Estes dois videos permitem uma tradução automática. Carregar na roda dentada, clicar em "traduzir automaticamente",
rolar a janela até encontrar Português.
On the eve
of the G20 summit, Vladimir Putin spoke with The Financial Times
Editor Lionel Barber and Moscow Bureau Chief Henry Foy.
June
27, 2019
22:00
The Kremlin,
Moscow
Vladimir Putin’s interview with
The Financial Times.
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you
head for Osaka shortly as the senior statesman
at the G20. Nobody has been to so many international meetings
of this grouping and the G7 over the last 20 years while
you have been in charge of Russia. Before we talk about the G20
agenda and what you hope to achieve, we know that there are rising
tensions between America and China in trade, the risk
of conflict in the Gulf. I would be very grateful if you
could talk a bit about how you have seen the world change over
the last 20 years while you have been in power.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: First, I have not been in power for all these 20
years. As you may know, I was Prime Minister for four years,
and that is not the highest authority in the Russian
Federation. But nevertheless, I have been around for a long time
in government and in the upper echelons, so I can
judge what is changing and how. In fact, you just said it yourself,
asking what has changed and how. You mentioned the trade wars
and the Persian Gulf developments. I would cautiously say
the situation has not changed for the better, but I remain
optimistic to a certain extent. But, to put it bluntly,
the situation has definitely become more dramatic and explosive.
Lionel Barber: Do you believe
that the world now has become more fragmented?
Vladimir Putin: Of course,
because during the Cold War, the bad thing was the Cold War. It
is true. But there were at least some rules that all participants
in international communication more or less adhered
to or tried to follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules
at all. In this sense, the world has become more fragmented and less
predictable, which is the most important and regrettable thing.
Lionel Barber: We will return
to this theme of the world without rules, fragmentation, more
transactional. But first, Mr President, tell us what you want to achieve
in Osaka, in terms of your relationships with these other parties?
What are your main goals for the summit?
Vladimir Putin: I would
very much like all the participants in this event,
and the G20, in my opinion, is a key international
economic development forum today, so I would like all the G20 members
to reaffirm their intention – at least an intention –
to work out some general rules that everyone would follow, and show
their commitment and dedication to strengthening international
financial and trade institutions.
Everything else is details that
complement the main topics one way or another. We certainly support
Japan’s Presidency. As for the development of modern
technology, the information world, the information economy,
as well as our Japanese colleagues’ attention to matters such
as longevity and the environment – all this is extremely
important, and we will certainly support it and will take part
in all these discussions. Even though it is hard to expect any
breakthroughs or landmark decisions in the current conditions;
we can hardly count on it today. But in any case, there is hope
at least that during these general discussions and bilateral meetings
we will be able to smooth out the existing disagreements and lay
a foundation, a basis for positive movement forward.
Lionel Barber: You will have
a meeting with Mohammad bin Salman in Osaka. Can we expect
an extension of the current agreement on oil production?
Limitations?
Vladimir Putin: As you
know, Russia is not an OPEC member, even though it is among
the world’s largest producers. Our daily production is estimated
at 11.3 million barrels, I believe. The United States has surged
ahead of us, though. However, we believe that our production stabilisation
agreements with Saudi Arabia and OPEC in general have had
a positive effect on market stabilisation and forecasting.
I believe both energy producers,
in this case, oil producing countries, and consumers are interested
in this, because stability is definitely in short supply
at present. And our agreements with Saudi Arabia and other OPEC
members undoubtedly strengthen stability.
As for whether we will
extend the agreement, you will find out in the next few days.
I had a meeting on this issue with the top executives
of our largest oil companies and Government members right before this
interview.
Lionel Barber: They are
a little bit frustrated. They would like to produce more. Is that
correct?
Vladimir Putin: They have
a smart policy. It is not about increasing production, although that is
a major component in the work of large oil companies. It is
about the market situation. They take a comprehensive view
of the situation, as well as of their revenues
and expenses. Of course, they are also thinking about boosting
the industry, timely investments, ways to attract and use modern
technology, as well as about making this vital industry more
attractive for investors.
However, dramatic price hikes
or slumps will not contribute to market stability and will not
encourage investment. This is why we discussed all these issues in their
totality today.
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you
have observed four American presidents at close quarters and will
maybe five, you have had direct experience. So, how is Mr Trump different?
Vladimir Putin:We are all
different. No two people are the same, just like there are no identical
sets of fingerprints. Anyone has his or her own advantages,
and let the voters judge their shortcomings. On the whole,
I maintained sufficiently good-natured and stable relations with all
the leaders of the United States. I had an opportunity
to communicate more actively with some of them.
The first US President
I came into contact with was Bill Clinton. Generally, I viewed this
as a positive experience. We established sufficiently stable
and business-like ties for a short period of time because
his tenure was already coming to an end. I was only a very
young president then who had just started working. I continue
to recall how he established partner-like relations with me. I remain
very grateful to him for this.
There have been different times,
and we had to address various problems with all other colleagues.
Unfortunately, this often involved debates, and our opinions did not
coincide on some matters that, in my opinion, can be called key
aspects for Russia, the United States and the entire world.
For example, this includes the unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty that, as we have always believed,
and as I am still convinced, was the cornerstone
of the entire international security system.
We debated this matter
for a long time, argued and suggested various solutions.
In any event, I made very energetic attempts to convince our US
partners not to withdraw from the Treaty. And, if the US side
still wanted to withdraw from the Treaty, it should have done so
in such a way as to guarantee international security
for a long historical period. I suggested this, I have
already discussed this in public, and I repeat that I did
this because I consider this matter to be very important.
I suggested working jointly on missile-defence projects that should
have involved the United States, Russia and Europe. They stipulated
specific parameters of this cooperation, determined dangerous missile
approaches and envisioned technology exchanges, the elaboration
of decision-making mechanisms, etc. Those were absolutely specific
proposals.
I am convinced that
the world would be a different place today, had our US partners
accepted this proposal. Unfortunately, this did not happen. We can see that
the situation is developing in another direction; new weapons
and cutting-edge military technology are coming to the fore.
Well, this is not our choice. But, today, we should at least do everything
so as to not aggravate the situation.
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you
are a student of history. You have had many hours
of conversation with Henry Kissinger. You almost certainly read his book,
World Order. With Mr Trump, we have seen something new, something much more
transactional. He is very critical of alliances and allies
in Europe. Is this something that is to Russia’s advantage?
Vladimir Putin: It would be
better to ask what would be to America’s advantage in this case.
Mr Trump is not a career politician. He has a distinct world outlook
and vision of US national interests. I do not accept many
of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know
what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows
very well what his voters expect from him.
Russia has been accused, and, strange
as it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the Mueller
report, of mythical interference in the US election. What
happened in reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude
to him and saw changes in American society, and he took
advantage of this.
You and I are talking ahead
of the G20 meeting. It is an economic forum, and it will
undoubtedly have discussions on globalisation, global trade
and international finance.
Has anyone ever given a thought
to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from
globalisation, the development of which we have been observing
and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s?
China has made use
of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions
of Chinese out of poverty.
What happened in the United
States, and how did it happen? In the United States,
the leading US companies –the companies, their managers,
shareholders and partners – made use of these benefits. The middle
class hardly benefitted from globalisation. The take-home pay
in the US (we are likely to talk later about real incomes
in Russia, which need special attention from the Government).
The middle class in the United States has not benefited from globalisation;
it was left out when this pie was divided up.
The Trump team sensed this very
keenly and clearly, and they used this in the election
campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory,
rather than in any alleged foreign interference. This is what we should be
talking about here, including when it comes to the global economy.
I believe this may explain his
seemingly extravagant economic decisions and even his relations with his
partners and allies. He believes that the distribution
of resources and benefits of globalisation in the past
decade was unfair to the United States.
I am not going to discuss
whether it was fair or not, and I will not say if what he is
doing is right or wrong. I would like to understand his motives,
which is what you asked me about. Maybe this could explain his unusual
behaviour.
Lionel Barber: I definitely
want to come back to the Russian economy. But what you said is
absolutely fascinating. Here you are, the President of Russia,
defending globalisation along with President Xi whereas Mr Trump is attacking
globalisation and talking about America First. How do you explain this
paradox?
Vladimir Putin: I don’t
think that his desire to make America first is a paradox. I want
Russia to be first, and that is not perceived as a paradox;
there is nothing unusual there. As for the fact that he is
attacking some manifestations of globalisation, I made that point
earlier. He seems to believe that the results of globalisation
could have been much better for the United States than they are.
These globalisation results are not producing the desired effect
for the United States, and he is beginning this campaign against
certain elements of globalisation. This concerns everyone, primarily major
participants in the system of international economic
collaboration, including allies.
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you
have had many meetings with President Xi, and Russia and China have
definitely come closer. Are you putting too many eggs in the China
basket? Because Russian foreign policy, including under your leadership, has
always made a virtue of talking to everybody.
Vladimir Putin: First
of all, we have enough eggs, but there are not that many baskets where
these eggs can be placed. This is the first point.
Secondly, we always assess risks.
Thirdly, our relations with China are
not motivated by timeserving political any other considerations. Let me
point out that the Friendship Treaty with China was signed in 2001,
if memory serves, long before the current situation and long before
the current economic disagreements, to put it mildly, between
the United States and China.
We do not have to join anything,
and we do not have to direct our policy against anyone. In fact,
Russia and China are not directing their policy against anyone. We are
just consistently implementing our plans for expanding cooperation. We
have been doing this since 2001, and we are just consistently implementing
these plans.
Take a look at what is
written there. We have not done anything that transcends the framework
of these accords. So there is nothing unusual here, and you should
not search for any implications of the Chinese-Russian
rapprochement. Of course, we assess the current global developments;
our positions coincide on a number of matters on the current
global agenda, including our attitude towards compliance with generally
accepted rules in trade, the international financial system, payments
and settlements.
The G20 has played a very
tangible role. Since its inception in 2008, when the financial crisis
flared up, the G20 has accomplished many useful things
for stabilising the global financial system, for developing
global trade and ensuring its stabilisation. I am talking about
the tax aspect of the global agenda, the fight against
corruption, and so on. Both China and Russia adhere to this
concept.
The G20 has accomplished
a lot by advocating quota changes at the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both Russia and China share
this approach. Considering the major increase in the global
economic share of emerging markets, this is fair and right,
and we have been voicing this position from the very beginning.
And we are glad that this continues to develop
and to proceed in line with changes in global trade.
Over the past 25 years
or so (25, I believe), the share of G7 countries
in the global GDP has declined from 58 percent to 40 percent.
This should also be reflected in international institutions in some
way. That is the common position of Russia and China. This is
fair, and there is nothing special about this.
Yes, Russia and China have many
coinciding interests, this is true. This is what motivates our frequent
contacts with President Xi Jinping. Of course, we have also established
very warm personal relations, and this is natural.
Therefore, we are moving in line
with our mainstream bilateral agenda that was formulated as far back
as 2001, but we quickly respond to global developments. We never
direct our bilateral relations against anyone. We are not against anyone, we
are for ourselves.
Lionel Barber: I am
relieved that this egg supply is strong. But the serious point, Mr
President, is, you are familiar with Graham Allison‘s book, The Thucydides’s Trap.
The danger of tensions or a military conflict risk between
a dominant power and a rising power, America and China. Do
you think that there is a risk of a military conflict
in your time between you, America and China?
Vladimir Putin: You know,
the entire history of mankind has always been full of military
conflicts, but since the appearance of nuclear weapons the risk
of global conflicts has decreased due to the potential global
tragic consequences for the entire population of the planet
in case such a conflict happens between two nuclear states.
I hope it will not come to this.
However, of course, we have
to admit that it is not only about China’s industrial subsidies
on the one hand or the tariff policy
of the United States on the other. First of all, we
are talking about different development platforms, so to speak,
in China and in the United States. They are different
and you, being a historian, probably will agree with me. They have
different philosophies in both foreign and domestic policies,
probably.
But I would like to share
some personal observations with you. They are not about allied relations with
one country or a confrontation with the other; I am just
observing what is going on at the moment. China is showing
loyalty and flexibility to both its partners and opponents.
Maybe this is related to the historical features of Chinese
philosophy, their approach to building relations.
Therefore I do not think that
there would be some such threats from China. I cannot imagine that,
really. But it is hard to say whether the United States would have
enough patience not to make any rash decisions, but to respect its
partners even if there are disagreements. But I hope, I would like
to repeat this again, I hope that there would not be any military
confrontation.
Lionel Barber: Arms control. We
know that the INF agreement is in grave jeopardy. Is there any place,
from Russia’s point of view, for future arms control agreements
or are we in a new phase when we are likely to see
a new nuclear arms race?
Vladimir Putin: I believe
there is such a risk.
As I said already,
the United States unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty,
and has recently quit the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
as well. But this time, it did not just quit but found a reason
to quit, and this reason was Russia. I do not think Russia means
anything to them in this case, because this war theatre, the war
theatre in Europe is unlikely to be interesting to the US,
despite the expansion of NATO and NATO’s contingent near our
borders. The fact remains, the US has withdrawn from the treaty.
Now the agenda is focused on theStrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New
START). I hope that I will be able to talk about it with Donald
if we happen to meet in Osaka.
We said that we are ready
to hold talks and to extend this treaty between the United
States and Russia, but we have not seen any relevant initiative from our
American partners. They keep silent, while the treaty expires
in 2021. If we do not begin talks now, it would be over because there
would be no time even for formalities.
Our previous conversation with Donald
showed that the Americans seem to be interested in this, but
still they are not making any practical steps. So if this treaty ceases
to exist, then there would be no instrument in the world
to curtail the arms race. And this is bad.
Lionel Barber: Exactly,
the gloves are off. Is there any chance of a triangular
agreement between China, Russia and America on intermediate nuclear
forces or is that a dream, pie in the sky? Would you
support such an end?
Vladimir Putin: As I said
at the very beginning, we will support any agreement that can advance
our cause, that is, help us contain the arms race.
It should be said that so far,
the level and the development scale of China’s nuclear
forces are much lower than in the United States and Russia.
China is a huge power that has the capability to build up its
nuclear potential. This will likely happen in the future, but so far
our capabilities are hardly comparable. Russia and the United States
are the leading nuclear powers, which is why the agreement was signed
between them. As for whether China will join these efforts, you can
ask our Chinese friends.
Lionel Barber: Russia is
a Pacific power as well as a European and Asian power.
It is a Pacific power. You have seen what the Chinese are doing
in terms of their buildup of their Navy and their maritime
strength. How do you deal with those potential security problems, territorial
disputes in the Pacific? Does Russia have a role to play
in a new security arrangement?
Vladimir Putin: You mentioned
the build-up of naval forces in China. China’s total defence
spending is $117 billion, if memory serves. The US defence spending is
over $700 billion. And you are trying to scare the world with
the build-up of China’s military might? It does not work with this
scale of military spending. No, it does not.
As for Russia, we will
continue to develop our Pacific Fleet as planned. Of course, we
also respond to global developments and to what happens
in relations between other countries. We can see all of this, but it
does not affect our defence development plans, including those
in the Russian Far East.
We are self-sufficient, and we
are confident. Russia is the largest continental power. But we have
a nuclear submarine base in the Far East, where we are
developing our defence potential in accordance with our plans, including so
that we can ensure safety on the Northern Sea Route, which we are
planning to develop.
We intend to attract many
partners to this effort, including our Chinese partners. We may even reach
an agreement with American shippers and with India, which has also
indicated its interest in the Northern Sea Route.
I would say that we are also
primed for cooperation in the Asia Pacific region,
and I have grounds to believe that Russia can make
a considerable, tangible and positive contribution
to stabilising the situation.
Lionel Barber: Can we just turn
to North Korea? How do you assess the current situation and do
you believe that in the end, any deal or agreement will have
to accept the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons and that
total dismantling is just not possible? If I could just add, Mr President,
I ask you this because Russia has a fairly small but still
a land border with North Korea.
Vladimir Putin: You know,
whether we recognise North Korea as a nuclear power or not,
the number of nuclear charges it has will not decrease. We must
proceed from modern realities, which are that nuclear weapons pose
a threat to international peace and security.
Another pertinent question is where
this problem stems from. The tragedies of Libya and Iraq have
inspired many countries to ensure their security at all costs.
What we should be talking about is
not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure
the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make
any country, including North Korea feel safe and protected by international
law that is strictly honoured by all members
of the international community. This is what we should be thinking
about.
We should think about guarantees,
which we should use as the basis for talks with North Korea. We
must be patient, respect it and, at the same time, take into account
the dangers arising from this, the dangers of the nuclear
status and the presence of nuclear weapons.
Of course, the current
situation is fraught with unpredictable scenarios, which we must avoid.
Lionel Barber: You have
obviously thought of this as an experienced foreign policy
and security analyst and a strategist. How do you see
the North Asia security situation over the next five to ten
years, given you have Russia, you have China, you have Korea and Japan?
Vladimir Putin: You have said
correctly that we have a common border, even if a short one, with
North Korea, therefore, this problem has a direct bearing on us.
The United States is located across the ocean, and the UK
is located far away, while we are right here, in this region,
and the North Korean nuclear range is not far away from our border.
This why this concerns us directly, and we never stop thinking about it.
I would like to return
to my answer to your previous question. We must respect North
Korea’s legitimate security concerns. We must show it respect, and we must
find a way of ensuring its security that will satisfy North Korea. If
we do this, the situation may take a turn nobody can imagine today.
Do you remember what turn
the situation took after the Soviet Union adopted the policy
of détente? Do I need to say anything else?
Lionel Barber: Mr President, you
have been in power or very close to power. I think
in Davos I said to you when we met – you were not
in power but still calling all the shots. After 20 years
at the top or near the top, has your appetite for risk
increased?
Vladimir Putin: It did not
increase or decrease.Risk must always be well-justified. But this is not
the case when one can use the popular Russian phrase: “He who doesn’t
take risks, never drinks champagne.” This is not the case. Quite possibly,
risks are inevitable when one has to make certain decisions. Depending
on the scale of any decision, risks can be small
or serious.
Any decision-making process is
accompanied by risk. Before taking one’s chances, one has
to meticulously assess everything. Therefore, risk based
on an assessment of the situation
and the possible consequences of the decisions is possible
and even inevitable. Foolish risks overlooking the real situation
and failing to clearly comprehend the consequences are
unacceptable because they can jeopardise the interests
of a great number of people.
Lionel Barber: How big was this
Syria risk in terms of your decision to intervene?
Vladimir Putin: It was
sufficiently high. However, of course, I thought carefully about this
well in advance, and I considered all the circumstances
and all the pros and cons. I considered how
the situation around Russia would develop and the possible
consequences. I discussed this matter with my aides
and ministers, including those in charge of law enforcement
agencies and other senior officials. In the long run,
I decided that the positive effect from our active involvement
in Syrian affairs for Russia and the interests
of the Russian Federation would far outweigh non-interference
and passive observation of how an international terrorist
organisation grows ever stronger near our borders.
Lionel Barber: What has
the return been like on the risk taken in Syria?
Vladimir Putin: I believe
that it has been a good and positive return. We have accomplished
even more than I had expected. First of all, many militants planning
to return to Russia were eliminated. This implies several thousand
people. They were planning to return to Russia or neighbouring
countries with which we do not maintain any visa regime. Both aspects are
equally dangerous for us. This is the first thing.
Secondly, we have managed
to stabilise the situation in a nearby region, one way
or another. This is also highly important. Therefore, we have directly
strengthened Russia’s domestic security. This is the third thing.
Fourthly, we have established
sufficiently good business-like relations with all regional countries,
and our positions in the Middle East region have become more
stable. Indeed, we have established very good, business-like, partner-like
and largely allied relations with many regional countries, including Iran,
Turkey and other countries.
Primarily, this concerns Syria, we
have managed to preserve Syrian statehood, no matter what, and we
have prevented Libya-style chaos there. And a worst-case scenario
would spell out negative consequences for Russia.
Besides, I would like
to openly speak of the mobilisation of the Russian
Armed Forces. Our Armed Forces have received such practical experience that
they could not have obtained during any peace-time exercises.
Lionel Barber: Are you committed
to Mr al-Assad remaining in power or can we see, at some
point, the transition in Syria that Russia would support, which would
not be Libya?
Vladimir Putin: I believe
that the Syrian people should be free to choose their own future.
At the same time, I would like the actions of external
players to be substantiated and, just as in the case of the risks
you have mentioned, predictable and understandable, so that we can
consider at least our next moves.
When we discussed this matter only
recently with the previous US administration, we said, suppose Assad steps
down today, what will happen tomorrow?
Your colleague did well
to laugh, because the answer we got was very amusing. You cannot even
imagine how funny it was. They said, “We don’t know.” But when you do not know
what happens tomorrow, why shoot from the hip today? This may sound
primitive, but this is how it is.
Therefore, we prefer to look
at problems thoroughly from all possible angles and not to be
in any hurry. Of course, we are perfectly aware of what is
happening in Syria. There are internal reasons for the conflict,
and they should be dealt with. But both sides should do their bit.
I am referring to the conflicting parties.
Lionel Barber: Mr President,
does that same argument apply to Venezuela? In other words, you are
not prepared to see a transition in Venezuela and you are
absolutely committed to President Maduro.
Vladimir Putin: Oh, and it
seemed we had started so well. Please do not take offence to what
I am going to say next. You won’t, will you? We were off to such
a terrific start, talking seriously, and now you have moved back to the stereotype
views on Russia.
We have no nothing to do with
what is happening in Venezuela, if you know what I mean.
Lionel Barber: What are those
advisors doing then in Caracas?
Vladimir Putin: I will say
this now, if you just let me finish. There is no problem with that.
Back under [President] Chavez we sold
weapons to Venezuela, without any limits and problems. We did this
absolutely legally just as it is done all around the world
and as every country does, including the United States,
the UK, China and France. We did this too – we sold weapons to Venezuela.
We signed contracts, which say what
we have to do when it comes to servicing this military equipment,
that we must train local specialists, ensure that this equipment is maintained
in combat readiness, and so on. We provide maintenance services
for this equipment. I have already said this many times, including
to our American partners: there are no Russian troops there. Do you
understand? Yes, there are Russian specialists and instructors there. Yes,
they are working there. Only recently, I believe it was a week ago,
a group of our advisers and specialists left the country.
But they can return.
We have an agreement that our
aircraft fly there from time to time to take part in exercises.
And this is it. Are we regulating the rebels’ actions as some
of our partners are doing, or the actions of President
Maduro? He is the president, why should we control his actions? He is
in control. Whether he is doing well or not, this is another matter
altogether. We do not make any judgments.
I believe that many things could
have been done differently there when it comes to the economy. But we
do not meddle in things; it is none of our business. We have invested
billions of dollars there, mostly in the oil sector. So what?
Other countries are doing the same as well.
It looks like everything is preserved
only by Russian weapons. This is not true. It has nothing in common
with reality. Where are the self-proclaimed presidents and opposition
leaders? Some of them have taken refuge in foreign embassies
and others are in hiding. What do we have to do with this? This
problem should be sorted out by the Venezuelan people themselves.
This is all.
Lionel Barber: I was just
applying your theory and your experience of seeing what happened
in Libya and Iraq to Venezuela. And therefore, logically,
you would say, “We are committed to Mr Maduro because we do not want
to see regime change from outside.” Is that the Russian position?
Or might you be willing to say, “We will support Guaido because we
have important oil interests in Venezuela”?
Vladimir Putin: We are prepared
for any developments in any country, including Venezuela, if they are
taking place in accordance with internal rules and the country’s
legislation, its Constitution, and in line with the people’s
will.
I do not think that Libyan
or Iraqi statehood would have been wrecked if there had been no
intervention there. It would not have happened in Libya,
the situation was absolutely different there. Indeed, Gaddafi wrote his
books there, set forth his theories, and so on, which did not meet
specific standards, and his practical work did not meet European
or American perceptions of democracy.
Incidentally, the President
of France said recently that the American democratic model differs
greatly from the European model. So there are no common democratic
standards. And do you, well, not you, but our Western partners want
a region such as Libya to have the same democratic
standards as Europe and the United States? The region has
only monarchies or countries with a system similar
to the one that existed in Libya.
But I am sure that,
as a historian, you will agree with me at heart. I do not
know whether you will publicly agree with this or not, but it is
impossible to impose current and viable French or Swiss
democratic standards on North African residents who have never lived
in conditions of French or Swiss democratic institutions.
Impossible, isn’t it? And they tried to impose something like that
on them. Or they tried to impose something that they had never
known or even heard of. All this led to conflict
and inter-tribal discord. In fact, a war continues
in Libya.
So why should we do the same
in Venezuela? Do we want to revert to gunboat diplomacy? What do
we need it for? Is it necessary to humiliate Latin American nations so
much in the modern world and impose forms of government or leaders
from the outside?
By the way, we worked with
President Chavez because he was president. We did not work with President
Chavez as an individual, but we worked with Venezuela. That is why we
channelled investments in the oil sector.
And where did we plan
to deliver Venezuelan oil while investing in the oil sector?
As you know, Venezuela has unique oil that is mostly delivered to US
refineries. What is so bad about that? We wanted the Venezuelan oil
and gas sector to operate steadily, predictably and confidently
and to make deliveries to those US refineries. I do not
understand what is so wrong with this.
First, they faced economic problems,
followed by domestic political problems. Let them sort things out
by themselves, and these leaders will come to power
by democratic means. But when a person enters a square, raises
his eyes to the sky and proclaims himself president? Let us do
the same in Japan, the United States or Germany. What will
happen? Do you understand that this will cause chaos all over the world?
It is impossible to disagree with this. There will be pure chaos. How
could they act like this? But no, they started supporting that person from
the very outset.
He may be a very good person. He
may be just wonderful, and his plans are good. But is it enough that he
entered a square and proclaimed himself president? Is the entire
world supposed to support him as president? We should tell him
to take part in elections and win them, and then we would
work with him as the state leader.
Lionel Barber: Let us talk about
another democracy in Europe, my own country. You are going
to have a meeting with Mrs May, which is going to be one
of her last meetings before she steps down as Prime Minister. Do you
think that there is a possibility of some improvement in Anglo-Russian
relations and that we can move on from some of these issues that
are obviously of great sensitivity, like the Skripal affair?
Or do you think that we are going to stay in a deep freeze
for the next three or five years?
Vladimir Putin: Listen,all this
fuss about spies and counter-spies, it is not worth serious interstate
relations. This spy story, as we say, it is not worth five kopecks.
Or even five pounds, for that matter. And the issues
concerning interstate relations, they are measured in billions and the fate
of millions of people. How can we compare one with the other?
The list of accusations
and allegations against one another could go on and on. They
say, “You poisoned the Skripals.” Firstly, this must be proved.
Secondly, the average person
listens and says, “Who are these Skripals?” And it turns out that
Skripal was engaged in espionage against us [Russia]. So this person asks
the next question, “Why did you spy on us using Skripal? Maybe you
should not have done that?” You know, these questions are infinite. We need
to just leave it alone and let security agencies deal with it.
But we know that businesses
in the United Kingdom (by the way, I had
a meeting with our British colleagues in this same room), they want
to work with us, they are working with us and intend to continue
doing so. And we support this intent.
I think that Mrs May, despite
her resignation, could not help but be concerned that these spy scandals made
our relations reach a deadlock so we could not develop our ties normally
and support business people, who are doing what? They do not only earn
money, this is what is on the outside. They create jobs
and added value, plus they provide revenue at all levels
of the tax system of their countries. This is a serious
and multifaceted job, with the same risks you mentioned, including
risks related to business operations. And if we add
an unpredictable political situation, they will not be able to work
at all.
I think that both Russia
and the United Kingdom are interested in fully restoring our
relations. At least I hope that a few preliminary steps will be
made. I think it would be easier for Mrs May, maybe, because she is
leaving and is free to do what she thinks is right, important
and necessary and not to bother about some domestic political
consequences.
Lionel Barber: Some people might
say that a human life is worth more than five pennies. But do you believe,
Mr President that whatever happened…
Vladimir Putin: Did anybody die?
Lionel Barber: Oh yes.
The gentleman who had a drug problem and he died after touching
the Novichok in the car park. I mean somebody did that
because of the perfume. It was more than one person that died, not
the Skripals. I am just…
Vladimir Putin: And you
think this is absolutely Russia’s fault?
Lionel Barber: I did not
say that. I said somebody died.
Vladimir Putin: You did not say
that, but if it has nothing to do with Russia… Yes, a man died,
and that is a tragedy, I agree. But what do we have to do
with it?
Lionel Barber: Let me just ask
this and I really want to talk about the Russian economy.
Do you believe that what happened in Salisbury sent an unambiguous
message to anyone who is thinking of betraying the Russian state
that it is fair game?
Vladimir Putin: As a matter
of fact, treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must
be punished. I am not saying that the Salisbury incident is
the way to do it. Not at all. But traitors must be punished.
This gentleman, Skripal, had already
been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and then served time
in prison. He received his punishment. For that matter, he was off
the radar. Why would anybody be interested in him? He got punished.
He was detained, arrested, sentenced and then spent five years
in prison. Then he was released and that was it.
As concerns treason,
of course, it must be punishable. It is the most despicable crime
that one can imagine.
Lionel Barber: The Russian
economy. You spoke the other day about decline in the real wages
in the Russian workforce and Russian growth has been less than
expected. But at the same time, Mr President, you have been
accumulating foreign exchange reserves and international reserves
at some 460 billion. What are you saving for? What is the purpose?
Can’t you use some of this money to ease up on the fiscal
side?
Vladimir Putin: Let me correct
a few very small details. Real wages are not in decline
in Russia. On the contrary, they are starting to pick up.
It is the real household disposable income that is falling.
Wages and income are two
slightly different things. Income is determined by many parameters,
including loan servicing costs. People in Russia take out a lot
of consumer loans and interest payments are counted towards expenses,
which drags down real income indicators. Also, the shadow economy is
undergoing legalisation. A substantial part of self-employed
people – I believe, 100,000 or 200,000, have already legalised
their business. This, too, affects real incomes of the population,
disposable incomes.
This tendency has persisted
for the past four years. Last year we recorded a small increase
of 0.1 percent. It is not enough. It is still within the margin
of error. But it is one of the serious problems that we need
to deal with and we are dealing with it.
Real wages started to grow
recently. Last year there was an 8.5-percent increase. This year,
the growth rate of real wages has significantly decreased due
to a whole range of circumstances. I mean that last year we
saw a recovery growth and there are some other factors involved.
However, it continues. And we really expect that it will have
an effect on real household disposable incomes.
Even more so because lately we have
adopted a number of measures to speed up the growth
of retirement pensions. Last year the inflation rate was 4.3 percent
and, based on these results, in the beginning of this year
pensions were adjusted for inflation by 7.05 percent. And we set
ourselves a goal, a task – which, I am certain, will be
achieved – to adjust pensions by a percentage that is above
the inflation rate.
Now, real incomes were also affected
because we had to increase VAT from 18 to 20 percent, which affected
people’s purchasing power because the inflation rate exceeded 5 percent.
In other words, we expected that
the negative impact of the VAT increase would be short-term,
which is exactly what happened. Fortunately, it worked out and our
calculations proved right. Now the inflation rate is going down,
the macroeconomic situation is improving; investment is rising slightly.
We can see that the economy has overcome those difficulties that were
caused by internal and external shocks. The external shocks were
related to restrictions and slumping prices on our traditional
export products. The economy has stabilised.
The macroeconomic situation
in the country is stable. It is not accidental and all rating
agencies registered it. The three major agencies raised our investment
rating. Economic growth last year was 2.3 percent. We do not think it was
enough but we will, of course, work on speeding up the pace.
The growth rate in industrial production was 2.9 percent
and even higher, up to 13 percent in some industries (light
industry, processing and garment industries and several others).
Therefore, overall, our economy is stable.
But the most important task we
need to achieve is to change the structure
of the economy and secure a substantial growth
of labour productivity through modern technologies, Artificial
Intelligence, robotics and so on. This is exactly why we increased VAT,
to raise budget funds for performing a certain part of this
job that is the state’s responsibility, in order to create
conditions for private investment. Let us take transport and other
infrastructure development. Hardly anybody besides the state is involved
in it. There are other factors related to education
and healthcare. A person who has health problems or has no
training cannot be efficient in the modern economy. The list
goes on.
We really hope that by starting
this work on key development areas, we will be able to increase
labour productivity and use this basis for ensuring an increase
in the incomes and prosperity of our people.
As concerns the reserves,
you are not exactly correct here, either. We have over 500 billion in gold
and foreign currency reserves, rather than 460 billion. But
the understanding is that we need to create a safety net that
would let us feel confident and use the interest on our existing
resources. If we have 7 percent more, we can spend those 7 percent.
This is what we plan
for the next year and there is a high probability that we
will succeed. Do not think that this money is just sitting
on the shelf. No, it creates certain guarantees for Russia’s
economic stability in the midterm.
Lionel Barber: The Central
Bank has done a very good job in helping to secure macroeconomic
stability even if some of the oligarchs complain about banks being
closed.
Vladimir Putin: You know, first
of all, we do not have oligarchs anymore. Oligarchs are those who use
their proximity to the authorities to receive super profits. We
have large companies, private ones, or with government participation. But
I do not know of any large companies that get preferential treatment
from being close to the authorities, these are practically
non-existent.
As for the Central
Bank, yes, it is engaged in a gradual improvement of our
financial system: inefficient and small-capacity companies, as well
as semi-criminal financial organisations are leaving the market,
and this is large-scale and complicated work.
It is not about oligarchs
or large companies; the thing is that it affects, unfortunately,
the interests of the depositor, the average person. We have
relevant regulatory acts that minimise people’s financial losses and create
a certain safety net for them. But each case should be considered
individually, of course.
In general, the work
of the Central Bank, in my opinion, deserves support. It is
related to both the improvement of the financial system
and the calibrated policy regarding the key interest rate.
Lionel Barber: Mr President,
I would like to go back to President Xi and China.
As you know, he has pursued a rigorous anticorruption campaign
in order to clean up the party, maintain the legitimacy
and strengthen the party. He has also read the history
of the Soviet Union, where Mr Gorbachev essentially abandoned
the party and helped to destroy the country –
the Soviet Union. Do you think that Mr Xi is right in his approach
that the party is absolutely crucial? And what lessons do you draw
for Russia? If I can just add, you said something interesting
a few years ago about the breakup of the Soviet Union being
the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20thcentury.
Vladimir Putin:These two issues
are not connected. As for the tragedy related
to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this is something
obvious. I meant, first of all, the humanitarian aspect
of it. It appears that 25 million ethnic Russians were living abroad when
they learned from the television and radio that the Soviet Union
had ceased to exist. Nobody asked their opinion. The decision was
simply made.
You know, these are issues
of democracy. Was there an opinion poll, a referendum? Most
(over 70 percent) of the citizens of the USSR spoke
in favour of retaining it. Then the decision was made
to dissolve the USSR, but nobody asked the people, and 25
million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the Russian
Federation. Listen, is this not a tragedy? A huge one!
And family relations? Jobs? Travel? It was nothing but a disaster.
I was surprised to see
the later comments on what I said, in particular,
in the Western media. They should try to live through seeing
their father, brother or any other close relative finding themselves living
in a different country, where a whole new life has started.
I assure you.
As for the party
and the party state building in China, this is
for the Chinese people to decide; we do not interfere. Today’s
Russia has its own principles and rules of life, and China with
its 1.35 billion people has its own. You try to rule a country with
such a population. This is not Luxembourg, with all due respect
to this wonderful country. Therefore, it is necessary to give
the Chinese people the opportunity to decide how
to organise their lives.
Lionel Barber: Again a big
picture question. I talked at the beginning of our
conversation about fragmentation. Another phenomenon today is that there is
a popular backlash against elites and against the establishment
and you have seen that – Brexit in Britain. Perhaps you were
speaking about Trump’s America. You have seen it with the AFD
in Germany; you have seen it in Turkey; and you have seen it
in the Arab world. How long do you think that Russia can remain
immune to this global movement of backlash against
the establishment?
Vladimir Putin: You should look
at the realities in each particular case. Of course, there
are some trends, but they are only general. In each particular case, when
looking at the situation and how it unfolds, you should take into
account the history of the given country, its traditions
and realities.
How long will Russia remain
a stable country? The longer the better. Because very many other
things and its position in the world depend on stability,
on internal political stability. Ultimately, the wellbeing
of the people depends, possibly primarily, on stability.
One of the reasons,
the internal reason for the Soviet Union’s collapse was that
life was difficult for the people, whose take-home wages were very
small. The shops were empty, and the people lost the intrinsic
desire to preserve the state.
They thought that it could not get
worse no matter what happened. It turned out that life became worse
for very many people, especially at the beginning
of the 1990s when the social protection and healthcare
systems collapsed and industry was crumbling. It could be ineffective, but
at least people had jobs. After the collapse, they lost them.
Therefore, you should look at each particular case separately.
What is happening
in the West? What is the reason for the Trump
phenomenon, as you said, in the United States? What is happening
in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from
the people. The obvious problem is the gap between
the interests of the elites and the overwhelming
majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear
this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation
and existence of any government is to create a stable,
normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work
towards a better future.
There is also the so-called
liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have
admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such
as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.
When the migration problem came
to a head, many people admitted that the policy
of multiculturalism is not effective and that the interests
of the core population should be considered. Although those who have
run into difficulties because of political problems in their home
countries need our assistance as well. That is great, but what about
the interests of their own population when the number
of migrants heading to Western Europe is not just a handful
of people but thousands or hundreds of thousands?
Lionel Barber: Did Angela Merkel
make a mistake?
Vladimir Putin: Cardinal
mistake. One can criticise Trump for his intention to build
a wall between Mexico and the United States. It could be going
too far. Yes, maybe so. I am not arguing about this point. But he had
to do something about the huge inflow of migrants
and narcotics.
Nobody is doing anything. They say
this is bad and that is bad as well. Tell me, what is good then? What
should be done? Nobody has proposed anything. I do not mean that
a wall must be built or tariffs raised by 5 percent annually
in the economic relations with Mexico. This is not what I am
saying, yet something must be done. He is at least looking
for a solution.
What am I driving at? Those who
are concerned about this, ordinary Americans, they look at this
and say, Good for him, at least he is doing something,
suggesting ideas and looking for a solution.
As for the liberal
idea, its proponents are not doing anything. They say that all is well, that
everything is as it should be. But is it? They are sitting in their
cosy offices, while those who are facing the problem every day in Texas
or Florida are not happy, they will soon have problems of their own.
Does anyone think about them?
The same is happening
in Europe. I discussed this with many of my colleagues, but
nobody has the answer. The say they cannot pursue a hard-line
policy for various reasons. Why exactly? Just because. We have
the law, they say. Well, then change the law!
We have quite a few problems
of our own in this sphere as well. We have open borders with
the former Soviet republics, but their people at least speak Russian.
Do you see what I mean? And besides, we in Russia have taken
steps to streamline the situation in this sphere. We are now
working in the countries from which the migrants come, teaching
Russian at their schools, and we are also working with them here. We
have toughened the legislation to show that migrants must respect
the laws, customs and culture of the country.
In other words,
the situation is not simple in Russia either, but we have started
working to improve it. Whereas the liberal idea presupposes that
nothing needs to be done. The migrants can kill, plunder
and rape with impunity because their rights as migrants must be
protected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its punishment.
So, the liberal idea has become
obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests
of the overwhelming majority of the population.
Or take the traditional values. I am not trying to insult
anyone, because we have been condemned for our alleged homophobia as it
is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live
as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to us.
They claim now that children can play
five or six gender roles. I cannot even say exactly what genders
these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with
that. But this must not be allowed to overshadow the culture,
traditions and traditional family values of millions of people
making up the core population.
Lionel Barber: Does that
include – this is very important, like you say – the end
of this liberal idea, because – what else did you say –
uncontrolled immigration, open borders, definitely, as you say, diversity
as an organizing principle in society? What else do you think is
just finished over in terms of the liberal idea? And would
you say – if I could just add – that religion therefore must
play an important role in terms of national culture
and cohesiveness?
Vladimir Putin:It should play
its current role.It [religion] cannot be pushed out of this cultural
space. We should not abuse anything.
Russia is an Orthodox Christian
nation, and there have always been problems between Orthodox Christianity
and the Catholic world. This is exactly why I will now say
a few words about Catholics. Are there any problems there? Yes, there are,
but they cannot be over-exaggerated and used for destroying
the Roman Catholic Church itself. This is what cannot be done.
Sometimes, I get
the feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to use certain
elements and problems of the Catholic Church as a tool
for destroying the Church itself. This is what I consider
to be incorrect and dangerous.
All right, have we forgotten that all
of us live in a world based on Biblical values? Even
atheists and everyone else live in this world. We do not have
to think about this every day, attend church and pray, thereby
showing that we are devout Christians or Muslims or Jews. However,
deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and moral values.
In this sense, traditional values are more stable and more important
for millions of people than this liberal idea, which,
in my opinion, is really ceasing to exist.
Lionel Barber: So religion,
religion is not the opium of the masses?
Vladimir Putin: No, it is not.
But I get the impression that you are detached from religion because
it is already 12.45 am Moscow Time, and you continue to torture me.
As we say here, there is no fear of God in you, is there? (Laughter)
Lionel Barber: This is history.
I have waited a long time for this. I have got one last
question. And thank you for your – go on please.
Vladimir Putin: Please, go
ahead.
Henry Foy: Mr President, would
you say – I was reflecting on what you just said: some
of the themes you were referring to would echo in people
such as Steve Bannon, and Mr Trump himself, and the groups
in Europe who have come to power. Do you think if the end
of the liberal idea is over, is now the time
of the ‘illiberals’? And do you see more and more allies
growing around the world to your way of seeing the human
existence at the moment?
Vladimir Putin: You know, it
seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have
never existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history
of humankind, but everything very quickly ends in a deadlock if
there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one way
or another.
Various ideas and various
opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those
millions of people and their lives, should never be forgotten. This
is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would
be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles. This applies
to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think,
this is ceasing to be a dominating factor) that it must be
immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position should also be
treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything
to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over
the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both
in the media and in real life. It is deemed unbecoming even
to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not
a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding everything,
arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not.
The liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist
and it should even be supported in some things. But you should not
think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating
factor. That is the point.
Please.
Lionel Barber: You really are
on the same page as Donald Trump. Mr President, you have been
in power for almost 20 years.
Vladimir Putin: For eighteen
years.
Lionel Barber: You have seen
many world leaders. Who do you most admire?
Vladimir Putin: Peter
the Great.
Lionel Barber: But he is dead.
Vladimir Putin: He will live
as long as his cause is alive just as the cause
of each of us. (Laughter). We will live until our cause is alive.
If you mean any present-day leaders
from different countries and states, of the persons that
I could communicate with, I was most seriously impressed
by former President of France Mr Chirac. He is a true
intellectual, a real professor, a very level-headed man as well
as very interesting. When he was President, he had his own opinion
on every issue, he knew how to defend it and he always respected
his partners’ opinions.
In modern-day history, taking
a broader view, there are many good and very interesting people.
Lionel Barber: Peter
the Great, the creator of the Greater Russia. Need
I say any more? My last question, Mr President. Great leaders always
prepare succession. Lee Kuan Yew prepared succession. So please share with us
what would the process be by which your successor will be chosen.
Vladimir Putin: I can tell
you without exaggeration that I have always been thinking about this,
since 2000. The situation changes and certain demands on people
change, too. In the end, and I will say this without
theatrics or exaggeration, in the end the decision must be
made by the people of Russia. No matter what and how
the current leader does, no matter who or how he represents, it is
the voter that has the final word, the citizen
of the Russian Federation.
Lionel Barber: So
the choice will be approved by the Russian people
in a vote? Or through the Duma?
Vladimir Putin: Why through
the Duma? By means of direct secret ballot, universal direct
secret ballot. Of course, it is different from what you have in Great
Britain. We are a democratic country. (Laughter)
In your country, one leader has
left, and the second leader, who is for all intents
and purposes the top figure in the state, is not elected
by a direct vote of the people, but by the ruling
party.
It is different in Russia,
as we are a democratic country. If our top officials leave
for some reason, because they want to retire from politics like Boris
Yeltsin, or because their term ends, we hold an election through
universal direct secret ballot.
The same will happen
in this case. Of course, the current leader always supports
someone, and this support can be substantive if the person supported
has the respect and trust of the people, but
in the end, the choice is always made by the Russian
people.
Lionel Barber: I cannot
resist pointing out that you did take over as president before
the election.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is
true. So what? I was acting president, and in order to be
elected and become the head of state, I had to take
part in an election, which I did.
I am grateful
to the Russian people for their trust back then, and after
that, in the following elections. It is a great honour
to be the leader of Russia.
Lionel Barber: Mr President,
thank you for spending time with the Financial Times in Moscow,
in the Kremlin.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you
for your interest in the events in Russia and your
interest in what Russia thinks about the current international
affairs. And thank you for our interesting conversation today.
I believe it was really interesting.
Thank
you very much.
No comments:
Post a Comment