ultimatums are not met, they would shoot 10
people every day. The day before yesterday, 10 people were shot. Executed.
They have begun to fulfil their threats.
This is just horrifying. It is
a tragedy I think. We need to do something about it. Why do our
colleagues keep silent? According to our information, several US
and European citizens are among the hostages.
Everyone is quiet, there is silence
as if nothing is happening. Therefore, there is still much to be
done; this is true. But I repeat, on the whole, we have achieved
our goal.
The next step is a political
settlement at the UN in Geneva. We need to form
a constitutional committee now. Progress is not easy, but we are still
moving forward. I hope that we will move ahead with our partners
in this area.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You said, some
of the militants lost faith and understood that they were wrong.
First, are you sure they lost faith? Or maybe they were just overpowered,
and they realized it was pointless to continue to fight, but the situation
might change a little, and they will get their faith back?
Vladimir Putin: Maybe. Maybe so. You
are probably partly right.
Some of them have really laid
down their arms and really realized they had false goals. Others have
simply taken advantage of our humanitarian measures for the time
being, and are ready to take up arms at any moment. This is
possible.
This simply means we all need
to be on the alert, not underestimate the threats,
and step up our joint work to combat terrorism, the ideology
of terrorism and the financing of terrorism.
Fyodor Lukyanov: A question
on current events, if I may. October 15 was a deadline set
by Turkey to do certain things in Idlib. Do you think they
accomplished what they were supposed to do?
Vladimir Putin: No, not yet, but they
are working on it. We see it. In this regard, I want
to thank our Turkish partners. We see that they are working at this.
This is not simple. On the contrary, everything is complicated, but
they are honouring their commitments.
The demilitarised zone,
on which we agreed, is being created in the Idlib de-escalation
zone with a depth of 15–20 kilometres. Not all heavy weapons have
been withdrawn yet, and not all members of the terrorist
organisations ISIS and Jabhat an-Nusra have left, but our Turkish partners
are doing their best to fulfil their obligations.
This, I repeat, is not easy,
there is more than meets the eye. They have even deployed a military
hospital in this zone because there are losses. They are acting very tough
and are very effective in their fight against these terrorist groups.
Fyodor Lukyanov: We are now switching
to our favourite subject, which we discuss every year, because we
inherited it from our American colleagues and, let’s face it, the United
States is always on the agenda.
In 2016, you made a very
colourful statement. It was a difficult period, as we all remember,
following the Ukraine crisis, and the Syria crisis was already
in full swing. There was a question from the audience: “Is this
not the time to reduce tensions?” And you answered, “We are all looking
forward to seeing geopolitical tensions reduced, but not by way
of our funeral. If the cost for reducing geopolitical tensions
is our funeral, we are not happy about it.“ Funeral is nowhere to be seen
yet, but this method, I think, continues to be considered
in some parts of the world as an option.
You had the experience
of talking with the President of the United States
recently, and, in general, much is going on, but things are exclusively
negative. I may be wrong as an onlooker, but I have a feeling
that your meetings with Mr Trump lead to results that are
the opposite of what’s expected. In this regard, I have
a question. Perhaps, it makes sense to even stop trying and take
a break? They have their own big internal problems, let them figure it out.
Vladimir Putin: You know, there is
an old joke, but some people may not know it. They might find it amusing.
It sounds like that. Question: ”How do you relax?“ Answer: ”I am relaxed.“
(Laughter.)
The same goes for tensions
in international affairs. We are not creating any problems for anyone
Are we the ones creating problems? No. Instead, we are being accused
of things. They say that Russia was “highly likely” to have done this
or that, intervened at one place and wreaked havoc
at another. But, no one believes it is necessary to produce any
evidence.
For me it is clear,
and I have said this: this is the result
of the internal political struggle in the Western world
as a whole. Now they are fighting over the conditions
for Britain’s exit from the EU; the Democrats
and the Republicans are fighting in the United States,
and there is controversy among the Republicans themselves. So someone
has apparently decided that playing the anti-Russia card would be
a very convenient way to resolve domestic political problems. This is
bad for everyone.
I hope this will pass, but
apparently we need to wait for internal political crises to be
resolved. Whether this will happen after the Congressional election
or not, I do not know yet, but maybe. Or maybe it will happen
in 2020, with the next US presidential election, and then he
will no longer have to constantly deal with those who speculate with
anti-Russia rhetoric.
Were our meetings with President
Trump harmful or helpful? I believe that, despite the attempt
to discredit these meetings, they nevertheless were more positive than
negative. Why? Because we can see what is happening there.
We can certainly see, we know how
to read after all, we look at what is happening there
in the domestic political landscape. Still, it is better
to communicate and interact with each other than, forgive
my language, engage in a never-ending dogfight.
Our meetings have hardly improved US
domestic politics, I guess. Probably because, again, there are those who
are always trying to play this card in the domestic political
struggle.
I would say the incumbent
president is geared to stabilise and level Russian-American
relations. Let's see how the situation develops. We, in any case, are
ready for this at any time.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Several books about
Donald Trump have been released, one after another.
Vladimir Putin: We will read them.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, they are very
interesting. They create this image of a person who only listens
to and hears himself. When you meet with him, does he listen
to you?
Vladimir Putin: This is not true.
Maybe he behaves this way with someone else – but then they are
to blame. We have a comfortable professional dialogue with him.
Of course he listens. And not just listens, I see that he reacts
to the arguments I make. He may disagree with something
I say, just as I would disagree with something he might say. We
have different views on some things, different approaches, but this is
a normal discussion between partners. I do not share the opinion
of those who say that he speaks like a wood grouse calling out
and never listening. That is not true.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You know that
commentators and political scientists often say that when
a relationship is deadlocked and this appears to be
the case, a “sobering” crisis is beneficial because
the countries realise that the danger is real and something
needs to be done to move beyond the abyss.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was
like that. Some suggest we need a similar crisis today to help
the Americans shift their view from their domestic issues,
and realize that the stakes are high and positive steps need
to be taken.
Vladimir Putin: This is
a bad idea. Stirring up emotions is not our approach, as they say
sometimes in our country. Generally speaking, it is irresponsible
to lead the world to the brink of a global crisis
whose consequences are hard to foresee. We have never used such
a policy, and we will not do so in the future.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you,
that’s a comprehensive answer.
However, I will then mention
another of your quotes. Speaking about antimissile systems in 2011,
you said more broadly that Russia is not afraid of conflict. Back then it
was one type of conflict, but today it’s different. What kind
of conflict are we not afraid of today?
Vladimir Putin: Any kind. We are not
afraid of anything. Given our territory, our defence system, and our
people that are ready to fight for independence
and sovereignty — the willingness of our men and women
to give up their lives for their country is not common among all
nations. Nobody can change these things, and this makes us certain that we
can feel secure.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay. You said we
were not creating problems for anyone, but I think that some people
in this hall will challenge you on this later, because the impression
is that Russia is creating a lot of problems.
Vladimir Putin: Later when? Let’s get
started. How long will we be sitting here?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Okay, I’m sorry.
Still, let’s assume this is
the case. But if we aren’t creating any problems, others may be creating
them for us.
Vladimir Putin: Of course
they are. Full ahead.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You once coined
a wonderful phrase (a well-known metaphor that compares Russia
to a bear): “The bear will not ask anyone for permission.
He is the master of the taiga and he will not move
to other climatic zones, but he will not give up his taiga to anyone,
either. And everyone should be clear about that, that’s all there is
to it.”
Is anyone encroaching on our
taiga today, or are we already living in the “that’s all” era?
Vladimir Putin: “That’s all” has
always been there. It is ‘that’s all“ time now as well.
Look, we live in a world
where security relies on nuclear capability. Russia is one
of the largest nuclear powers. You may be aware, I have said it
publicly, we are improving our attack systems as an answer
to the United States building its missile defence system. Some
of these systems have already been fielded, and some will be put into
service in the coming months. I am talking about
the Avangard system. Clearly, we have overtaken all our, so to speak,
partners and competitors in this sphere, and this fact is
acknowledged by the experts. No one has a high-precision
hypersonic weapon. Some plan to begin testing it in one or two
years, while we have this high-tech modern weapon in service. So, we feel
confident in this sense.
Naturally, there are many other
risks, but they are shared risks, such as environment, climate change,
terrorism, which I mentioned, and proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. If we are unable to put an effective end
to this, it is not clear where it will lead to, and in whose
hands this deadly weapon may end up.
So, in this sense, nothing has
changed. We are not going anywhere, we have a vast territory, and we
do not need anything from anyone. But we value our sovereignty
and independence. It has always been this way, at all times
in the history of our state. It runs in the blood
of our people, as I have repeatedly said. In this sense, we
feel confident and calm.
Fyodor Lukyanov: With regard
to us not going anywhere and not needing anything, clearly, there are
people who will disagree with you.
Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.
Fyodor Lukyanov: They will say, “What
about Crimea?”
Vladimir Putin: Crimea is our land.
We are still not going anywhere. Why is it our land? Not because we went there
and took it. Even if someone decides to argue with me,
the dispute will immediately come to a dead-end. Everyone is
democratic here, right? What is democracy? Democracy is the power
of the people. How is it exercised, this power
of the people? It is exercised through referendums, elections
and so on. People came to a referendum in Crimea
and voted for independence, first, and then for being part
of Russia.
Let me remind you
for the hundredth time that there was no referendum in Kosovo,
only the parliament voted for independence, that was all. Everyone
who wanted to support and destroy the former Yugoslavia said:
well, thank God, we are fine with that. Here, however, they disagree. Ok then,
let's have a discussion, go over the UN documents, see what
the UN Charter is all about, and where it talks about the right
of nations to self-determination. This will be an endless
discussion. However, we proceed based on the will expressed
by the people who live on that territory.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Now, about
the people. I just remembered that at the 10th Valdai
meeting in 2013 you mentioned Alexander Solzhenitsyn. One of his key
ideas was that saving people is more important than anything else. Indeed,
in the modern world, the competition for the people,
the souls and minds and for human capital is more fierce
than for the territories that may be acquired or not. Natalia
Solzhenitsyn spoke on this issue at our session. We are discussing
conventional conflicts here, but if we talk about conflicts
or competition, certain rivalry, for human minds and souls, do
you think we are prepared for it? Are we winning?
Vladimir Putin: I think we are,
pretty much yes. Look, there are senior executives from our television company
Russia Today sitting across from me. What is happening in some countries
where they operate? They are being banned. What does this mean? It means those
who do so are afraid of the competition. This is what it means. We do
not close anyone here, whereas they are faced with conditions that preclude
their operation as mass media. Someone is making it hard for them.
That means we are winning. We have just one radio station, and we are not
a monopoly on this information field. We do not have global media
like CNN, Fox News, BBC and so on. We do not have these. We have just one
fairly modest channel. Even if it causes so much heartburn and fear
of it being able to influence minds, then we are winning this
competition. By the way, in France, I know, they don’t
really like it, but if I ever have a chance to be in Paris,
invite me, and I will come see you, see what is going on there
and how things are with work.
Editor-in-Chief of Russia Today
TV channel Margarita Simonyan: You have our invitation.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, that is nice.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you, too.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Let’s continue this
subject as it is important, I believe. In the now historic
speech of 2014, which is now called the Crimea Speech
in connection with Crimea rejoining Russia, you mentioned the Russian
world, compatriots and a divided nation. It was exciting
and impressive. However, by doing so you touched on very
delicate strings and awakened very powerful emotions, because this
national identity, what you think about yourself and your country, your
land is, of course, a very powerful weapon which can be either
positive or negative. Since then, we have seen many events that have
occurred, including in the Russian world, and are still
unfolding, such as the Ukrainian church, and, clearly, there will be
more. Here is a question that may sound somewhat audacious: Do you regret
raising this subject and touching it the way you did now that we know
the results?
Vladimir Putin: Frankly, I am
not sure I understand your question. I think it is a natural
thing to do, we should always raise this issue and never lose sight
of it. Our national identity is what makes us who we are. It is our
culture and history.
The preservation
of the people, which you just said when you mentioned Solzhenitsyn,
is not just about physical preservation, although, maybe, this is, above all,
what Solzhenitsyn had in mind, but also about our identity
as a people, otherwise we will simply erode and cease
to exist. The history of mankind offers us similar examples. We
will just be unable to recall the names of those peoples, who
have already disappeared from our consciousness. There were lots of them.
But why should we follow those examples? We want to be the Russians,
or the Tatars, or the Jews, who live here,
or the Mordovians, etc. We have 160 ethnic groups living
in the Russian Federation. So why should we let ourselves be eroded?
We treasure it and we must talk about it. We must strengthen our identity.
Fyodor Lukyanov: You have
repeatedly said, including at Valdai forums, that nationalism
and chauvinism of any kind cause a lot of damage, first,
to that people and to that ethnos, whose interests nationalists
are allegedly concerned about. In 2014, you told us that you are Russia's
biggest nationalist. Are you still?
Vladimir Putin: You are
well-prepared, Mr Lukyanov.
Fyodor
Lukyanov: I prepared.
Vladimir Putin: He is trying
to take me at my word. No, there is no contradiction here.
I will explain what I meant. What are the things that
nationalists say, exhibit and flaunt all the time? They say that they
are the best defenders of the interests of one ethnos
or another, one people or another, one nation or another. While
the Russian Federation initially shaped itself, from its very first steps,
as a multi-ethnic state.
There are many people in this
hall who deal with these matters professionally. I see the director of the Hermitage,
who, though being an expert on the Middle East, knows well how
the Russian nation was formed. So how did it emerge? The Russian
nation did not exist forever. It was composed of various Slavic tribes.
There were no Russians at a certain point. And then,
on the basis of a common market, the power
of the prince, a common language and, later, a common
faith, the Russian nation emerged. But it consisted of various
tribes. And then, when statehood started to form, the primeval
form of Russian statehood, it comprised many Finno-Ugric peoples. Today,
we find material evidence proving that Finno-Ugric peoples also inhabited
central areas of the European part of modern Russia,
and not just the Ladoga region.
Russia developed
as a multi-ethnic state first, and then
as a multi-religious state. But it has lived for a thousand
years and remained stable primarily because a very tolerant
relationship was initially established between all the ethnic groups
within the state and the representatives of different
religions. This is the groundwork for Russia’s existence. And if
we want Russia to remain as it is, to develop and gain
strength, while Russians remain a state-forming nation, then
the preservation of this country serves the interests
of the Russian people. But if we huff out this caveman nationalism
and throw mud at people of other ethnic groups, we will destroy
this country – something the Russian people are less than interested
in. I want Russia to survive, including in the interests
of the Russian people. In this context I have said that
I am the most proper and true nationalist and a most
effective one too. But this is not caveman nationalism, stupid and idiotic
and leading to the collapse of our country. This is
the difference.
Fyodor Lukyanov: If there is only
you, then this is not enough. Do you have like-minded people, the same
kind of nationalists?
Vladimir Putin: Yes. Almost 146
million of them.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Great.
Ok, Mr President, then it is agreed
that Russia should not be destroyed. But you also made one very harsh statement
not long ago.
Vladimir Putin: Pestering me with
these statements again.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Well, I'm sorry,
it’s my job, they pay me for it.
Vladimir Putin: Will there be just
the two of us debating?
Fyodor Lukyanov: One minute please.
Everything in its time.
Can you please explain to me?
You didn’t say this at Valdai: “Why do we need the world if Russia
isn’t in it?” Many interpreted this in their own way, that you meant
“after me, the deluge,” you know the expression. Is this what you
meant, or, I suspect, you meant something else?
Vladimir Putin: No. First, King Louis
XIV said that in response to the accusations that he was
spending too much money from the treasury on all sorts
of palaces and entertainment. By the way, it was not such
a waste, because after him a lot of things remained, palaces
included. And second, he was also a statesman. If I remember
correctly, he created the first regular army in Europe. Therefore,
all the talk of his extravagance probably had real reason behind it,
but this does not mean that he actually did what he once said during
an argument.
As for my statement
you quoted, I don’t remember, but I probably said it to Vladimir
Solovyov.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes,
in the film.
Vladimir Putin: But you cannot quote
things out of context. I will remind you what this was about.
I was asked whether we were ready and whether I was ready
to use the weapons we have, including weapons of mass
destruction, to protect ourselves, to protect our interests.
And that’s what I answered.
I will remind you of what
I have said. I have said that our nuclear weapons doctrine does not
provide for a pre-emptive strike. I would like to ask all
of you and those who will later analyse and in one way
or another interpret my every word here, to keep in mind
that there is no provision for a pre-emptive strike in our
nuclear weapons doctrine. Our concept is based on a reciprocal
counter strike. There is no need to explain what this is to those who
understand, as for those who do not, I would like to say it
again: this means that we are prepared and will use nuclear weapons only
when we know for certain that some potential aggressor is attacking
Russia, our territory. I am not revealing a secret if I say that
we have created a system which is being upgraded all the time
as needed – a missile early warning radar system. This system
monitors the globe, warning about the launch of any strategic
missile at sea and identifying the area from which it was
launched. Second, the system tracks the trajectory
of a missile flight. Third, it locates a nuclear warhead drop
zone.
Only when we know
for certain – and this takes a few seconds
to understand – that Russia is being attacked we will deliver
a counter strike. This would be a reciprocal counter strike. Why do
I say ‘counter’? Because we will counter missiles flying towards us
by sending a missile in the direction
of an aggressor. Of course, this amounts to a global
catastrophe but I would like to repeat that we cannot be
the initiators of such a catastrophe because we have no
provision for a pre-emptive strike. Yes, it looks like we are sitting
on our hands and waiting until someone uses nuclear weapons against
us. Well, yes, this is what it is. But then any aggressor should know that
retaliation is inevitable and they will be annihilated. And we
as the victims of an aggression, we as martyrs would
go to paradise while they will simply perish because they won’t even have
time to repent their sins.
Fyodor Lukyanov: I feel
the urge to address Metropolitan Tikhon right away, however,
I will do this a bit later, if you do not object.
I take it that you, Mr
President, are bored with me as an interlocutor, so let me ask you
one more question and then people from the floor will ask questions.
As a follow-up to what
you said regarding a reciprocal counter strike and who will go where,
last evening we had a remarkable meeting where Valery Gergiev gave
a speech. He, in addition to being a great musician, is
a man who plays an active role in social life and civil
society.
He spoke about many things. He also
said this: in his opinion, three countries and their three leaders
have a great responsibility. These countries are – you can name them
in any order – the US, Russia and China. Everything depends
on them. They can achieve things and prevent things. In general,
I agree with this.
I think it is obvious that there
are three countries that have more opportunities and a greater
potential, both destructive and creative. As a leader who
carries this burden, do you ever feel scared? Or do you not think
of it at all?
Vladimir Putin: What do you mean
by ‘scared’?
Fyodor Lukyanov: It is
a great responsibility.You are one of the three people
responsible for the entire world.
Vladimir Putin: And so?
Fyodor Lukyanov: You have no
fear?
Vladimir Putin: No.
Fyodor Lukyanov: All right, no
further questions.
Vladimir Putin: You know, this
is actually a tricky question. Why? Because fear is the reverse side
of the self-preservation behaviour that all people, all living things
have. Everybody has the self-preservation instinct, and fear is an integral
part of it. It is how we respond to a threat.
You know, after I graduated from
university and went to work for the security services
and then intelligence, this is how we were trained: if you have taken up
something, some job, you need to think through in advance what it
involves. And when you take it on, you need to act carefully,
cautiously and responsibly, and you need to assess all
the risks. It is extremely important, especially for people who are
responsible for their compatriots, for millions of people.
You mentioned earlier that during
the tragic events of the late 1990s-early 2000s, when
I flew over Grozny I saw that it had been destroyed completely, like
Stalingrad. Shots could come from behind every rock, and they did,
by the way . We flew at a low altitude above some areas
because it was too dangerous to fly higher. It was the first time
I saw that a helicopter could fly so low and so fast; I did
not think it was possible. But it was my choice, you see?
And it is still my choice.
I think it is the same for everybody, for all
of my colleagues. But if you have decided something
for yourself, if you have made your choice, you must act without thinking
about some negative consequences for yourself. You must think about
a positive outcome for the people you are doing this for.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There are two
aspects to fear. On the one hand, what you are talking about is
your internal feeling, and on the other hand it is
a leadership style. Do you think ruling by fear is an effective
way to govern?
Vladimir Putin: No. It is
a bad management method, because it is very unreliable. The best way
to govern, in terms of having contact with society, is
by convincing people and using positive motivation.
It requires the joint efforts
of the people you communicate with. You must not allow any separation
of those who make decisions from those who implement them. All people
should collaborate in the implementation; that would be efficient
joint work with a positive result.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Let us move
on to joint efforts. Sheng Shiliang is our old-timer.
Sheng Shiliang: Mr President,
you have rightly noted that, indeed, Russia never creates problems
for others. But, as a Chinese proverb goes, the trees want
to remain quiet, but the wind will not stop. We are not left in peace.
Firstly, both China and Russia have been labelled “revisionist states.”
Secondly, Russia and China are
declared, along with Iran and North Korea, to be the main
adversaries of the greatest, most peaceful, and most offended
country in the world and of all times.
Thirdly, there are the sanctions
imposed on you, and the trade war waged against us.
The situation is very serious. I have a quote from
a well-known Hong Kong mafia film: the uncle is very angry;
the consequences will be very serious.
This means we have much in common.
I would like to ask you how Russia is going to respond.
And what recommendations would you give to us, to China?
Vladimir Putin: My dear
friend and colleague, I think China is no less a great country,
and the Chinese people are no less a great nation than
the one you have just mentioned.
The Chinese civilisation is
a great ancient civilisation. I do not think China even needs our
recommendations. I can only express my point of view
on this matter.
You cited the Chinese proverb,
the trees want to remain quiet, but the wind will not stop.
However, the weather is changeable. A time will come when
the wind will calm down. It seems to me one does not need
to immediately respond to certain things that might aggravate the situation
in some way. But one must certainly always respond and protect one’s
own interests. As a matter of fact, we are doing just
that – both China and Russia.
So why am I saying that
the weather is changeable, and the wind will stop blowing
at some point? The fact is that those who stir up this wind, they
also suffer from it.
You mentioned trade wars
and sanctions. You know, I am not even going to say anything new
for some people here in this hall, the experts will understand
what I am talking about.
Firstly, a certain part
of US rhetoric is related to their domestic political situation.
Secondly, what is the domestic policy calendar? Midterm elections are
underway, which will be followed by the presidential election.
Certain economic trends need to be preserved. In the medium
term, such actions may lead to a positive result.
However, in the long term,
in my opinion, negative consequences will follow inevitably, because
everything that is being done now affects the global economy
and influences its segments in individual countries.
The US and China exchange
blows that cost some $500 million. And if they keep doing so, it will
amount to $1.5 trillion, which is 0.4 percent of the global
economy.
It will be one
of the reasons for a future recession
of the global economy. Everyone will feel it and nobody wants it
to happen. Therefore, it is possible to stir up a wind
at some point, but a moment will come when it will not benefit
anybody.
Therefore, I think
the Chinese civilization is very old, the Chinese people have
a lot of patience and I think the fundamental
structure of the Chinese economy will allow them to endure
everything. In terms of volume, the Chinese economy has outgrown
the US economy; the per capita figure is still smaller,
of course, taking into account China’s huge population.
Of course, the American
economy is high-tech and introduces contemporary innovative technologies
quickly, so both Russia and China have something to work
on and to learn from our American colleagues. Nevertheless,
the world is changing and so is the global economy;
the growth rate of the Chinese economy is high.
It has adjusted, as we see, but
it remains high. It will inevitably lead to a change
in the economic situation between countries
and in the global economic environment. This poses certain
threats, and not only for countries, but for the global
economy as well, I would say.
Fyodor Lukyanov: To use
the wind metaphor – let the east wind blow some more. Let us
hear from our colleague from Japan.
What do you think he will ask, Mr
President?
Vladimir Putin: I have no
idea.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Neither do I.
Vladimir Putin: Is it about
the islands again? Not interested.
Question: Sorry, but I have
to ask. Two years ago, I asked you here in this hall how
realistic it was to expect a favourable atmosphere for Japan and Russia
to sign a peace treaty in the near future, say within two,
three or four years. You said it was wrong, impossible and even
harmful to set a fixed timeframe, because there was not enough trust
between us at the time.
In September 2018, during the plenary
session of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, you
suggested to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, “Let us sign a peace treaty,
not now, but by the end of the year without any
preconditions.”
Could you please clarify: does this
mean that enough trust has already been established between us to sign
a peace treaty, bearing in mind what you said two years ago,
or does it mean something else?
Vladimir Putin: Indeed,
I spoke about the need to build trust. I am not saying what
comes next is an insurmountable obstacle. Nonetheless, we are talking
about increasing trust, about the possibility of signing a peace
treaty, of reaching some compromise on the territorial issues
that Japan constantly raises, although we do not believe they even exist,
and yet, we do not reject this dialogue.
At the request
of Prime Minister Abe, we have established simplified formalities
for Japanese citizens visiting these territories, so they can visit their
historical places, family graves, and so on. That is, for our part, we
are tying to create the necessary conditions of trust.
However, Japan has imposed sanctions
against us. Do you think this looks like a step towards increasing trust?
What does Syria or Crimea have to do with Japan? Why did you do it?
To increase trust? Yet, we still do not refuse; we are ready
to continue this dialogue. We are not avoiding contacts.
Just now, your Chinese colleague
asked a question. We have been having a discussion over territorial
issues with China for many years, for 40 years, in fact. Can you
imagine that? Forty years. Russia-China relations saw a lot in that
time, but in the end, we signed a friendship agreement.
And we have reached a level of understanding between Russia
and China that is assessed as unprecedented by both our
countries. However, the territorial issue had not been resolved yet
by that time.
But the fact that we signed
these documents with China, with our Chinese friends, the fact that we
have built such a system of relations – did it put an end
to our debates over the territorial issues? No, it did not.
On the contrary, this created an environment necessary
for resolving these issues, which is exactly what we did
in the end – we signed the necessary document, finding
compromise.
I said the same thing
to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I said that if we fail to sign
this peace agreement now, without resolving the issue of those
islands, this would not mean that we would consign it to the dustbin
of history and go on as if nothing happened.
The example of our relations with China showcases the opposite:
we created an environment of trust, and then resolved
the issue. This was exactly what I suggested.
Our dispute with Japan over these
issues dates back 70 years, and we cannot seem to find
a solution, a way out of the dead end. But let us finally
sign this peace agreement, work on improving our level of trust,
refrain from creating new problems in bilateral relations and move
on, and keep discussing these territorial issues.
We are not saying no, but Prime
Minister Abe has his own opinion on this. Later, when we attended
the junior judo tournament, we continued discussing this issue
in an informal setting.
He said that as of today,
Japan finds this approach unacceptable, and we must first find solutions
to the issues that are key to resolving the territorial
issues, and then start discussing a peace agreement.
We can do that, but we have been
doing it for 70 years, and there seems to be no end
in sight. We are talking about carrying out joint economic activities
on these islands, and the ideas are good, but so far, they are
being implemented on a very small scale – that is
the problem. However, we are ready to keep working on this,
certainly.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Your Grace
Metropolitan Tikhon, please.
Chairman of the Patriarchal
Council for Culture Metropolitan Tikhon: The round
table I took part in here, at Valdai, dealt with cultural
issues, or to be exact, whether and how culture can affect
the life of society in the 21st century
and today.
At the onset
of the discussion Mr Zanussi asked the following question, Can
we even grasp, can we assess a nation’s culture today? An opinion was
voiced that the level of charity in society may be such
an assessment criterion. I mean general culture, not its specific
manifestations.
It may seem that it was a fairly
abstract discussion. But the events in Kerch, even though we do not
fully understand the motives behind this ill-fated person’s actions, let
us see how aggression and intolerance are on the rise not only
in Russia but also generally everywhere.
My question is as follows:
Firstly, what do you yourself think of the conclusions we have made
at this round table regarding charity as a key criterion
of society’s general culture?
Secondly, we talk a lot
of about state culture policy nowadays. There is a lot
of debate. We are all aware that the state will not regulate culture
in a rough or intrusive way, and this is probably
absolutely correct. But can the state deliberately support all those
creative and historical spiritual and cultural keynote dominants that
have developed in Russia, something we call spiritual and cultural
values?
Vladimir Putin: I think
this what we have been doing, in reference to the second part
of your question. I think the state must do this very carefully
by allowing people with different outlooks to work out their own
views, express them and compete, let us say, with your views. It may seem
surprising for me to say that, but I think this is the way
it is.
My sympathies certainly lie with
you, but as a state official, I still think it is my duty
to ensure the opportunity for every person to express their
position. Why? Because my position is based on the first part
of your comment.
What is charity? To use more
modern words, it is tolerance, commitment to compromise. At any rate,
it is one of the facets of charity. This is the way it is.
If we claim that charity, tolerance is a criterion of culture, then
we must be in a position to let people express their views
and listen to them.
Fyodor Lukyanov: SinceHis Grace
raised the issue of charity, I cannot but give the floor
to Nyuta Federmesser.
Founder of the Vera Hospice
Charity Fund Nyuta Federmesser: Thank you very much. First, thank you
for the chance to be here. Yesterday there was also a very
important discussion on the interaction between society
and the authorities. Thank you for bringing me
in on this issue.
During the first half
(I hope the second half is still to come), you spoke
and the questions that were asked were mostly about war.
As a representative of a totally different side
of life, since we will all die anyway, I do not understand why this
pain could be induced…
Vladimir Putin: This may happen
in a variety of ways.
Nyuta Federmesser: Yes,
absolutely.
In palliative care,
in hospices, dying is always preceded by a tremendous
concentration of love. Because when people know that this is to come,
that it is ahead and that they do not have much time, they spend all that
time saying, “Forgive me,” “I forgive you” and “I love you.”
Whereas what we talked about here was about a different kind
of death: death related to hate.
You said you have no fear, no fear
of the responsibility for the world. We have
an incredible number of people in our country totalling 18 million
with family members, 18 million of those who have fear because their loved
ones are severely ill or dying without getting adequate help.
It is clear that this is not
the first time I speak about palliative care and hospices,
and we have been drafting a priority project, you know about that, it
was done in part following your instructions. About a year ago,
incredible funds were allocated to palliative care development, which,
unfortunately, will not be spent. They were allocated in such a way
that as of today only 12 percent was spent on palliative care
while the rest of the funds will go back
to the budget. And I am terribly afraid that I will
have no right to say to you, “Mr President, can we revisit
the palliative aid issue?” because you will say, “But the funds were
returned, so they were not needed.”
I would very much like that
alongside considering Russia’s totally different role in world history
and sanctions from all sides, we would also discuss the people who
make up the country. Eighteen million is a huge figure. There are
1,300,000 – one million three hundred thousand – of those who die
each year while needing that care. I want to see care for those
people, who are afraid, also to become a priority area. I want
them to reply as easily as you did to that question,
“I have no fear.” No fear because they know that the state will
protect them, the system will protect them, and this help is very
inexpensive.
And to protect them, there
is no need to reshuffle the economy and re-shape the GDP
or whatever. What is needed is your very firm decision, as firm
as regarding the issues discussed earlier. Well, that is probably
all. I just want those people to also be able to quietly say “We
have no fear” thanks to your efforts. Thank you very much. I have the relevant
papers with me.
Vladimir Putin: All right,
I will definitely take them.
Firstly, I completely agree with
you that our discussions, our internal discussions should be centred
on our problems, domestic problems, our people’s lives, which is actually
a major part of our work. And as you said, the fact
that we are discussing war – and not just war but terrorism
and other similar issues – is due to the way our host Mr
Lukyaunov organised the discussion, I am not the one who
organises it, it is done by the host, so let us put all
the blame on him.
As to the problem you
raised, it is obviously very sensitive, demanding special attention
and tact from the state. Ultimately – you said it
yourself – the state allocated the funds. The fact that
only 12 or 16 percent were used means the work was poorly organised.
I assure you that it does not mean that I will say to you,
“The money was allocated and you did not use it, so that’s it,
good-bye.” Do not worry, this will never happen.
I know the way money is spent,
and very often, funds allocated by the state to handle
certain matters of absolute priority do not reach the end receiver.
If they are returned to the budget, it does not mean that they will
stay there for good and the necessary funds will never be allocated
again. We will certainly keep doing it.
Yet we have to admit that
whatever the state might do, it is impossible to completely solve any
problem 100 percent. Life is more complicated and keeps throwing
in more and more of new problems for us. Of course,
efforts by the state are very important, as are those
by society and religious organisations, by the way. It is
religious organisations, and I mean our traditional faiths, that
create the internal strength and internal basis for any person
to feel secure in this fast-changing and fairly dangerous world.
The state will definitely pursue
all the tasks in the context you have just mentioned. Do not
worry. I will take your documents, of course. It does not mean we
will wrap up the topic just because someone underused the funds. Have
no doubt. I will see why such a small percentage was spent. It looks
strange.
Fyodor Lukyanov: I seem
to be the chief militarist here. I am going to prove this
is not true. Behind me is the world’s most cheerful man, a food producer,
who made an indelible impression during the conference.
Head of the Cheesemakers
Union of Russia Oleg Sirota: Good afternoon, Mr President. I am
a farmer from Moscow Region, I make cheese. Let me begin
by saying on behalf of the farmers, we have been telling
you this repeatedly over the last four years….
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Sirota,
the concise version, please.
Oleg Sirota: I wanted
to thank you for the sanctions. In fact, we had a long
discussion about this with experts at our session…
Vladimir Putin: You should thank
the Americans, not me.
Oleg Sirota: That is what we were
debating, who to thank, Obama, Merkel or you? Anyway, thank you
for all of that.
Russian agriculture is clearly
thriving. Take me: I sold my flat, my car, my business,
made an investment, and my cheese-making factory has been
growing 300 percent a year. The agricultural breakthrough is boosted
by protectionism, the sanction shield, the cheap ruble,
and care, such as record subsidies.
Vladimir Putin: What kind
of cheese do you produce?
Oleg Sirota: Hard
and semi-hard. We are thinking about exporting them. Next year, our cheese
will make Vienna, Munich and Berlin tremble. I assure you, we already
have an agreement.
Vladimir Putin: Will they
tremble because your product is delicious, or because it is something
else?
Oleg Sirota: Because it is delicious.
Vladimir Putin: Or is it
the smell?
Oleg Sirota: Our cheese is tasty,
hard and cheap thanks to the ruble rates.
It is attracting investors, including
international ones. Everyone has begun investing in Russia’s agriculture.
We have partners from Switzerland who relocated to Russia and are
building farms. I was asked repeatedly during the session about what
would happen if the sanctions were cancelled. What would I do? Would
it be a disaster?
So I have a question
myself: will the Government continue to pay close attention
to our industry, to support it and to continue with
protectionism, if the sanctions are lifted? Because we need to be
able to sleep well for a few years.
And a personal question, if
I may. Mr President, I am Russia’s record holder in that
I have tried nine times to give you my cheese
as a gift, and nine times it was confiscated by your
security detail, who must be doing a great job.
Vladimir Putin: And enjoying
great meals as well.
Oleg Sirota: It would seem so.
So my question is whether they have let the cheese through, Mr
President, or not? One time I even wrote a message thanking you
for the sanctions. They said they were going to pass it on. Did
they? Or did they eat it themselves?
Vladimir Putin: They ate it.
Oleg Sirota: I see.
Vladimir Putin: They ate it
themselves.
This is not a joke, what
I am going to tell you. My colleagues gave me several bottles
of wine, and my security asked whether they should test it
or if I would drink it. I told them to check it. Especially
given that I am not big on alcohol.
Regarding cheese and what
happens if sanctions are lifted. First of all, we are not seeing them
readying to lift any sanctions so you can sleep tight.
Second. The longer it goes on,
the less likely those who quit Russia’s market are to be able
to return. You know this better than I do, as a producer.
If your product is of high quality, as it seems to be the case,
and if you are thinking about exporting, it means that your quality is
on par with competition, but production and logistics costs will
always be lower. Therefore, your rivals will have a hard time pushing you
out of the domestic market. I think it is virtually impossible,
especially if you work with retail chains and shops. Still, you need
to be ready that they may try.
You know, I want to say
this. You and I, let me say “we”. Why? Because we are onto one
and the same task – developing Russia’s economy, and,
in this case, such an important industry as agriculture. We need
to be ready to face competition. There is no use thinking that we
will continue to restrict and block foreigners, keeping our market
exclusive for domestic producers. If we do, the quality will fall
in the end. I am not talking about cheese alone, but about all
agricultural production, and not just agricultural. We need to create
natural market competition, at this time at the very least
between domestic producers. We will be focusing on this. Support
to agriculture will not dwindle, we will be stepping it up.
Oleg Sirota: Excellent. Thank
you.
Mr President, let me jump
on the occasion before they take the mic…
Fyodor Lukyanov: Stop, Oleg, you
are not the only one here.
Oleg Sirota: I have got
a head of cheese for you. Please, come and get it, it has
been waiting for you for four years.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here it comes.
Vladimir Putin: Let me have it
right now, or it will not get through again.
Oleg Sirota: Good.
Vladimir Putin: I hope
to finally get your cheese. Where are you based?
Oleg Sirota: Istra, Moscow
Region.
Vladimir Putin: Is
the cheese there?
Oleg
Sirota: On the shelf in storage.
Vladimir Putin: In storage?
Oleg Sirota: It has been waiting
for you for four years.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: What is more,
the quality has not deteriorated.
Vladimir Putin: That is because
it is good. What do you call it?
Oleg Sirota: You must have
tasted it while stationed in Germany. It is Bergkäse, a hard Alpine
cheese.
Vladimir Putin: Great.
Oleg Sirota: We call it Istra
Cheese.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President,
do inform Karin Kneissl that they are going to tremble over there
in Vienna. After all, the cheese is coming.
Vladimir
Putin: And the consumers will like it.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Of course.
Ragida Dergham, go ahead, please.
Ragida Dergham: Thank you,
my name is Ragida Dergham. I am Founder and Executive Chairman
of Beirut Institute. It’s a think tank for the Arab region
with a global reach. So I have specific question about three
countries, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
On Saudi Arabia, of course,
the world is preoccupied with the developments, and I’m
wondering what consequences or… Do you see that there may be consequences,
on your particular relationships, Russian-Saudi relations, given that you
have been eager to have good relations and beyond.
On Egypt, you had magnificent
success yesterday with President el-Sisi. Did you agree also that Egypt would
play a role in Syria, particularly, in rehabilitating
the government of Syria with the Arab League
and the Gulf states?
And lastly, on Iran. Why,
Mr President, don’t you feel comfortable asking the Iranians
to withdraw from Syria since you have said in the past all
forces would go. Why can’t you be specific? That would help probably
in bringing your own troops back home. And maybe the public
would be more comfortable then being worried about their troops. And also,
this is a big issue between you and the United States.
And I think I have heard you say you would like to have
good relations. Can you solve that? Do you feel comfortable to deal with
the Iranian question and have better relations with the United
States? Thank you, sir.
Vladimir Putin: I will begin
with the last part of your question, Iran. It is better to worry
about our military personnel on the territory of Syria instead
of having to worry about our fighters on Russia’s territory.
Fighting terrorists while they are
still far away from our borders is better for us in order
to prevent them from coming to our country. This has already happened
in the not-so-distant past, as I have already mentioned. It
is better for us to fight them over there, rather than here. This is
the first thing I wanted to say.
Second, coming back to Iran. It
is not up to Russia to persuade Iran to leave Syria. After all,
both Syria and Iran are sovereign countries, and they should build
their own relationship.
Yes, Russia does have serious,
deep-rooted ties both with Iran and Syria. Moreover, we have been able
to resolve certain issues by engaging in dialogue
and discussions with our Iranian partners, including on withdrawing
offensive systems from the Israeli border and the Golan Heights.
As for the complete
withdrawal, this is a separate issue that has to be resolved through
dialogue between Iran and Syria, as well as between Iran
and the United States. We are ready to join this discussion.
Third, in order for Syria
to move forward with the help of its allies, including Iran,
the Syrian state needs a safe and enabling environment.
This means that those who want
Iranian troops to withdraw from Syria must guarantee non-interference
in the domestic affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, stop
funding terrorists or using them for political aims to fight
the legitimate regime in Syria, its government, and so on. This
is a complicated matter that is relevant for all parties to this
conflict.
As I have already pointed
out in public, Russia believes that once the decisions of this
kind are taken, including the definitive victory over terrorists, all
foreign troops must leave the Syrian Arab Republic
as the country improves its defence capability
and in keeping with the wishes of the Syrian
government. This is the main criteria.
Now concerning Saudi Arabia. What is
it that is bothering you? I can’t understand. We have built really good
relations with Saudi Arabia in recent years.
Please, specify your question about
Saudi Arabia. What is it that is perplexing you in this regard? Why should
our relations with Saudi Arabia break down?
Ragida Dergham: As you
know, because of the developments in Istanbul,
at the Saudi Consulate, there is a big interest worldwide
in the investigation regarding the assassination
or the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the journalist who was
our colleague and has been a participant in the Valdai Group.
So this is what I am talking about. Right now, of course, there is
pressure on President Trump that may reflect on the mid-term
elections, and there are countries pulling out and countries being
concerned, I mean, media and others are concerned about continuing
to be present in Saudi Arabia given the alleged feeling that
maybe someone in the government may be involved in this
atrocity, of killing of Jamal Khashoggi. That is what I meant.
Do you think it will impact your relations with Saudi Arabia at all?
And please do not forget the questions about Egypt.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: As far
as I know, the journalist, who has disappeared and whom you
have just mentioned, lived in the United States of America. He
lived in the US, not in Russia. In this sense, the US,
of course, bears certain responsibility for what has happened
to him. This goes without saying.
He was the one to go
to the United States for asylum. In this connection,
I would like to say the following. First, we should wait
for the results of the investigation to become
available. How can we, Russia, start spoiling relations with Saudi Arabia while
being unaware of what has really happened over there?
As far as I can judge,
this man was to a certain extent a member of the Saudi
elite. In some way or other, he was connected with certain ruling
circles. It is hard to say, what is going on there.
But we can see that complicated
processes are also taking place within the US elites. I hope America
will not go as far as Saudi Arabia did. But we don’t know what,
in fact, has happened over there. So why should we take any steps directed
at downgrading our relations, if we do not understand what is really
happening?
If someone understands it
and believes that a murder has been committed, then I hope that
some evidence will be presented and we will adopt relevant decisions based
on this evidence. This gives me a pretext to say something else.
From time to time, there are
steps taken against Russia and even sanctions are imposed,
as I have repeatedly said, on the basis of flimsy
excuses and pretexts. They groundlessly claim that we have allegedly used
chemical weapons, even though, incidentally, we have destroyed our chemical
weapons, while the United States has failed to do so despite
the obligation to that effect it assumed.
So, there is no proof against Russia
but steps are being taken. According to claims, the murder was
committed in Istanbul, but no steps are being taken.
Uniform approaches to problems
of this kind should be sorted. To reiterate: Our policy towards Saudi
Arabia has evolved over a long period of time, over many years.
Of course, it is a misfortune that a man has disappeared, but we
must understand what has really happened.
Yes, as for Egypt, we have
very good, friendly relations. We recently marked the 75thanniversary
of our diplomatic relations and they are not being revived, they have
been revived and the quality and level of our relations are
actively improving.
We have ambitious plans
for joint work in the economy and energy, I mean both
hydrocarbons and nuclear energy. We are starting to build
a nuclear power plant, as you know, using a Russian-provided $25
billion loan. It is a good loan with an advantageous interest rate.
The payments of the principal amount will begin in 2029, so
these conditions are quite good. Thus, we both provide orders for our
power-generating equipment manufacturers and develop Egypt’s economy.
We cooperate very effectively
in industrial production: we have agreed to obtain a large,
525-hectare plot of land, where we will build timber processing,
engineering, pharmaceutical and other facilities, creating 35,000 jobs.
As for the overall
value of investments, we count on at least $7 billion. Our state
allocation will be $190 million to create the necessary
infrastructure.
We also work a lot
in the area of military-technical cooperation and purely
military cooperation. We regularly hold joint military exercises, both
in Russia and Egypt. The most recent one, I think, finished
in Egypt just yesterday or maybe is still on.
We have developed our relationship
and will go further with this, and our partners are interested
in doing so. As for Egypt’s participation
in the Syrian settlement, it is significant. There is
the so-called Cairo Platform that unites a number of opposition
groups.
We see that Cairo has a positive
influence on these people and encourages them to work with
the Government of Syria, but, naturally, they have their own position
on how the work should be organised. As usual, the eventual
result will arise from compromises and agreements.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President,
a practical question to follow: Is flight security in Egypt no
longer an issue? Has it been resolved?
Vladimir Putin: No, it has not.
As you know, we resumed flights between Moscow and Cairo. Charter
flights to Sharm El Sheikh and Hurghada are to reopen soon. We
discussed this issue with President el-Sisi, and I think that these
routes will restart soon.
However, our experts
at the Ministry of Transport and special security services,
along with their Egyptian colleagues, have a bit more work to do. We
know what they have to do and by what time. I will not get
ahead of myself, but I hope it will happen soon.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Professor
Toloraya, please.
Georgy Toloraya: Georgy
Toloraya, the Russky Mir Foundation and the National Committee
for BRICS Studies.
Mr President,
in the morning we widely discussed Asia, the east wind
and Russia’s European-Pacific characteristics. In fact, I think
that this autumn marks a milestone with respect to Asian politics:
the Eastern Economic Forum was attended for the first time
by all the leaders of Northeast Asia except North Korea; I also
know that you will attend the East Asia Forum in Kuala Lumpur.
There are big problems in Asia,
and one of them, my favourite, is the Korean problem. Now
we can see significant progress. Last year when we met it seemed that we were
on the brink of war, but now we may be on the brink
of peace.
How do you think Russia can help
the peace process, in particular, the agreement between North
Korea and the US? It is no secret that the Russian diplomats do
a lot, but maybe they can do more.
And regarding sanctions. We
suffer under the sanctions. Our trilateral project, Rajin-Khasan, suffers.
Isn’t it time for us to take some measures in this regard?
Vladimir Putin: You know,
the situation around the Korean Peninsula is moving
in a positive direction in general. You have noted this, too; we
all can see this. You have just said that we were on the brink
of war, and now, thank god, we are on the brink
of peace.
Direct contacts between the US
administration and North Korea are ongoing. I hope they will continue
soon, in the near future. We hear that preparations for a new
meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong Un are underway. I also
hope it will take place.
Let me express my position once
again; I have already spoken about this. I do not think that this
work will be effective if it is a one-way street. Demanding total
disarmament and total denuclearisation from North Korea without providing
any security guarantees is hardly a good approach.
Nevertheless, anything is possible.
If North Korea believes the promises of the US, this could be
the best way to de-escalate the situation. It is difficult
for me to say.
What positive role could Russia play
here? We could implement those trilateral plans we have discussed many times:
connecting the South Korea – North Korea – Russia railway; power
lines; and a pipeline from Russia to South Korea via North
Korea, including gas routes. We still could establish some joint enterprises.
Of course, it would be a contribution.
This is because joint work
in the economy unites us and creates conditions to resolve
political and security issues. Let us not forget that China has done
a great deal in this regard. Russia and the People’s
Republic of China have a joint platform. We are trying –
I will not repeat this now because I have said it many times –
to comply with these joint agreements.
What else can Russia do? I think
(I have also said this many times, but I will repeat it once again)
that it is very important to establish security guarantees for North
Korea. Of course, Russia could also play a certain role here, because
I believe that if we want these guarantees to be effective they
should be international.
We do not want to see any
military action there or any tensions. Russia and North Korea are
neighbours; so Russia, as a permanent member of the UN
Security Council and a nuclear power, as well as other
participants of this process – China and the United
States – could of course make a contribution by creating
and participating in the system of guarantees.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yerlan Karin.
Director of the Kazakhstan
Institute for Strategic Studies under the President
of the Republic of Kazakhstan Yerlan Karin: Good evening, Mr
President. I would like to take the Asian issue further. Five
years ago, during his visit to Kazakhstan, Chinese President Xi Jinping
spoke about the Belt and Road Initiative.
Two years later, you
and the Chinese President adopted a joint statement
on integrating the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt
and Road Initiative.
Today, given the current events
in the international political arena, all these sanctions
and more trade disputes between China and the United States, are
these initiative still relevant? Are they losing their importance, or are
there new prospects? I would like to hear your point of view.
And the second question.
In August, together with your colleagues, leaders of Caspian states,
you adopted a very important document in Aktau, a convention
that, as many think, has become a sort of constitution
of the Caspian region. How do you see the further cooperation
in the region and the resolution of other issues
related to this area?
Vladimir Putin: First,
as regards China's Belt and Road Initiative and everything
related to it, including the economic aspect. This initiative
of our friend, and I indeed consider him our friend, Chinese
President Xi Jinping, is becoming even more relevant. This is because all
economic restrictions are, on the one hand, putting pressure
on the global economy and markets, which is a negative
factor, yet these actions create certain windows of opportunities.
This means that in these
circumstances Russia can carve out an additional niche. For instance
(this is not the key point, but still): Americans used to deliver
a great deal of soybeans to China, and now we will slowly
enter this Chinese market with our soy, and we will give our Chinese
partners the opportunity to produce soybeans in the Russian
Far East in the event they want to invest their money
in this agricultural sector.
Say, in aircraft engineering.
Indeed, China like us was a major purchaser of Boeings. And now
together we have intensified the work on a wide-bodied
long-range aircraft. We will move on and construct big heavy
helicopters. We will jointly continue our work on space programmes.
We have a huge trade turnover
when it comes to the field of military-technical cooperation
and we have agreed that we will engage not only in sales but we will
also transfer technology. We are interested in this not to the detriment
of our security and nobody should have any doubts about this. This is
why I mention the high level of trust between our countries that
we have attained.
The development
of infrastructure is extremely important for the region
in general, so we welcome, say as part of this Chinese
initiative – the Silk Road – participation of our Chinese
friends in the development of the Northern Sea Route. These
are absolutely specific things.
The Chinese Silk Road Fund is
one of the shareholders of our new LNG enterprise
in the Arctic established by our company NOVATEK jointly with
the French company Total. This is real work.
The enterprise has been built
and is up and running. Therefore, someone’s sanctions do not make
this initiative less relevant, on the contrary it is taking
on a new aspect.
Our trade turnover with EU countries
is actually growing. It shrank by 50% but now it is increasing year after
year. Trade with the Asian-Pacific region is expanding at priority
rates. While the EU share in our trade turnover is 42 percent,
the Asian countries have already reached 31 percent and it is
on the rise.
Of course, we are interested
in building infrastructure, including in the field
of transport. Of course, we are interested in building up
the operations of the Trans-Siberian and Baikal-Amur
railways. We expect the railway cargo traffic to go up four times
and the cargo traffic along the Northern Sea Route to grow
up to 80 million tonnes.
And all this is absolutely
naturally compatible with the Chinese initiative and our development
within the Eurasian Economic Union where Kazakhstan is also one
of the key players.
So, we are happy with the way
this situation is developing in this sphere and we will be most
active in working jointly with all our partners.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Andrei Sushentsov,
welcome.
Andrei Sushentsov: I am Andrei
Sushentsov from the School of International Studies at Moscow
State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO).
There have been media reports
on a number of countries developing biological weapons agents,
and the issue of the presence of the United
States' biological laboratories on the territory of other
countries has long been a concern among experts.
Recently, the former Georgian
minister of state security presented documents to the media
regarding this. There is a convention that prohibits the development
of biological weapons. What measures can be taken in response?
And is this data true?
Vladimir Putin: I would not
judge whether this is true or not. I saw this statement
by the former Georgian minister of state security. This is
definitely cause for concern. These developments – if they are
actually taking place – are very dangerous and are related
to the latest achievements in genetics.
From what I have seen,
I can only repeat what is there: it is about finding agents that can
selectively affect people depending on their ethnic group, and over
two or three generations, allegedly, they have used animals
to conduct such experiments.
Dogs and rats have relatively
short lifecycles, and in the second or third generation
changes occur that dramatically alter the initial look. If this is so then
it poses a big threat.
How can this be prevented? Everyone
has to be aware that nothing comes from nothing and nothing
disappears; every action has a reaction, or rather, an opposite.
So if someone is developing this technology, they have to understand that
others will be doing so as well. So it is better to sit
at the negotiating table beforehand and develop unified rules
of conduct in this very sensitive area.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yaroslav Lisovolik.
Chief Economist
of the Eurasian Development Bank Yaroslav Lissovolik: Good evening,
Mr President. During today's discussion, you mentioned the refocusing
Russia's foreign trade towards Asia. The question is to what extent
this can be expressed in currencies other than the dollar. Are there
opportunities for the de-dollarization of the global
economy?
There are different opinions,
and this issue is being actively discussed not only in Russia but
internationally as well. It would seem that given the exaggerated
role of the dollar in past decades, there is a lot
of room for de-dollarization. On the other hand,
the developing markets' currency volatility poses certain questions here.
What is your opinion regarding the opportunity for the de-dollarization
of the global economy?
Vladimir Putin: First, we are not
making an effort to redirect our foreign trade from Europe towards
Asia. This is just happening naturally. For example, our trade with
the European Union was 450 billion (euros or dollars, I do not
remember exactly, but that’s not important), and today it doesn’t even
amount to 300 billion, or even 250 billion. But there is growth: last
year it was 23 percent and during the first eight months of this
year it was 22 percent.
In Asia, mutual trade is growing
slightly faster. So, as I mentioned, Russia’s foreign trade is 41
percent European Union, and 31 percent the Asian countries. If this
trend continues, the figures will soon become equal.
As regards using the dollar
in international transactions, I am not the only one talking
about this. For instance, the French president recently mentioned
this. He said Europe should increase its economic and financial
sovereignty. This means shifting from the US dollar, and France is
one of the United States' major trade and economic partners.
As I recently said, our
American friends are quarrelling with their bread and butter. They
challenge the reliability of the dollar as a universal
tool for international settlement. Once again, this is a typical
mistake for an empire.
Why is this happening? Because –
and I am not lashing out at anyone – but an empire
always thinks it can make minor mistakes and allow excess, because its
might makes it all irrelevant.
But the number of these
excesses and minor mistakes inevitably grows, and the time comes
when this cannot be handled either from a security standpoint or from
an economic standpoint. Obviously, this is the way our American
friends are acting; they are devaluating confidence in the dollar
as a universal settlement tool and the world's sole reserve
currency.
And of course, everyone
started giving it more thought. The EU countries want to conduct
trade with Iran. They do not think Iran has violated anything in its
nuclear deal with the international community. And it actually has
not. But our US partners decided that this deal should be revised, but
the Europeans disagree with that.
The Americans are imposing
sanctions, so-called secondary sanctions, on everyone cooperating with
Iran. Certainly, why should companies lose if they are working
in the US market? Some will leave anyway and someone else, who
is not tied up with the US, will be pleased to continue working
there, however, settlements should be arranged for. For this reason,
an alternative to SWIFT, the current international settlement
system, is being created, and more transactions are being completed
in national currencies.
You are certainly right that
volatility in the developing markets, the volatility
of national currencies, is very high, which is unavoidable. Still, certain
instruments are being introduced that can reduce this volatility.
For example, a pool of national currencies and a joint
bank have been created in the framework of BRICS, which means
that such instruments are already on the way. It’s true that this
bank cannot be compared with the IMF in terms of potential, but
at least something is being done in this respect.
Indeed, currency volatility exists.
However, if we keep working at this, and we are working on it,
insurance support or other ways to hedge risk will be found, they are
real. I will not go into details, but even now, in dealing with some
countries, we have found certain instruments to avoid these risks. We can
link them to certain agreements; we can do whatever needs to be done.
This will not happen today
or tomorrow. And our companies in, say, the oil and gas
field, in energy commodities, are not interested in giving up dollar
transactions at this point and going to only national
currencies.
But if these instruments are
created – that provide for giving up the US dollar
and disposing of national currency volatility –
a transition will be guaranteed. As soon as this happens, hard
times will come for the US dollar as a universal unit
in accounting.
We will see. We will definitely move
in this direction, not because we mean to undermine the US
dollar but because we want to guarantee our own security, because they
impose sanctions on us and do not give us a chance
to operate in US dollars.
This is why we have reduced our gold
and foreign currency reserves in dollar equivalent
in the treasury; the Central Bank had to withdraw from
this.
Why are they doing this?
In my opinion, it would be wiser of them to pursue their
goals without discrediting their national currency. Nevertheless, many
companies in the US are following this route. I believe they are
making a big mistake.
Fyodor Lukyanov: We have people here
in this room who know how to live without the dollar. Mr.
Sajjadpour from Iran, please.
Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour: Thank
you, Mr President. I am Seyed Kazem Sajjadpour, Institute
for Political and International Studies, Iran. Thank you again.
I have a question about
militarisation of the Middle East. Three facts. First, there is
military activity in Syria beyond the control of the Syrian
government. Second, there are people in the United States imagining
that we are responsible for the invasion of Iraq <…>.
Third, there are some actors in the region who really want
a military confrontation, bringing the US to a broader
military confrontation.
How do you see the picture
and what would be the US response? Do you feel there is more
militarisation in the region? And does this militarisation need
to be contained? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: The key
underlying factor of all the problems in the Middle East is
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; you know as well as I do,
in fact everyone knows this. Whatever our perspective
on the Middle East, we will come to this in the end
anyway; therefore, every effort must be made to resolve it, to establish
direct contacts between the Israelis and the Palestinians,
to resume multilateral efforts to resolve this multi-year, even
decades-long crisis. This is my first point.
My second point is
the following. There are new crises associated with terrorism,
and the actions of our American partners are doing little
to improve the situation in the region.
On the contrary, truth be told, we repeat a hundredth time,
and you just said: the invasion of Iraq resulted
in a sharp increase in the terrorist threat due
to the weakening of statehood. That's what happened.
And Libya? In general, that
state ceased to exist. It is being torn to pieces between separate
armed units still fighting among themselves. This is a catastrophe.
Gaddafi once said Libya was an insurmountable obstacle to the movement
of refugees and immigrants from Africa to Europe. He said: “What
are you doing? You are destroying this wall.” So it was destroyed. This is what
is happening right now. Seeking for a guilty party. But they have
only themselves to blame.
It’s okay to dislike
a regime in a country. Tastes differ. But, destroying
the existing regime and offering nothing in return
or offering something that is unacceptable or impossible
for the people due to historical specifics is absolutely
thoughtless, immoral policy that leads to the worst results.
Our position is that we probably can
support someone or sympathise with someone without directly interfering
in the affairs of other states, but any move should primarily
rely on the country’s internal development. True, this requires
patience, and a delicate handling of the current situation,
but there is no other option. Any other behaviour, attempts to impose
something from the outside leads to the gravest consequences,
as in Libya or Iraq. This is the result of monopoly,
the result of a unipolar world, which they tried to create
at the time. Thank goodness, this situation of unipolarity
and monopoly is already coming to an end and it has
practically disappeared. I believe this is very dangerous, including
for the monopolists, because they lose their bearings and get
a sense of permissiveness, and this is always very dangerous
and leads to dire consequences.
But at any rate,
at a certain level, as we now deal with the Syrian crisis,
we have developed a way of cooperation between Russia, Iran
and Turkey, which is working and is rather effective, although we do
not use the same approach for everything that is taking place
in the region. Nevertheless, we did manage to do this. We have
developed enough contacts, at any rate, at a working level, with
all the participants in this process, including with the United
States. As a matter of fact, the US military behave
in a more responsible way than certain politicians, but all
of this, in any case, paves the way for expanding
the basis of joint work.
Militarisation is always a bad
thing. What good can it do? It’s an explosive region. We know Turkey’s
grievances against the selfsame United States: It is arming various
groups. We see what is happening. I have mentioned the current goings-on on the left
bank of the Euphrates: They are supplying arms there as well
as they are bankrolling the armed groups, but, regrettably, they have
failed to cope with the threat, which is yet to be finally
eliminated. Seven hundred people have been taken hostage. It’s a disaster!
But, alas, this is really happening. We should work together.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, you
say that monopolism is a bad thing. America, for example, used
to artificially dismember monopolies on the market
to create competition. Should we perhaps do the same
in politics?
Vladimir Putin: You know, there is
talk about a tragedy that has allegedly occurred – I don’t know
for certain – in Istanbul, where the case in point was
also dismemberment. These are always nasty events linked to the use
of force or something of the kind. People should find
common ground through talks. I think, life will anyway force
the parties to sit down together at the negotiating table
and team up to neutralise common threats.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
Timothy Colton.
Timothy Colton: Thank you very
much. Timothy Colton, Harvard University. I have a question about
Russian public opinion.
As is well known, since you
became leader of the country all those years ago in 2000, you
have had very steadily positive ratings in the eyes of your
fellow citizens. Approval of your work in office is usually higher
than 60 percent and sometimes is as high as 80 percent. This is
quite extraordinary. But Russian sociologists also ask a number
of other questions, but one in particular, which is very interesting.
It is a question about the direction that the country is taking.
And if we look back, we have this information all the way back
to the 1990s. There is often a rather large difference
or gap, that very commonly has been the case that support
for you personally coincides with many Russians actually thinking that the country
is going in the wrong direction. Now, after 2014, the so-called
‘Crimea bounce’ occurred, your ratings went even higher than usual but
at that point for several years, more Russians, a lot more
Russians thought that the country was going in a positive
direction and not in a so-called ‘tupik.’ But this has changed
this year, all of a sudden. It seems that more Russians think that
the country is going in the wrong direction even as they
continue to support you. So what is your interpretation of this
disparity?
Vladimir Putin: I don’t see any
inconsistencies. I’ll explain what I mean.
First of all, who can be fond
of the 1990s and the early 2000s that you have also
mentioned? These were the years, when the great and huge state
was disintegrating. This is my number one point. Many people both
in Russia and the former republics of the USSR don’t
like this. Just ask people over there and they will tell you. True, they
have their own interpretations but anyway they think they felt more secure,
calm and confident in the Soviet Union. In a united,
huge and powerful state, there were more prospects.
Of course, there are many
changes and people in many of these countries feel
the advantages of sovereignty. After all, everything that happened
at that time was Russia’s initiative – not even its suggestion! When
they in the post-Soviet space start accusing us of something,
I always ask them: “But who did that?” It’s we, Russia, who did it. Well,
not me, of course, it was the doing of Russia’s former leaders,
but Russia all the same. This is my first point.
My second point is that no one
who remembers how it was in the 1990s wants to make
a comeback. Street crime was on the rampage; the economy,
social sphere, healthcare and education were in tatters, all was
lost. There was total poverty! So, as I see it, the main
achievements that have been scored over the past years are not only
the domestic political stabilisation or the solution
of the most pressing problems related to fighting terrorism
in our country – we had a civil war on our hands
and combat operations… Who would like to return to that state?
No one!
But I think what is most
important is the restoration of the economy, economic growth,
our own foundation for development and the growth
of people’s incomes. But, of course, everything is relative: things
might have been a bit better yesterday and are a bit worse
today, but, nevertheless, the income level has improved radically.
Yes, there are still many people
in the country who live below poverty line, and this number has
grown a little since the 2008 crisis. But in the early
2000s, they accounted for almost 40 percent of the population,
almost half of the country. Is there a difference?
Of course, there is. But nevertheless there are fluctuations. After the 2008
crisis incomes declined somewhat, and who would like that? Of course,
everybody understands it, and so do I.
As for Crimea. Yes,
in Russia, the actions of the President
and the state in general are considered to have been just
and fair. Because historically this land belonged to Russia,
and its inhabitants wanted to return to Russia. This is
important because some people prefer to ignore it and pretend that
such sentiments do not exist. But in fact, the public reaction is
the best proof that it was fair.
The Government is currently
introducing a series of painful but necessary measures related
to the pension law and the raising
of the retirement age. All other countries are doing the same.
Who would like that? I understand these people perfectly, those who are
discontent.
But do you know what the Russian
phenomenon is? Our people are smart. They may not like something, but they
understand that the Government has to do it. And if not today,
then we would have to do it tomorrow anyway. By 2024, we plan
to reach the life expectancy of 78 years, and by 2030
it will be 80 years. Well, inevitably we will have to raise
the retirement age, but then without any transition period or any
benefits.
What did we do here? What did
I suggest we do to make the transition easier? People who have
reached their retirement age but have not yet retired and do not receive
pensions, will be able to receive benefits both in utilities
and taxes, and others.
Most people understand that it is
an inevitable move. There is nothing to be happy about, but
understanding is key. It is important that people trust the leadership
and their Government. I think this trust has not been lost
and in my opinion, this is the most important key factor
in the domestic political life.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Sabine Fischer,
please.
Sabine Fischer: Thank you.
My name is Sabine Fischer, and I work for the German
Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP).
Good afternoon, Mr President.
I would like to continue the discussion about Russian society.
Last week, the Civil Initiatives Committee published a new report
that says the Russian society has a growing demand for changes,
and which is proved by the recent opinion polls.
What do you think about what
the report authors call a change in the collective
consciousness of Russian society, and how are you going to deal
with it?
Vladimir Putin: I think it
is a perfectly natural thing that people strive for change. Doesn’t
Germany have such a demand? Let us look at the election results
in Bavaria and it will be clear if people want change or not.
As I see it, they want it a lot.
In general, Europeans want
change. In Great Britain, they voted for Brexit, which is
unbelievable. And in Russia people want change too.
However, it is unlikely that most
people in Russia want revolutionary changes. We had enough
of revolutions in the 20th century and even
in our recent history.
Therefore our task is to time
these changes well, which, by the way, we are doing in close
cooperation with civil society. This is the key to success
in our domestic policy.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President,
do you want any changes for yourself?
Vladimir Putin: I want this
discussion to end already. (Laughter.) It is time for me
to leave for Uzbekistan and I want to play hockey
on the way.
Fyodor Lukyanov:So my question
was well-timed.
But let us take some more questions?
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mikhail Pogrebinsky,
please.
Director of the Kiev Centre
for Political and Conflict Resolution Studies Mikhail
Pogrebinsky: Mr President, I think the conversation would be
incomplete without mentioning Ukraine, the fraternal country I come
from. Although Mr Lavrov described in detail the homeostasis
in this difficult matter, maybe you can add something optimistic here?
I believe my country’s
Government is doing its best to drive the solution to this
problem into a dead end, and the US, as represented
by Kurt Volker is helping it, while at the same time
the Normandy format seems to have frozen and nothing it
happening there.
Is there, in your opinion, maybe
not in the immediate future, but in the medium term, any
chance of healing this bleeding wound in our relations
and steering the situation out of the deadlock?
Vladimir Putin: I will only have
to repeat what I was already saying earlier. We all know that
the crisis in Donbass is, of course, the most pressing
problem. I think many people will agree with me.
Terrorist attacks
and assassinations of people elected by the population
to administer these regions are, on the part of the Ukrainian
secret services, the worst method to establish relations with these
territories.
The best way of doing this
is to implement the Minsk Agreements. No one forced their hand. This
document is a compromise which Ukraine has accepted. But today, obviously,
we can say just anything when it comes to this.
But it is quite clear
to everyone that the current Ukrainian authorities are not only
shirking from implementing the Minsk Agreements but also have no intention
to do this for the moment, including for domestic political
reasons: I mean the approaching presidential and parliamentary
elections.
All political forces have their hands
tied because any move to accommodate the opposite party
at home – and you know this better than me – will be
interpreted as, pardon me, high treason.
But can we hope
for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements under these
circumstances? The situation being what it is, we ought, I think,
to desire just one thing – lest they should conceive
the temptation to aggravate the situation and use
the exacerbation in domestic political affairs, including during
the preparations for the presidential and later
parliamentary elections. This seems to be the best-case scenario we
can expect for now.
But, of course, Russia is
interested in a full-scale revival of relations with Ukraine.
What the current Ukrainian authorities are doing today means driving
the situation into an impasse. More than that, they are pursuing
an anti-state and anti-national policy identical to the one
that was conducted by Saakashvili in Georgia, who at first
sought to conceal [his plans] and then made an attempt
to implement [them] by attacking South Ossetia.
As a result of its
openly criminal actions, Georgia has lost vast territories, which was precisely
the consequence of Saakashvili’s acts and doings. It would be
very sad, if the current Ukrainian authorities followed suit.
I hope this will not happen. But
what has taken place recently in the economy and social sphere?
The Ukrainian economy is in the process of being completely
deindustrialised. There is practically no investment; they are just talking
about all kinds of investments, but there is nothing of the kind
in reality.
How can one work with an economy
that is constantly shaken and ripped apart from within by internal
political crises, with a country where military hysteria is whipped up?
Will investors go there? Certainly not. And the things it had before
were all ruined.
Where is the shipbuilding
industry that Ukraine used to be so proud of? Where is the aircraft
industry that was created by the whole Soviet Union over decades? How
many people are employed there today? The same thing is happening
to all the other sectors that Ukraine deservedly prided itself
on in previous decades.
This is exactly what I said
would happen. Let me again, though I am aware that this will fall
on deaf ears, repeat a rhetorical question: Why were our Western
partners, above all, the then leadership of the European
Commission, pushing so hard for such a tough scenario involving
Ukraine being dragged into this association with the European Union?
What did it give Ukraine?
The opening up of EU markets? They now want Ukraine to allow
the export of round timber. But this is not Siberia. Three
or four years of felling and there will be no forest left
at all.
The American partners are now
pressing Ukraine to use genetically modified organisms in its
agriculture. If this happens, we will be forced to completely shut off
the border as GMOs are prohibited in our country. Next, it will
start exporting humus, etc. There is nothing else it can do.
Therefore, I believe that
the current policy followed by Ukraine’s government is aimed solely
at – what are they selling? – Russophobia and anti-Russian
sentiments. They have no other goods left.
In return, they are forgiven
for everything, because even in their wildest dreams our so-called
partners would not envisage that Ukraine and Russia might cooperate
in any way as they fear that competition in the world would
grow as a result of such cooperation.
In fact, we are not laying any
specific claims whatsoever. We just wanted to function normally. So, why
was it necessary to cut open the Ukrainian markets without giving
anything in return, while constantly pressing the Ukrainian
government to raise domestic prices for energy, for gas, aware
that the purchasing power of the population verges on zero?
Even in former times, meagre
sums were collected for the use of energy resources,
and today, probably, none at all is collected. What is there
to pay with? Pensions are at zero, revenues are falling.
Therefore, we should wait till
the internal political cycle runs its course. And I hope very
much that we will manage to build at least some relations
and negotiate something with the country's new leadership. We are
ready for it and we want it.
Jean-Pierre Raffarin: Thank you,
Mr President, for this large and deep discussion.
I am in politics
for 40 years, and I have never seen the world so dangerous.
We have a lot of conflicts, and we have a lot
of threats, and we have a lot of war everywhere; school
for wars. We have never schooled for peace. But we know that peace is
not something coming from the sky; peace is work, hard work. So
I would like to know how we can promote peace, promote antiterrorism,
make reforms – for example, for multilateralism,
for the WTO, for the Security Council? How can we develop
a dialogue with people we do not agree with? And I think it is
very important for people to know that no one wants a war
in their country. They know that war is awful, as you said,
a disaster. So, in this matter, how can we have some development
of the culture of peace? Such a very big point
for everybody in society. And so, maybe together we can make
peace great again.
Vladimir Putin: There is a lot
to be said about this situation. I think the problems that have
appeared in the past few years or so concerning global politics
are related to the unipolar world that, as just pointed out,
appeared after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Everything is recovering now though
and the world is becoming or has already become multipolar,
and it will inevitably lead to the need to recreate
the importance of international law as well
as international global institutes such as the United Nations.
It is necessary to, based on the UN
Charter and on everything that was achieved in the past
decades, on mutual trust – and one needs to handle
the rest of trust with care, to learn to listen, hear
and respect each other and be ready to find compromises.
I think that it is inevitable in the long
run. The sooner it happens, the better. We are ready for this.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, there
is another question standing between you and the changes,
and I cannot just sweep it under the rug , because there is
a winner of the Valdai Award this year. Actually, there are two
winners, but this is of particular importance. Our colleague Piotr
Dutkiewicz was rightfully awarded the prize and let him ask
the final question.
Director of the Centre
for Governance and Public Policy at Carleton University (Canada)
Piotr Dutkiewicz: Mr President, you have taken part in the Valdai
Club for 15 years now. It is a long period of time,
and many changes have taken place.
Permit me to ask you
a question. During these 15 years, how has your perception of Russia
and what surrounds it changed? And what is most important is how did
your perception of yourself as Russia’s leader change?
Vladimir Putin: Please let’s just
skip the second part of your question. I think it would be
rather unbecoming to evaluate myself.
As for Russia
and my attitude towards our country, I can tell you that
my love of Russia, and I am not afraid to express
myself in such a way, has increased masses of times over
the years. Frankly speaking, I did not know Russia too well before.
Of course, I am Russian,
my roots are in Russia, my ancestors lived for 300 years
in the same village and went to the same church, which
I know from church records. Knowing this is exciting, I feel
a part of our country and a part of the Russian
people, even if it sounds like a high-flown statement, but I really
do.
My previous life and work
were connected with international activities, so to say. I have been
working in intelligence for almost 20 years, so, of course,
I did not know Russia as well as I got to know it
after I came to Moscow and started working
at the federal level, and then became prime minister and president.
I saw how deep and powerful
this country is, and what powerful historical and moral roots it has.
It was not from the books about the Great Patriotic War
of 1941–1945 that I became convinced about the might
as well as the wisdom of the Russian people. I saw
it with my very own eyes.
So it is in this connection,
and I’m not exaggerating, that I am saying that my love
of Russia has increased many times over. As for the events
unfolding around it, there is nothing unusual about it and it has always
been that way when it boils down to the history of our country.
We have always been treated more
or less well when Russia was going through difficult times, and they
were happy to send humanitarian aid to us. By the way, this
is good, and we are grateful to our partners for this. I am
not being ironic when I speak about this.
But as soon as it became
a sufficiently notable and influential competitor
in international affairs, they immediately started to create problems
in order to impede our development. Perhaps, from the perspective
of the logic of mutual relations on the international
arena, this makes sense. After all who in their right mind wants
to have a strong competitor?
It is much better to be able
to push forward without any competitor or competition. However, this
is a bad thing for those who go alone and are at the forefront.
I have pointed this out many times already.
So, I think that the world,
despite the numerous threats that we are observing today, is still
becoming more balanced due to its multipolarity which is now taking root.
It is good both for Russia and our partners all over the world.
I very much hope that we will
overcome today's difficulties, build a dialogue with all our partners
and participants in international activities and strengthen
ourselves from within, which will enable us to build full-fledged
relations with our partners on the international arena.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President,
of course, the Valdai Club cannot compete with the wisdom
of the Russian people, which you have been partaking of all
these years. However, we will commit ourselves and try and come up
with some sort of an intellectual surprise for you next year.
I hope we can make it happen if we pool all our efforts.
I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you very much for your time, and we hope
to see you again next year.
Vladimir Putin: On my part,
I would like to thank all the Russian and foreign experts
who have been participating in this work for so many years now.
Special words of gratitude go to my colleagues who have held
or are holding now high government positions, because they have places
to go where they can be useful, but they nevertheless choose to come
to Russia in order to participate in discussions with us.
It is important and good
for us, because it gives us a chance to convey to you our
position on key development matters and listen to what you have
to say. Even the way you frame your questions is important
for us, because it also provides an important perspective
for us.
I would like to wish you
all the very best and thank you all very much indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment