Answers to Russian journalists’
questions
At the end of his
three-day state visit to Singapore, Vladimir Putin answered questions from
the Russian media.
November
15, 2018
12:20
Singapore
1 of 6
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: Mr President, you have
had many meetings during your three-day visit to Singapore. We noticed
that the Prime Minister [of India] greeted you very emotionally
at the dinner.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: We are friends. This kind of greeting is normal for those
who maintain such relations.
Question: Out
of the meetings that you had which were the most important,
considering that many of them were probably not even planned? Can
the new Western sanctions hinder Russia’s cooperation with Southeast Asian
countries?
Vladimir Putin: Amy politically
motivated restrictions, when they are applied in an economic sphere,
impede economic development. They are an obstacle both for us
and for our partners, including those who introduce these sanctions.
Yet this cannot stop our
technological or economic development altogether. This is completely
impossible. Therefore, cooperation will continue.
I have said today that Asian
countries account for some 25 percent of our trade, and growth
in this sphere has been considerable. It amounted to 27 percent,
or some $200 billion, last year. Our trade is growing.
Our relations are developing
in all fields, including when it comes to high technology. You know
about Singapore’s achievements in the sphere of smart cities.
And what is the basis of smart cities? It is modern high
technology, including digital technology. We will be working on this.
We have signed a free trade
agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and Vietnam. We are
discussing the matter with China, India and Singapore. We maintain
traditionally good relations with many countries in the region.
Nothing can harm or impede these ties. We will work confidently and,
I am sure, with good results.
Question: What other meetings did you
have?
Vladimir Putin: I had many
meetings, with almost all my partners: with the Prime Minister
of Japan, the Premier of the State Council of China
today, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President
of Korea. I just talked with the US Vice President
on the go. So I met with almost all the participants.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: Mr President, you have
travelled such a long way to Singapore and, as you say, met with
almost all representatives of countries with very different geopolitical
interests. How would you assess the results of your work
at ASEAN and the EAS?
Vladimir Putin: You know,
I described in my remarks today what is typical for this
region. Russia first attended such an event in 2005
at Malaysia’s invitation, as a guest, and a certain
format of interaction between the region’s countries began shaping
back then, not directly associated with globalisation, which many authors now
deny altogether, or with any military blocs.
These forums promote the concept
of interconnectedness, that is, cooperation outside
military-political blocs devoid of these
signs of globalism, which used to benefit certain parties, but later
became unprofitable and were eventually discarded. That’s not important.
Here, I would say, this
interaction evolves on a broader basis, regardless of political
regimes or the chosen path of development. And this has
actually turned out to be viable for now; therefore, meetings
in this format are very useful, productive and beneficial.
Question: Good afternoon.
Yesterday, you met with the Prime Minister of Japan. Before that,
Japanese media wrote that Shinzo Abe was coming here with a proposal
to revert to the Soviet-Japanese Declaration of 1956. And,
judging by the latest reports, Russia and Japan have agreed
to step up dialogue precisely under this declaration. Could you tell us
about the details, and what does this mean?
Vladimir Putin: We launched
or resumed, to be more exact, our dialogue with Japanese partners
precisely on the basis of the 1956 declaration,
and this is what our Japanese partners asked us to do.
Let’s recall how this entire
situation developed. I have discussed this many times,
and I will say this once again. Certain agreements were reached after
World War II, including territorial demarcation and state border
agreements.
Those agreements are formalised
in international legal documents; therefore we don’t see any problems
or difficulties here. We believe that the current status quo hinges
on international legal documents, formalised after World War II.
Nevertheless, as you know, Japan has a different perspective
on this issue. We are ready to work with them.
In 1956, the Soviet Union
and Japan signed a document called the Declaration of 1956.
What does it say? It notes that the Soviet Union is ready to cede two
of the southern islands to Japan after the signing
of the peace treaty.
It says nothing about specific legal
grounds for ceding these islands, their subsequent jurisdiction
or the procedure for handing them over to Japan. But it
formalises the Soviet Union’s readiness to cede these two islands.
After that, the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR and the Japanese Parliament both ratified
the declaration. Japan later refused to honour these agreements.
Because this went
on for a long time, back during Gorbachev’s presidency
the Soviet Union refused to further honour the document.
The Japanese side later asked us to return to discussing these
problems once again on the basis of this declaration. But
the centre of gravity shifted somewhat during the discussion;
in effect, it deviated from the declaration of 1956.
Indeed, the Prime Minister said
at our yesterday’s meeting that Japan would be ready to resume
the discussion of this issue under the 1956 declaration. But,
of course, all this calls for separate, additional and serious
assessments, and we should keep in mind that, as you have heard,
and as I have just said, far from all
of the declaration’s aspects are clear.
In principle, the document
merely states that the Soviet Union is ready to cede two
of the southern islands, but it says nothing about specific legal
grounds for doing this and about the islands’ subsequent
jurisdiction. All this calls for detailed analysis, all the more so
as Japan itself refused to honour these agreements at some
point.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: I have another
forum-related question, but this time, it is about the World Economic
Forum in Davos. What do you think about the idea of Russia’s
refusing to take part in the Davos Forum if the organisers
fail to lift restrictions on certain Russian businessmen attending?
And if Russia refuses to participate, will this affect
the country’s reputation in the global economy?
Vladimir Putin: This will
definitely have no effect on Russia’s reputation in the global
economy. Any country’s reputation in the sphere
of the global economy primarily depends on its economic power,
the structure of its economy, the results that it yields from
the standpoint of its technological effectiveness, the GDP
growth rate, various macroeconomic indicators, namely, low inflation, low
levels of external debt, absence of budget deficit or minimal
budget deficit – or, preferably, budget surplus, which our country
currently has, by the way.
In this regard I can say
that in general, we are achieving the goals that we set, and we
feel confident. However, platforms like the World Economic Forum
in Davos prove to be useful.
Back when I was Deputy Governor
of St Petersburg, I used to go to Davos very frequently,
almost every year and then, having moved to Moscow, I would go
there less and less often. In recent years, I have hardly ever
been there. But this platform really is good.
The goal of these
platforms, these meetings, open, impartial discussions, is to bring people
closer together, beyond the limits of any political constraints.
And when people introduce limitations at such platforms, they work
against themselves, destroying the foundation of their
activities – this is what we must keep in mind.
As for our participation,
every individual, whether a businessperson or some company’s representative –
and this forum brings together business representatives, first
and foremost – has the right to decide. Our people are free
and they will decide for themselves whether to participate
or not.
Question: The elections
have taken place in the self-proclaimed republics of Donbass
and have been criticised by Kiev and the West, which
suggest that this violates the Minsk Agreements. What is your view
on the elections? It has been a long time since the last
Normandy Format meeting and you have not been in contact with
the President of Ukraine. Did you perhaps meet in Paris? Why do
you think this is happening? Do you have the feeling that Russia is
waiting for the regime to change in Ukraine, because
the election is about to take place there?
Vladimir Putin: First, regarding
denunciation of the elections, we have not heard anyone criticising
the murders in these republics, that is the point.
First, they should have condemned
the politically-motivated murders that have been taking place there. It is
this which provoked the reaction from the local residents. What did
those who organised these crimes think? Of course, elections were
inevitable. This is first thing.
Second, there is almost no point
in meeting in the Normandy Format just now, during
the election campaign in Ukraine, because, in fact, today’s
regime in Ukraine has shown no desire yet to fulfil the Minsk
Agreements. They are doing nothing to implement these agreements; nothing
is happening.
Even the law
on the special status of Donbass adopted by the Ukrainian
parliament has not yet come into force. This is the key element
of the settlement process. But no, everyone acts like it should be
like this. Everyone is waiting for Russia to fulfil the Minsk
Agreements, but they prefer to close their eyes to the fact that
the Kiev regime is doing nothing.
And finally, the main thing
is whether the current authorities are capable of doing something
to assist the settlement process. I do not think so. While such
people hold power in Kiev, we can hardly hope for a peaceful
solution in these regions.
Nevertheless, we do not believe there
is any other way, and we will still have to look
for an agreement. I hope that the people who lead
the country in the future, no matter who they are
(by the way, we will respect the choice
of the Ukrainian people in any case; we will work with
everyone), will come to the conclusion that there can only be
a peaceful way to settlement and the Minsk Agreements must
be honoured.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: Can I also ask
a question about Ukraine?
One-man protests over Ukraine, over
the exchange of prisoners are taking place
at the Presidential Executive Office in Moscow. Will
the prisoners be exchanged? Why has this not happened yet? And why
exchange all for all? Have you discussed this matter with [Human Rights
Commissioner Tatyana] Moskalkova? Can we expect a decision on this
subject?
Vladimir Putin: The “all
for all” prisoner exchange is how it must be done. Regrettably, we see something
entirely different. The trouble is that the Ukrainian authorities
claim that some of those who are being kept in Ukrainian prisons
and other facilities, sometimes without a court decision, are
criminals who have been persecuted under Ukrainian laws. They refuse
to put them on exchange lists. This is the essence
of the problem.
Naturally enough, Donbass
representatives refuse to accept this. They could do the same with
Ukrainian prisoners, using courts to remove them from the exchange
lists. This is the problem.
The current Kiev authorities
have no desire to exchange the illegally kept persons. Evidence
of this is the detainment of the ship’s crew that was
seized in the Sea of Azov. Kiev has illegally detained our
seamen.
Under effective bilateral agreements,
both sides can catch fish anywhere in the sea with the exception
of the other side’s territorial waters. These agreements are still
effective; they have not been cancelled.
The crew members have been
detained and kept in Ukraine for a year now. The ship’s
captain has not been released to this day, as far
as I know. These are absolutely illegal actions.
At the same time, when our
coast guards detained a Ukrainian ship, Kiev did not even want
to discuss the fate of the crew. As if these people do
not exist. This is how the current Kiev authorities treat their own
citizens.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: Good afternoon. Singapore
is often portrayed as a vanguard of the digital world,
digitalisation and advanced technology. We did our research and found
out that in many respects Moscow had outpaced Singapore. Were you
particularly struck by anything here?
Vladimir Putin: I would not want
us to get too self-congratulatory about this and claim that we are
the best. Singapore is a good example of development, including
in the digital sphere. Many issues are being effectively addressed
here, such as social services and housing. We should take everything
that works well in the world and use it for our own
benefit.
In terms of development
in general, and digital development, in particular, as well
as urban management, it is true that Moscow occupies a leading
position internationally.
Question: Mr President, you said that
you had a brief discussion with [US] Vice President Pence. Perhaps, you
can share with us some details about this exchange. Did you talk about
preparing a meeting with President Trump?
I have one more question
on this subject. In light of the threat
of the Americans imposing a second wave of sanctions
in connection with the Skripal case, could they in any way
affect the preparations for your meeting with President Trump
in Buenos Aires and mutual visits next year?
Vladimir Putin: All unfriendly moves
affect in some way the work schedule and the schedule
of our meetings. We were ready to meet in Paris, but we already
mentioned that we did not want to be in the way of the big
event organised by the government and the President
of France.
This was indeed a major event
attended by 90 heads of state and government, so it was fairly
difficult to schedule a full-fledged meeting. We agreed to meet
in Buenos Aires. On our part, we are willing to do so.
The Vice President said that the United States is also getting ready
for this meeting. Let's see what comes out of it.
Indeed, we have things
to discuss. During a working lunch in Paris, iIt was
a general and quite intense discussion. President Trump
and I were able to participate in this general discussion
quite substantively.
We spoke about security issues,
economic growth and regional issues. The Vice President
of the United States and I touched upon the same
issues here.
Of course, strategic stability
is one of the key issues, as we need to understand what
will become of the New START Treaty and how the events will
unfold with the INF Treaty.
There are other issues, including
those related to bilateral economic relations, which are fairly limited
but include promising areas that are of interest for the United
States and Russia.
Finally, we talked about
the hotbeds of tension, such as Syria, the North Korean
nuclear programme, and our relations with Iran under the JCPOA –
all these and other issues in which the United States and Russia
are involved.
Of course, we need
a dialogue at the highest level and at the expert
level. We are ready to restore full-scale work to the extent
that our US partners are ready to match.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: You have had talks
with President Macron in Paris. One of the main subjects you
discussed with your European partners was the restoration of Syria.
What is the Europeans’ attitude to this idea? Is Russia ready
to spend money on Syria’s restoration?
Vladimir Putin: It is not about
spending money. The point here is that we are ready for full-scale
work, including in those sectors of the Syrian economy where
this could be beneficial both for us and for Syria.
This joint work will certainly create
jobs, result in the restoration of Syria’s infrastructure,
and so on. There is a great deal of work in Syria. So, it
is not about direct budgetary investment.
As for the humanitarian
element, you know that we regularly send humanitarian aid there via different
channels. Back during our meeting in Istanbul, when I said that we
should help by sending medication and medical equipment
to Syria, it seemed to me that our European partners understand these
problems and appear ready to work together on these humanitarian
matters. Both Chancellor Merkel and President Macron reacted positively,
and they mentioned this at the news conference. I hope this
work will continue.
We have completed several joint
operations with France. Our cargo aircraft were used to deliver
humanitarian aid to Syria. I hope to continue this work not only
with France but also with other European countries, all of which are
highly interested, as I see it, in restoring Syria. Because only
if Syria is restored will we see people returning back to their homes
on a large scale.
Yes, it has been said that their
return must be only voluntary. Can people be forced to return if they do
not want to? Can anyone be forced to leave the refugee camps,
for example? Who would be forced to leave such camps in Turkey,
Lebanon or Jordan? The use of force will not solve
the problem, right?
People will only return back home if
they know that they will have sewage, water supply and electricity there.
This is what has to be done first of all. If the international
community, primarily Europe, do not want to see a new wave
of immigrants, they should think about this. They must abandon their
phobias and help the Syrian people regardless of any political
considerations, by promoting the political process, of course.
Question: Mr President, you have
said that meeting in the Normandy format would be useless
for now. Does this mean that the Normandy Four will not get together
and the situation will not improve as long as Mr Poroshenko
remains in power? Can Russia influence Ukraine in any way?
Vladimir Putin: Regrettably,
the incumbent President of Ukraine has not shown any desire
to implement the Minsk Agreements. As I have said, Rada has
adopted a law on special status for Donbass, but the President
is not enforcing it. He does not want this. I do not know why – you
should ask him.
I do not know if anything will
change after the [presidential] election. A new president, if
elected, could take the current developments into account. Will
the incumbent president do anything? Will he change his attitude
to this matter? I do not know. Ask him.
Vladimir Putin answered questions
from the Russian media.
Question: Did you discuss
an opportunity for a more detailed meeting during your short
contact with Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris? Is it possible to hold such
a meeting in the next few months?
Vladimir Putin: We have not
planned it so far but we did speak about the tragedy that took place
in Syria. I am referring to the loss of our aircraft
and the death of our people, our servicemen.
Israel’s position is known
and understandable. They believe they are not responsible for this
tragedy. Naturally, we talked about this and some other issues linked with
bilateral relations, the situation in the region
as a whole and in Syria in particular. Specific dates
for a potential bilateral meeting were not discussed.
Question: Mr President, do you think
it is necessary to continue cooperating with the Saudis
and limit oil production in 2019 considering oil market volatility?
Vladimir Putin: As for the need to limit production or not,
I will not say anything about this for the time being. We must
be very careful in this respect because every word is important
and affects the federal budget revenues. However, it is obvious that
we should cooperate and we will cooperate. The OPEC plus format has
a good reputation and the market situation bears this out.
But you know the opinion
of experts, including Russian ones. It may shift down a little
and bounce a little. I think the current price is not very
stable and may go up as well. As you know, this is linked with
many factors. Incidentally, President Trump and I discussed this
in Paris. At any rate, we mentioned this.
Recently, in the past
eighteen months, the United States substantially increased its output.
Naturally, this is affecting its domestic consumption in the US and,
hence, it is buying less abroad. This has an influence
on the entire oil market.
But this is connected with
a certain form of production, which is highly dependent
on the price. As soon as the price drops like it
dropped a bit now, the profitability of shell oil also begins
to fall. This is why all this is so interdependent.
It is necessary to establish
the optimal price both for the producer
and the consumer – like the one that existed quite
recently. About $70 per barrel suits us perfectly well considering that
the expenditure side of our budget is based on $40 per barrel.
This allows us to feel confident and work securely and steadily
and achieve very good results that are reflected
in the macro-economy.
This year we will almost certainly
have a surplus budget. I believe our positive trade balance is $120
billion with the minimal external debt of about 15 percent.
This creates a very good
foundation for continuing confident work aimed at achieving even
higher GDP growth rates and carrying our structural reforms.
Thank you very much. All
the best, goodbye.
