Vladimir Putin spoke at the final plenary
session of the 16th meeting of the Valdai
International Discussion Club.
October
3, 2019
18:30
Sochi
Plenary session of the 16th meeting
of the Valdai International Discussion Club.
The session was attended by President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, King of Jordan Abdullah II, President
of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President
of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte.
* * *
Excerpts from the transcript
of the Valdai International Discussion Club session
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Your
Majesty King Abdullah, Mr Aliyev, Mr Tokaev, Mr Duterte, friends, ladies
and gentlemen,
I am pleased to welcome you all
in Sochi at the annual meeting of the Valdai Club.
According to tradition, on this platform, we try to put aside
current political problems, even diplomatic discussions, and strive
to discuss the long-term perspective in a historical,
cultural and philosophical context and to look into
the future and outline it.
This time, the hosts have come up with
a truly inexhaustible and, I would say, fascinating topic which is
the East and the role of Asia as the world’s
largest and most populated region. Relations between Russia
and the Asian states, which have always been of particular
importance to us, I believe, are of interest to everyone.
The nature of Russia’s relations with Asia is dictated not only
by today's realities, but by history as well.
India and China, Egypt and Iran, Turkey
and Japan, the countries of Central and Southeast Asia are
heirs to great ancient civilisations, which gave humankind unique
knowledge and technology, as well as discoveries
in medicine, mathematics, culture and the arts.
Asia has always aroused special feelings among
intellectuals and creative people, it seemed a little mysterious
and mystical, and was considered a source of spiritual
strength and wisdom, perhaps not always fully understood, but invariably
interesting.
In Russia, the bright colours
of the East inspired many of our writers, poets, artists
and musicians, specifically Pushkin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Arsenyev,
Vereshchagin, Kandinsky and Roerich. The Russian people, and not
only Russians, know these names.
Today, Asia, throughout its vast reach from
the Maghreb and the Middle East all the way to East
and Southeast Asia, is regaining its natural place in international
affairs, which is commensurate with its great heritage and today's
undoubtedly vast and growing potential.
The positions of the Asian states are
becoming stronger in all areas, but mainly in the economy.
The region already accounts for over a third
of the gross world product. Living standards are improving
at a higher pace than the global average. The most advanced
technology is being introduced. The unprecedented scale
of integration processes and globalisation are drawing both
individual countries and entire adjacent sub-regions to Asia.
While demonstrating impressive examples
of progress, the Asian nations still preserve their unique features
and traditions. They remember their roots and prove in their
forward progress that the principles of state sovereignty do not
contradict openness and globalisation, that sustainable development can be
based on independence and self-sufficiency rather than their
mandatory renunciation, and that growing national economic
and humanitarian potential requires political identity.
Naturally, having effectively and wisely used
the opportunities of globalisation and having become economic
leaders, the Asian states are striving to play a bigger role
in world politics. This is an absolutely natural process. They uphold
their own opinions on key international issues, treasure their
independence and hope that their objectively increasing influence will be
recognised. We believe this is only fair and meets the realities
of today and tomorrow.
Incidentally, at one time Asia’s awakening,
as it is called, and the national and cultural revival
of its states, played an enormous role
in the democratisation of international ties. Today, it is
obvious that global problems cannot be resolved without Asia. Of course,
it is possible to try to do this with momentum and based
on past experience, but the legitimacy, and most importantly,
the practical value of such approaches, which are presented
as global and universal, will be questionable.
The world has become multi-polar and, hence more
complicated largely owing to the Asian countries. But,
as I have said, multi-polarity as such is not a cure-all.
Nor does it mean that urgent problems will disappear by themselves.
The authors of the annual Valdai Club
report insist, and we have just heard this, that we have entered
an era with no world order whatsoever. This has been practically voiced
right now. Yes, such a scenario is indeed possible. But it is fraught with
many threats, we are all aware of that. I would like to hope
that however complicated the relations between countries, however
dangerous the legal lacunae might be, such as in nuclear
and missile weapons areas, the world order, based
on the key role of international law, will be transformed, but
it will remain. We will all be working to protect it. A different way
is obviously fraught with global calamities for practically all
of humanity.
The world system is undoubtedly multi-faceted
and complicated and unprecedentedly interconnected at that.
Everyone has their own objective interests that do not always coincide with
those of others, this is also evident. But there is a feeling
of common responsibility. Ultimately, I hope, no, actually, I do
not doubt that there is also common sense, a striving for security.
This is why we cannot do without a systemic world
order. But we also need both flexibility and, let me add, non-linearity, which
would not mean a rejection of the system but the capability
to arrange a complex process rooted in realities, which
presupposes the ability to consider various cultural and value
systems, the need to act together, dismissing stereotypes
and geopolitical clichés. This is the only way to effectively
solve the challenges on the global, regional, and national
levels.
We have such examples before our eyes. Those
of you who attended the 2015 Valdai Club meeting will apparently
remember that at virtually the very same time the decision was
taken on Russia’s operation in Syria. Let me be straightforward, not
everyone, including the experts in the audience back then,
believed it could bring a positive result. On the contrary, they
were very sceptical about it, and many of them asked questions about
why it was necessary. They asked if we understood what sort
of a hornets’ nest we would get into ,whereas some foreign partners,
I do not mean those experts present here, I mean just foreign
partners with whom we collaborate in the global arena, were also
trying to interfere, to resist.
But I would like to draw your attention
to the essence of what has been done, and above all,
of course, I mean what has been done for our country,
as I represent its interests. We defeated the terrorist
international that was actually winning on Syrian territory, and we
prevented the return, the infiltration of hundreds
and later, perhaps, thousands of armed cut-throats into our country
and neighbouring countries with whom we have a visa-free regime, our
borders are transparent.
Most of Syria was freed from terrorists within
several years, and the level of violence has drastically
decreased. In conjunction with our Astana format partners and with
the support of the UN, we managed to launch
an intra-Syrian political process and to establish close working
contacts with Iran, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other
countries of the Middle East, as well as the United
States. Colleagues, you will agree that it was difficult to even imagine
such a complicated diplomatic alignment with the participation
of very different states with very different emotions towards each other
even a few years ago. But now this is a fait accompli, and we
managed to do it.
We think the Syrian settlement can become
a model for resolving regional crises where diplomatic mechanisms
will be used in the vast majority of cases. The use
of force is an extreme and forced exception. Indeed, in Syria,
we were faced with an attempt to create a terrorist quasi-state
with an actual – I am saying this without any
exaggeration – an actual terrorist army.
Occasionally, many new and chronic problems
and crises look too tangled and even approaching them is
a problem. But, I repeat, now is the time
for outside-the-box steps and actions. In Syria, Russia
and its partners (of course, we could never have done this alone)
managed to do a lot while adhering to and following norms
of international law, respecting sovereignty and thinking primarily
about the life, safety and interests of the people.
I am convinced that these approaches can be used
to resolve other existing problems in the world, including
in Asia, such as for example, the situation
on the Korean Peninsula, which has long been in a clinch.
In this regard, notably, as soon
as the United States decided to have a direct conversation
with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, without preliminary
formalities and conventions, abandoning the usual, sometimes very
rude, even insulting, rhetoric, the hope for a peaceful
settlement immediately appeared.
Of course, we understand and see that there
are still many unresolved problems and a long way to go. But
there is movement in the right direction. We must give credit
to President Trump’s courage and ability to take outside-the-box
steps. Indeed, for many decades, US presidents ignored the DPRK
and saw it as an outcast. Mr Trump was able to take
a historic step, overcome the “demarcation line” of misunderstanding
and alienation, meet with Kim Jong-un and begin the negotiating
process.
Let me repeat: the most complicated conflicts,
such as the Palestinian-Israeli and Afghani
or the situation around the Iran nuclear deal, can and must
be resolved on the principles of mutual cooperation, respect,
recognition of all the parties’ interests and rejection
of any kind of blinkers or philosophy of blocs.
In this context, let me remind you that this was
Russia’s logic this July, when it presented the concept of providing
collective security in the Persian Gulf area. I believe
the idea is still important considering the tense
and unpredictable situation there.
We suggest that the accumulated prejudices
and mutual pretences must be pushed aside, and a security
and cooperation organisation be created in the region almost
from scratch. In addition to Western countries, Russia, China,
the US, the EU, India and other interested countries could join
as observers.
Ladies and gentlemen, of course, economic
cooperation, which opens real prospects for sustainable long-term
development for everyone, is the basis of equal political
relations aimed at the future, including between Asian countries.
Let me use transport interconnection
as an example. It is impossible to develop trade and industrial
cooperation and establish mutual exchanges in any other sphere
without an up-to-date road, sea and railway infrastructure. We should
think together how to speed up the establishment of such
a Eurasian transportation framework, a real network
of latitudinal and longitudinal trading routes.
Of course, Russia is open to this joint work
and is already implementing several joint projects, such
as the North – South trading route from Europe via Russia
to the Caspian Region, Central Asia, Iran and India. Another
route, Europe – West China, will connect Russian Baltic ports with Yellow
Sea ports.
There is one more prospective route,
the Arctic – Siberia – Asia. The idea is to connect
ports along the Northern Sea Route with ports of the Pacific
and Indian oceans via roads in East Siberia and central Eurasia.
In order to implement this and add the missing links, we
intend to speed up the construction of railways around
the port in Sabetta (it is located in the north
of Russia, on the Yamal Peninsula), to accelerate
and complete the construction of the entire Northern
Latitudinal Railway project complex as well as the construction
of the Kuragino – Kyzyl railway (Kyzyl is located
in the Republic of Tyva in eastern Russia) to later
connect it to the railway network of Mongolia, China
and other countries in the region. We are ready to work
with all interested parties on this initiative, which is significant
for the whole of Eurasia.
It is obvious to us that diversity within
a nation is normal. It teaches both patience and tolerance
in the true meaning of these words, and the ability
to understand and accept different opinions, traditions and ways
of life rather than impose our model as an axiom. We believe our
experience can be useful for many of our partners
With regard to the world in general,
since all nations are obviously different, uniformity and universalisation
are impossible by default. A system is required whereby different
values, ideas and traditions can co-exist, interact and mutually
enrich one another while retaining and highlighting their peculiarities
and differences
There was a vision in 19th century
diplomacy… My colleagues here are good diplomats, we are
in a way celebrating MGIMO today, as our Foreign Minister has
prompted, because there are two MGIMO graduates among my colleagues –
the President of Kazakhstan and the President
of Azerbaijan, whereas two more colleagues – President Duterte
and the King of Jordan are professors emeriti of the university
[MGIMO], which has from the outset been the leading university
for training diplomatic staff in our country.
So, in the 19th century they
used to refer to a “Concert of Powers.” The time has
come to talk in terms of a global “concert”
of development models, interests, cultures and traditions where
the sound of each instrument is crucial, inextricable
and valuable, and for the music to be played
harmoniously rather than performed with discordant notes, a cacophony. It
is crucial to consider the opinions and interests of all
the participants in international life. Let me reiterate: truly
mutually respectful, pragmatic and consequently solid relations can only
built between independent and sovereign states
Russia is sincerely committed to this approach
and pursues a positive agenda. We stand for strict compliance
with international law and enhancing mutual confidence and respect.
We are building interstate relations and communication on fair
and democratic foundations with an emphasis on the UN
Charter.
Our country is focused on stepping up security
and stability, on fighting international terrorism and other
threats and challenges. We act for the sake
of establishing – including in Asia – a system
of equal and indivisible security resting on far-ranging and collective
work.
Incidentally, the Russia-Africa Summit will be
held here, in Sochi, in three-weeks. We are prepared to propose
to our African colleagues and friends a broad agenda
of equal interaction covering many different areas –
the economy, energy, transport, education and the environment.
In conclusion, I would like to divert
from the main topic and tell you something, which, just
the same, is related to it. I would like to say that almost
20 years ago – shortly before the year 2000 – my article, Russia
at the Turn of the Millennium, was published.
The analysis of global affairs and development prospects it then
offered seems to me to have generally matched reality.
Indeed, in the 1990s, Russia lived through
one of the hardest periods in its history. In addition
to the deep political, economic and social crisis
in the country, we found ourselves exposed to aggression
by international terrorism. At the time, Russia drew close
to a very dangerous line and if it had crossed it, it would have
faced the worst thing for any nation and country, which is
the break-up and disintegration of the state.
The threat was in the air and the majority
of people were aware of it.
Of course, back then we could –
the threat was absolutely real – plunge into the abyss of a large-scale
civil war and be stripped of national unity and sovereignty,
ending up on the periphery of global politics. It was only
thanks to patriotism, bravery and the rare ability of the Russian
and other peoples living in the country to bear
the hardships and work hard so that Russia could move back from this
dangerous line.
Of course, there are things that could have been
done differently and better during these 20 years. But we have gained
unique experience, and I believe there is demand for it around
the world. Before we came into this room, my colleagues
and I discussed one of the most important issues
today – terrorism.
Indeed, we in Russia still have to address
plenty of issues. At the same time, due to political
stability and the efforts of the whole nation, Russia has
not only recovered and continues to grow stronger economically
and socially, it confidently ranks among the leading, authoritative
and responsible countries. Our country complies in full with its
obligations as one of the guardians of the existing
world order. I am sure this will continue in the future. This
will be even more effective if we work together.
Thank you very much for your attention.
<...>
<...>
Moderator
of the plenary session and member of the Valdai
International Discussion Club Academic Council Vitaly Naumkin: Mr President,
you spoke very vividly about Russia’s success in countering terrorism
in Syria. Now the war is almost over and the situation is
stabilising. But what is to be done next about the Syrian issue?
Vladimir Putin: We
have replied many times to this and similar questions.
Large-scale military
operations are over. I am saying large-scale military operations because
local hotbeds of terrorism still exist. However, regardless
of the result military operations cannot achieve a final
settlement.
Therefore,
for the time being, it is necessary to deal with issues
of political settlement and this is what we are persistently doing.
At any rate, we are creating the conditions that will make it
possible to resolve deep-rooted political issues by political means.
We have done
a great deal for the formation of the Constitutional
Committee. Incidentally, the idea to establish it was voiced here
in Sochi, during a large-scale event that was attended both
by representatives of the Government and practically all
opposition forces.
At that event
Syrians themselves agreed to set up the Constitutional Committee
in order to adopt a new Constitution or introduce
amendments to the existing one. This was followed
by a rather long period of the committee’s formation.
I must say that
we worked very hard (in cooperation with our Iranian and Turkish
partners) to ensure the committee’s formation. Now we are looking
forward to the beginning of this constitutional process,
to the work of this committee in Geneva under the UN
aegis.
<…>
Nandan Unnikrishnan:
I am from India.
Mr President,
the world is facing major challenges following the end
of unipolarity. Various new concepts arise during this transition
to a new world order, such as Eurasia, Greater Eurasia,
and so on.
There is a concept
that spans the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, and it is
called Indo-Pacific. Many say that it was developed by the United
States to contain China, although Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
recently said that this is not so and the Indian Indo-Pacific concept
is completely different. It is a completely open system, and any
country can join.
What do you think
about this concept?
Vladimir Putin: You
see, there are already different interpretations of this concept. May
I say a few words about our concept? Our concept is not meant
to create new blocs such as Europe or North Atlantic after World
War II.
Today in Asia,
I think, ASEAN is the central organisation and there is
a structure for various organisations and platforms around this
central ASEAN organisation. There is ASEAN +1 and so on, such
as the meeting of ASEAN defence ministers.
If such a network
structure of various organisations is created and they interact with
each other, it can be called anything. If an attempt is made
to create some kind of a bloc-based organisation,
I believe, first, this is un-Asian to begin with and is
at odds with the current state of affairs in Asia.
Second, it’s unlikely
to be feasible, because I know the sentiment of many
of our friends in Asia, and they do not want to join any
blocs against anyone. They want to create a network
of cooperation in various areas, as I said today,
in order to, move forward together taking into account each other's
interests and seeking and finding compromises. They do not want
to be involved in confrontation between any states, and even
more so they do not want to be part of any blocs. This is
the first part.
The second part
is about trying to contain China. I think this is impossible
by definition. Anyone trying to do so will realise it’s impossible,
and will certainly only hurt himself in the course of such
an attempt.
In any case,
I consider this possible scenario to be destructive and harmful.
We should focus on joining efforts to create an environment
of friendly cooperation and to search for common security
systems. This is something we should work on together, including,
of course, India, which is one of the countries closest
to us in the world and especially in Asia.
Galip
Dalay: Hello, this is Galip Dalay. I would like to address my question
to Mr President Putin.
In your speech
the Gulf security and the Syrian settlement feature prominently,
and recently Russia also advanced a framework
for the collective security in the Gulf.
Bearing in mind
that one of the major root causes of the Gulf insecurity is
the Iran-Saudi rivalry, how is Russia planning to address this
question, particularly, given the fact that recently many of such
attempts and the second track have failed.
And related
to this, are you imagining and envisioning any interconnection
between the reduction of tension in the Gulf
and the Syrian settlement? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s
start with the second part of your question. I think there is
this link because confrontation between the largest and most
influential countries in the region is bound to affect
the entire situation there, including Syria.
I know that
the leaders of Saudi Arabia, which I am going to visit
soon, and the leaders of Iran (we are in constant contact
with our Iranian partners, and I met with the President
of Iran just a few days ago) wish peace and all the best
for the Syrian people.
We urge them
to be guided by this noble motive and do everything they can
to avoid using Syrian territory as an arena
for confrontation. I am hoping that if and when our partners
realise this they will act under this approach. They will see that apart from
confrontation there is also an opportunity to cooperate
for the same common goals.
However,
I believe there are also other motives for changing relations between
Saudi Arabia and Iran and going from confrontation
to cooperation because in both the first and second cases
these countries face common threats: radicalism, separatism and terrorism.
And they have common goals, and these are primarily development
goals.
You asked how Russia
could overcome these differences. Russia cannot overcome them. This can only be
done by our friends both in Saudi Arabia and Iran. We can only
support this and offer different proposals for resolving
the problems. But it must be resolved by Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Lang Jing: Thank
you very much, Professor Dunkley.
And I have
one question for President Putin.
I came from
the East, and my question is related to what my Indian
colleague mentioned. Premier Shinzo Abe has been presenting the Japanese
concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific strategy, and the essence
of the strategy is the idea of connectivity. That is why
I am very glad to hear that, President Putin, you mentioned about
connectivity in your speech. So the Japanese approach is much more
focused on economic connectivity, slightly different from
the American approach. And Russia has been a major player
in the Pacific, and Russia has been enhancing its ties with
India. So it is natural that we are welcoming and waiting for Russia
in the Pacific strategy. Already France and the United
States, you have already presented their own version of Indo-Pacific
strategy. So, can you share you vision of Russian Indo-Pacific strategy?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You
said, even France has already done this. I don’t understand this remark.
Why “even”? France is a great country and a permanent member
of the Security Council. It thinks in global terms
and offers global solutions to global issues. There is nothing
surprising about this.
As for Russia,
I will explain our position again. Look, Japan has presented
the Indo-Pacific development strategy. Russia and other states
actively develop contacts in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation,
which has earned a very good reputation.
It started with simple
goals like border delimitation with China after the Soviet Union.
Everything went very well, and so we went further. Now it has new members,
and many countries in the region want to join it.
China’s One Belt One
Road initiative has already been mentioned here. We also talked about
the Eurasian Economic Union. They are very close to each other
in spirit and in objectives and we see that all this is
compatible and can be carried out.
I think if we
pool the efforts of the already established agencies,
organisations and even concepts and create an integrated
network, we can arrive at what I have repeatedly said –
a large Eurasian partnership.
Can all this be
instituted any time soon? Hardly. But it is quite possible to create
favourable conditions for cooperation. Later it will be possible
to draft organisational formats and mechanisms for common
actions and cooperation.
But if we strive
for this democratic cooperation with consideration for each other’s
interests and respect for each other’s peculiarities, I believe
we will achieve the development result we all want.
Sergei Luzyanin:
Sergei Luzyanin, Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy
of Sciences.
Mr President,
We are all aware that
this year marks anniversaries for China and for us. It is 70
years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China,
and 70 years of diplomatic relations between our countries. We have
already congratulated our Chinese friends and partners
at the Valdai Club.
Our partnership has
reached a very high level. So, a question. What opportunities that
are already being successfully implemented as part
of the partnership can benefit our two countries? What are
the areas for partnership?
Perhaps, not all these
issues have been sorted out and cooperation has not yet reached its full
potential for objective reasons. I am talking about successes
and future potential. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Successes are there for everyone to see. First, we enjoy
an unprecedentedly high level of trust and cooperation. This is
an allied relationship in the full sense
of a multifaceted strategic partnership. This is reflected
in the economy.
We are increasing our
trade at a fast pace. As you may be aware, last year it reached
$108 billion, although we had only planned to reach this number two years
from now. Now, we will start moving to the $200 billion mark.
The trade
structure is diversifying. Of course, energy accounts for over 70
percent of our exports, but this is natural. We have the product,
and China needs it. This does not mean that we do not engage in other
industries or other areas of economic cooperation.
We have already built
four units of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant (which is part
of our high-tech cooperation) and are working on four more
units. This involves a major, simply huge amount of work.
We are working
on a wide-body long-range aircraft and a heavy-duty
helicopter. This project will be completed, I have no doubt about it. We
are actively cooperating in outer space, and expanding our ties
in agriculture. We cannot even cover the needs of China
in soybeans. They are ready to buy from us as much as we
can produce, but we are not ready for it.
Here is a partial
answer to your question: what else needs to be done? We could have
met their demand and, I am sorry for putting it bluntly, our farmers
could have made some money on this. But we cannot supply soybeans in such
quantity. There are not enough proper agricultural areas and related
investment has not been made.
We will continue
to work together in outer space exploration and cooperate
in the military-technical sphere. I am probably not revealing
a big secret here, but it will transpire sooner or later anyway: we
are now helping our Chinese partners create a missile attack warning
system. This is very important and will drastically increase China’s
defence capability. Only the United States and Russia have such a system
now.
We are very closely
and deeply involved in cultural cooperation. I will not list
everything that goes with this now.
Region-to-region
cooperation is at a very high level as well. I am not
talking about joint infrastructure which is expanding, but the border
provinces of China and the adjacent Russian regions
in the Far East interact very well with each other. This is
an entire complex, a set of interaction projects.
At the same
time, and I want to emphasise this specifically, our friendship
or joint work have never been used to oppose anyone. We always work
in a positive manner and in each other’s interests.
Valdai Discussion Club
Research Director Fyodor Lukyanov: We realised while we were preparing
for this event that, clearly, there would be more questions than it would
be possible to field, so we at the Valdai Club arranged some
questions into groups of the same category in advance.
I will only ask some of them to save time.
You have talked many
times about this subject, but nonetheless, it looks like it remains
a major concern. This year a number of events that impact
nuclear stability occurred, sending mixed signals. On the one hand,
the United States has withdrawn from the INF Treaty, having sparked
debate on this issue. The United States has accused Russia.
On the other
hand, after that, Mr Bolton, who was the main advocate of withdrawing
from this Treaty, lost his job. Probably, in so doing, President Trump
meant something else. Discussion on the START Treaty continues, and,
so far, it is unclear where it will lead.
A year ago, you
and I sat on this stage and you used a very
emotionally-charged expression that in the event
of a nuclear war, perish the thought, the aggressors would
perish and we would go to paradise. Have we moved closer
to paradise during this year?
Vladimir Putin: All of us are always close to God to the same
extent and He will decide where we deserve to be at the end
of our lives on Earth. But, of course, the situation has
not improved. It has worsened after the United States’ withdrawal from
the INF Treaty. This is clear to everyone. Now we are waiting
for the next move.
Moreover,
I believe that the United States tested a ground-based
intermediate-range missile that was covered by this Treaty shortly after
it announced its decision to withdraw from it, indicating that
the United States had long since been working on it. Technology like
this can’t be developed in a couple of months.
This means they had
been working at least several years on this missile.
As for the rest, they just looked for a pretext
to pull out and they found it. I don’t believe it was
a credible pretext because there were no grounds whatsoever to accuse
Russia of violating anything.
On the contrary,
we were repeatedly told that the Aegis system could not be used
for launching land-based intermediate range missiles. The Aegis
system that is already deployed in Europe: in Romania and soon
to be deployed in Poland.
We were told no, it is
not possible to use it for this purpose. And then – Bang!,
they declared that Aegis launchers were used to launch intermediate range
missiles. They could at least have waited a while longer. It’s clear
that we were being conned, or they were trying to con us.
And then they owned up to it.
Well, so be it, that’s
not the point. The point is that the situation has not changed
for the better. In view of this escalation we said,
I said immediately, that we would be doing the same but we declare
from the outset that we would not deploy land-based intermediate range
missiles, if we have them, unless US-made systems appear first in those
regions.
I said this about
five times and there was no response – nether the US has
responded so far nor has Europe, like they lost their hearing, can’t hear!
There are many specialists here, I don’t think you need to be told
something many times – I said this once, twice, five times. How many
more times should I say it? There is only silence, no reaction.
Then, suddenly, we
heard from the US military that the first step in this direction
would be made in Asia. But this step concerns us too, because we need
to understand where in Asia? Will it reach Russian territory
or not?
By the way,
you can tell what the underlying cause for their withdrawal
was – it was neither Russia nor our mythical violations
of the treaty. If they are set to deploy this in Asia, it’s
Asia that is the main reason for withdrawing from the Treaty.
I think the analysts see this, and this is an obvious fact
no matter how much it is played down in the media.
We are discussing
Asian problems today. We will carefully watch the next steps: where
in Asia will they appear, who will be threatened? Is this good
or not? It’s very bad, because corresponding response measures are sure
to follow.
Will this improve
the situation in Asia? No, it won’t. It will only aggravate
the situation, and create new threats. But I am really counting
on certain possibilities for settling this situation as well
before the final decisions have been taken.
Mikhail Pogrebinsky:
I am from Ukraine, and our country is going through troubled times.
I have a question for President Putin.
This year was marked
by a big electoral cycle, we have had a “reset” of both
legislative and executive powers. The elections and polls reveal
that public opinion favours stability and a peaceful settlement
in the east of the country.
The new
authorities are trying to take the first steps, somewhat cautiously,
towards a search for peace. But they are so timid that they raise
doubts about their resolve and ability to arrive
at the logical completion of the process.
Do you see any
political forces in Ukraine – perhaps you can name them – that
can act as drivers of this process of political settlement?
And a brief
one, a half-question. People watch Russian TV channels in Ukraine,
with various political talk shows enjoying special popularity
in the past. And viewers complain that on some channels
Ukraine is presented disparagingly. Apparently, Vladimir Solovyov’s popular
show has also been tempted by this. Do you think it is time to change
the editorial policy or line?
Vladimir Putin: If you
believe that our television channels – it may sound odd but even
the state-run channels have an independent editorial policy –
present Ukraine in a disparaging way, I agree with you. If
that’s how it is, then it is wrong, we shouldn’t present our neighbour, our
closest neighbour, and without exaggeration a brotherly people,
in a disparaging way.
This may concern
the policies of the incumbent authorities, not the country
or its people. If you see it this way, there is something wrong with our
programmes, they should highlight that.
And now regarding
the new leader’s efforts for a settlement
in the southeast of the country. I do not know how
strong are those who are against a settlement, especially based
on the Minsk agreements. Thus the public’s interest
in a settlement is obvious.
I think Mr
Zelensky won the election so convincingly primarily because of that
interest. People in Ukraine are waiting for this issue to be
resolved. And if he has enough political courage and strength
to complete it, I think he will assert himself as an honest
politician, brave and capable of pursuing the decisions made.
I think he is
sincerely willing to do that, it is his sincere conviction, at least
his striving. It is hard for me to say if he is able to stand up
to those who oppose the process, but we do see some hesitation.
It seems inevitable
that he will need to look for compromise, come to terms with
the whole nation, with all members of society regardless
of their point of view. However, he still has to follow up
on election promises he gave to the majority of the Ukrainian
people.
Tatiana
Kastoueva-Jean: Good afternoon, my name is Tatiana Kastoueva-Jean,
I am an analyst at the French Institute
of International Relations in Paris.
Mr President,
I have a question for you. At the beginning
of your speech, you proposed outlining the shape
of the future and talking about it. One serious subject,
of course, is global warming, climate change.
Russia recently
ratified the Paris Climate Agreement, and you know that this topic is
very important for President Emmanuel Macron. This is a priority
topic for him.
By the way,
I think you and President Macron are starting a new phase
in our relations; it would also be interesting to talk about this.
But I will return
to my question. In France and in Europe
in general, there is some basic consensus on climate change, although
recently this young girl Greta Thunberg added a lot of polarisation
even to this issue, where there was consensus on, in general.
Vladimir Putin: What did she do?
Tatiana
Kastoueva-Jean: She created further division to the debate.
As for Russia, it seems to me that there has always been such
a duality in relations, even in the doctrines, because
Russian Environmental Security Doctrine says the right things, while
the Economic Security Doctrine through 2025 says that green economic development
is a threat and has risks for the Russian economy,
and it is clear why: because oil and gas represent a very high
percent of exports.
It’s the same
thing, the same duality in the reasons for explaining
climate change. Is it the result of human activity, or is it
part of the Earth’s global cycles?
We see the same
duality in corporate relations. Is this a chance
for the future? We spoke today in the morning session about
how Russia could occupy a very interesting place in the new
global green economy. Or is this a risk, the loss of margins,
the loss of corporate profits?
And the same
thing at the level of global rivalry (we also talked about this
at the Valdai Club session) that an environmental instrument can
also become an instrument for economic, commercial, and financial
war in the hands of strong players?
Do you think that
Russia put an end to these doubts, hesitations and questions
by ratifying this agreement? Will a new socioeconomic development
paradigm emerge now at the domestic and external global levels?
Will this topic be a unifying measure, or the cause
of further division?
Vladimir Putin: As for the uniformity of approaches
and evaluations, we will probably never reach this. Indeed, experts
in various fields who somehow try to answer the question about
the causes of climate change do not give unambiguous answers
to the causes of climate change.
There are different
opinions, I have heard them. Some say there is some global change
in space that affects the Earth, so from time to time huge
changes like this take place on our planet. I sailed along
the Lena River in our country and saw high banks with deposits
containing the remains of obviously ancient tropical mammals, which
lived in tropical seas. I am talking about the Lena River, its
stretch north of the Arctic Circle. It means back then
the climate there was like this. Well, were there any anthropogenic
emissions at the time? Of course, not. You see, there is no
answer.
Just the same,
my position is that if the human race is responsible for climate
change, even in the slightest degree, and this climate change
has grave implications, and if we can do something to, at least, slow
down this process and avoid its negative consequences, we must spare no
effort. This is our position. Despite all disagreements, we will support the international
efforts to combat climate change.
Indeed, we have
practically ratified the Paris Agreement and are committed
to implementing it. You said we hesitated or argued about it. There
will always be room for doubt or disputes. But look
at the obligations that we undertook and those undertaken
by our partners. We are committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions
by 70 or 75 percent by 2050.
By the way,
the European Union has undertaken to cut the same type
of gas emissions by 60 percent. We have approved a national
environmental programme. It sets forth in detail what we must do
and how we must do it complete with the deadlines. We have approved
12 federal programmes under the national project to work
to change the situation regarding the environment. Gas emissions
in 12 of the largest metropolises in our country, where
they affect people’s lives and have a negative impact
on the environment, must be reduced by 20 percent.
We have adopted
a programme to deal with waste dumps – not only with primitive
rubbish dumps but with hazardous waste as well. We have adopted
a programme to extend protected nature areas by five million
square kilometres. We have a whole set of measures that we are not
just intending to carry out but we have already started to implement
and they have already been made law in our country. So, we are
determined to move, together with our partners, along this path that is
laid down in the Paris Agreement.
As for the hydrocarbons,
I think it was yesterday that I said the structure of the Russian
energy sector is one of the world’s greenest. The nuclear power
and hydropower industries in our country account
for a third of the energy sector and gas accounts
for 50 percent of the remaining two-thirds.
We have one
of the greenest energy sectors in the world plus
the capacity of our forests to absorb [waste carbon dioxide].
So, we understand the threats that everyone, including us, are exposed to.
The warming rate in Russia exceeds that in the rest
of the world by 2.5 percent. We are aware of this.
And one more
thing: there are forests ablaze in one part of our country while
close to it there is flooding and there is also drought and so
on. We are well aware of this and we will do, jointly with
the whole world, with the humankind, whatever it takes
to preserve nature and the environment.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There
is a group of similar questions: Angela Stent and Jill Dougherty
would like to ask the President about this, and actually this
question can be addressed to all participants as well. The situation
in the United States is rather complicated at the moment,
and has become particularly so in the past week.
It is hard
to understand what is happening there, with domestic policy issues clearly
dominating. Is it possible to build relations in such condition
at all? Or maybe we should wait?
Another similar
question is from Professor Wang Wei from China. He asks you to share
experience with Chinese authorities as they do not understand how they
should act. Maybe you know some sort of secret – you, Mr President,
and all those present?
Vladimir Putin: I do not think that Chinese need our advice. If they are saying they do
not understand something, this means they do not want you to know they
actually do. Maybe it is an advantage for them to make you think
they do not understand certain things.
In fact,
I have very close and friendly relations with them, without
exaggeration; we have always said this, both in public and behind
the scenes. We have friendly relations with the Chinese leader, Mr Xi
Jinping. China pursues a global-level policy. They understand everything,
they know everything and are ready to respond to any scenario.
As regards
the developments in the United States – how can we
cooperate with them when they are so engaged in their domestic political
affairs? Obviously, this is always the case during an election
campaign, and the United States is no exception. But this domestic
political race has got a little over the top. I do not think
this has ever occurred in the history of the United States
before.
But life goes on,
and we should factor in the current domestic situation there.
But it is simply not possible to steer clear of such a global
power as the United States. We intend to do as much
as the US itself is ready for.
<…>
Fyodor Lukyanov: Here
is a question from Professor Pascal Boniface from France (I do not
see him here but he has sent the question). When recently addressing
diplomats, President Emmanuel Macron said that the so-called deep state,
or some hidden powers in the administration, prevent
the development of relations with Russia. He would like
to accelerate this process but they hinder it.
The question is
why these hidden structures in France – and maybe somewhere
else – impede the development of these relations? And why
Russia, after all?
Vladimir Putin: What
administration – the US or French?
Fyodor Lukyanov:
The French one.
Vladimir Putin:The French administration?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes.
Vladimir Putin: But
who is the President of France – me or Mr Macron? He is
the person to put things right. Why ask me about this at all?
First, I have not heard what he said and I know nothing about
it. If some subordinate officials interfere with his work, he should just cut
them down to size, or replace them. Bring your supporters
and associates into your administration, and you will work
as a team and achieve efficient results.
Fyodor
Lukyanov: We have Professor Mohan here. He has a very good question
on your favourite topic, Mr President. Please pass the microphone
to Professor Mohan.
C. Raja
Mohan: President Putin,
Two years ago, you
said something about artificial intelligence, what it’s going to do
to world politics. You said the country that is going to have
the lead has the opportunity to become the new hegemon. How
do you look at it two years on the road? There’s one part.
The second part
is – Where is Russia in this? If the US and China are
racing ahead, does Russia have a national policy where it can contribute
to these true partnerships with other countries? And then, looking at the longer-term
picture, is there a way Russia can contribute to the regulation
creating new norms in relation to the AI both
in the civil and military domains. After all, Russia did
in the 20th century in relation to nuclear
technologies, so your views on AI now, both in the civil
and military sense.
Vladimir Putin: First about what I said two years ago. You know, I have
to admit I was only plagiarising. Those were not my own words
because experts around the world are saying that Artificial Intelligence
will completely reshape the world and our approaches to solving
pressing issues and problems of the future.
Entire industries will
change; some will become obsolete and new ones will emerge. New jobs will
be required. Old professions will die out and we need to understand
how to address resulting social problems such as the redundant
workforce, etc.
Healthcare will change
completely. Artificial Intelligence will affect countries’ defence capability
because those who have this technology will have an advantage that is
perhaps incomparable to nuclear weapons.
What has changed?
The pace of change becoming faster. Can Russia make any kind
of contribution to the global efforts in developing
Artificial Intelligence or, for example, genetics? Of course, it can.
Our software
developers are working everywhere in the world and working
successfully. Historically, we have always had strong mathematics
education – and the discipline at the root
of Artificial Intelligence is first and foremost mathematics. There
is technology but mathematics is still at the core.
So what are we doing?
We have an entire state programme aimed at developing AI, just like
in China, the United States and some other countries. We are
building up our efforts. We believe that we must certainly not be slow
or lag behind, and we have every chance to excel in this
area.
It would still be
the best thing if efforts of the humankind are consolidated; if
there are common rules for handling new technologies. Common rules
of communication in this area are extremely important
for the world to be stable.
Fyodor
Lukyanov: Another good question. Mr Alexander Rahr, could you please ask
it?
Alexander
Rahr: Mr President, there is an odd question here, but let us get
over to Europe. The European Parliament adopted a decision which
I think is not quite adequate – a resolution where Nazi Germany
would be set side by side with Communist Russia. And they insist that
both Stalin and Hitler started World War II together.
I think it will
legitimise further NATO expansion, lead to a new schism, and, most
crucially, to misunderstanding among the youth and among
the people in Europe. What can be done to stop this?
Vladimir Putin: I do not want to characterise the Stalin regime now.
You know, we all know about the repressions, camps, losses among our
people, our citizens during those repressions. This is a black page
in the history of our country.
But saying that Stalin
started the war is utter cynicism. As if it was the Soviet Union
that attacked Germany at 4 am on June 22, and not
the German troops crossed the Soviet border, violating
the existing non-aggression treaty, attacked the Soviet Union unilaterally
without declaring war.
Let us not forget
the sad outcome, the tragic outcome, tragic for the people
of the Soviet Union: 25–27 million dead (no one has been able
to make a final count to this day), and about ten million
dead in Germany. This is a tragedy.
Do not forget that it
was the Soviet troops that stormed Berlin. This is regarding
the speculations about certain countries’ contribution
to the fight against Nazism.
I just
said – the Soviet Union losses stand at 25–27 million,
the US losses amount to half a million, while the UK lost
350,000–400,000 altogether.
All major German
troops (not all but the most combatant forces, both
in the number and quality) were accumulated
in the eastern front. For some reason there are attempts
to confuse, play down and misinterpret all that.
I think
the threat is that the key thing may be lost in the process
of all these manipulations: people may begin to stop fearing
the recurrence of such tragedies. That is the point.
And in my view all of us, all sane people, – must
stand up to it.
Vitaly Naumkin:
Colleagues,
The President has
a very busy schedule, and I think that other leaders present
here do so too. I apologise for not giving everyone who raised their
hand an opportunity to ask a question.
In conclusion, I would
like to ask the last one.
During these four
days, we have discussed various issues related to the current state
of the world order, and made a firm conclusion that it is
undergoing a crisis and the future global order will be
established with an increasing role of Asian countries.
How do you see this
future global order?
Vladimir Putin: The existing system of international relations, international
institutions and structures took shape following WWII as its result.
The situation around the globe is changing drastically, both
in Europe and on the American continent, with new rapidly
growing and developing players, as well as in Africa, and,
of course, Asia.
For the existing
system and its institutions to last, it has to correspond
to the realities of the ever-changing world. I believe
that we must not destroy what has been created in the past decades,
but should gradually transform it and adapt it to these realities,
with due consideration of the growing power and prospects
of Asia's development in general and certain Asian countries
in particular. They certainly have the right to and must
take the place they deserve in global politics and international
affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment