The news conference was
broadcast live by Rossiya-1, Rossiya-24, Channel One, NTV television
channels, as well as radio stations Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio
Rossii.
December
19, 2019
16:20
Moscow
2 of 50
Vladimir Putin’s annual news
conference.
President of Russia
Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon,
We are holding our
traditional end-of-year meeting to summarise the year’s results,
to see what we have achieved and what we could not achieve
and why.
I will refrain from
lengthy opening remarks. As I see, there are many people who would
like to ask their questions, and during today’s discussion, today’s
meeting, I will try to use these questions to talk more about
what is happening in our country and how.
Thank you for your keen
interest in such meetings. Let us begin.
Please.
Presidential Press Secretary
Dmitry Peskov: Thank you, Mr President.
Traditionally we give
priority to the ‘veterans’ of the Kremlin pool
of journalists, who have covered the President’s work for many
years. I will continue this tradition.
Valery Sanfirov, Mayak.
Please, pass the microphone.
Valery Sanfirov: Hello,
Mr President. Valery Sanfirov, Mayak radio station.
Initially, I had
a different question, but I changed my mind when I heard
today’s weather forecast: there will be no snow until the end
of December. And I wondered where you would tape your New Year
address to the nation.
My question is not
about the New Year tree but about climate change. Everyone is talking
about it, but it looks as if nobody knows what to do about it. What
are the risks? How can climate change damage Russia?
One more thing: Russia has
joined the Paris Agreement this year, if I am not mistaken
(the Government has adopted a resolution to this effect). Under
the agreement, Russia must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25–30
percent by 2030.
However, you said
at the recent VTB Russia Calling! forum that we would reduce
the emissions by as much as 60 percent by that
deadline. I wonder if you have made your first mistake or if you have
something special in mind.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You
have trapped me, you really have.
Indeed, Russia has joined
the Paris Agreement. In fact, we announced our intention to do
this much earlier, but this year we have formalised our decision
by adopting a Government resolution. It does mention the reduction
of 25–30 percent compared to the base year 1990. This is what
all countries, including EU member states, do, they compare their reductions
to 1990 or use it as the base year.
But if… How can I get
out of your trap? If we take [the base figure] as 100 percent
and subtract 30 percent from it, the remaining figure will be 70
percent, and bearing in mind the absorption capacity of our
forests, the ultimate figure will be 60 percent of the base
figure. Let us assume that this is what I had in mind. This is my first
argument.
Second, Russia is not
the world’s largest polluter. The biggest polluter according
to the UN – many other organisations made such calculations, but
according to the UN, the biggest polluters are the United
States and China (16 percent of emissions each), the EU (11
percent), Russia (6 percent) and India (5 percent).
As you know,
the Paris Agreement pursues efforts to limit the increase
in global temperature to 1.5 percent. I do not know whether
we will be able to achieve this together or not, because nobody
really knows the causes of climate change, at least global
climate change.
We know that
in the history of the Earth there have been periods
of warming and cooling, and this might depend
on the global processes in the Universe. A small tilt
of the Earth’s axis and its orbit around the Sun can lead
to and have already led to very serious climate changes
on the Earth, which had dramatic consequences – good
or bad, they were still dramatic.
And it is happening
again now. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to work out exactly
how humankind affects climate change. But we cannot stay idle either,
I agree with my colleagues. We should make our best efforts
to prevent dramatic changes in the climate.
As for our
country, this process is very crucial for us. The temperature
in Russia is rising 2.5 times faster than the planet’s average.
As you know, Russia is a northern country, and 70 percent
of our territory is located in the north latitudes. Some
of our cities were built north of the Arctic Circle,
on the permafrost. If it begins to thaw, you can imagine what
consequences it would have. It would be a disaster.
In addition, it is
getting warmer in some places, for instance, here in Moscow we
are now setting temperature records, but this might lead
to desertification in certain areas, and we will be directly
affected by it.
Climate change also means
an increase in the number of various natural disasters such
as wildfires, floods and so on. This also concerns us. Therefore, we
are continuing to be proactive in our efforts to minimise
the impact of these changes.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us
continue. The regions. “Kamchatka has not asked a question
for 15 years.” Okay, I see you.
Kamchatka.
Anastasia Ostrovskaya: Good
afternoon, Mr President, Mr Peskov, colleagues,
It is true, Kamchatka has
not been given the floor for over ten years. As you know,
the residents of Kamchatka have to buy a plane ticket
to get to the mainland. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford
it. Yes, there is a wonderful flat fare programme by Aeroflot,
a presidential programme to subsidise tickets for young people,
pensioners and large families. But these tickets are snapped up
in an instant. Not everyone can buy them. And Aeroflot said
recently that it will probably abandon the flat fare tickets. It will mean
that many Kamchatka residents will be trapped in their peninsula.
How do you think this
problem could be solved?
And another short
sub-question. Mr President, it has been a long time since you paid
an official visit to Kamchatka. Is that because the tickets are
too expensive?
Vladimir Putin: No, it is
not because tickets to Kamchatka are too expensive, I belong
to one of the groups you mentioned, you see. (Laughter
in the audience.) But no, the reason is that it just hasn’t
worked out so far.
There are many pressing
issues in the region. But my trips are not called official
visits. I make official visits to foreign countries.
To Kamchatka, it is a working trip. It does not mean that Government
or I simply forget about the region. We are constantly working
with it. It is a very important region in terms
of the economy, social sphere and defence, because as you
know, it hosts one of the bases of our strategic subsurface
launch platforms. Therefore, we are always paying attention to Kamchatka.
As for the tickets,
no one is going to take away the flat air fares. Aeroflot is simply
exaggerating, trying to squeeze money from the Government
for these flights. We will keep these programmes in place. Moreover,
this programme is being expanded to other regions, beyond the Far
East. We will keep doing this too.
But in general, what
should we aim for? We need to see the growth of people’s
incomes, which – we will talk about this later – are growing very
slowly, and also to reduce carriage costs. This is how we should also
reduce railway ticket prices. But these programmes will stay in place
as long as there are no radical changes in the situation.
I assure you, Aeroflot
itself has some reserves. We discuss this matter with the Transport
Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister who supervises this area,
and the Aeroflot management.
Viktor Smirnov: Rubbish
from St Petersburg is swamping the Leningrad Region.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s …
act as we have agreed.
Vladimir Putin: We will
talk about St Petersburg, rubbish and other burning problems …
Dmitry Peskov: If we
start shouting now… You do not respect all the others.
Vladimir Putin: Here is
what we will do. I will answer your question by way
of exception. Agreed? But please, do not do this again or else we
will have an Oriental bazaar and no dialogue.
Let us talk about rubbish.
Viktor Smirnov: Viktor
Smirnov, 47news. We write about the Leningrad Region.
As you know,
the so-called rubbish reform has been launched in Russia, in all
regions except Moscow, Sevastopol and St Petersburg, which have been given
a respite until 2022. That is, they will be able to start when they
are ready.
Speaking about St Petersburg
and the surrounding Leningrad Region, the reform has begun
in the region, and now rubbish from St Petersburg is being moved
to the region. The regional authorities are working on it,
but their work has not been coordinated. St Petersburg and the Leningrad
Region depend on each other in this regard; logistics has been
disrupted, and it is unclear which vehicles go there.
People
in the region wonder why rubbish heaps, clearly brought from
the city, are growing near their houses, and why so many vehicles are
doing this stealthily. It all seems legal – on the outside. Can
the city authorities be encouraged legislatively to hurry up?
Vladimir Putin:This
can be done, but this is not the problem. What we need to do is talk
directly with the people. People must know what rubbish is brought
in and from where, on what grounds and what will happen
to it next. Just look at it, we…
Sit down, please.
Viktor Smirnov: I have
a request.
Vladimir Putin: A request?
I have not answered your question yet, but yes, go ahead with your
request.
Viktor Smirnov: Thank
you. Can I ask for a 10-minute interview afterwards, while you
walk to your car?
Vladimir Putin: This is
possible. But you have not listened to my answer. It is too soon
to thank me. As for an interview after the news
conference, will it be this year or next year? We have not decided this
yet, but yes, this is possible, in principle.
Getting back
to rubbish, it is public knowledge that we produce 70 million tonnes
of household waste a year. Seventy million! Can you imagine that?
Incredible.
The Soviet Union
and Russia did not have a rubbish recycling industry. We are creating
it from scratch. The basic decisions have been made, overall: we have
created a federal operator and over 200 regional operators, as well
as a territorial planning scheme with regard to rubbish.
What is really lacking,
as I see it, is direct communication with the people. We must
tell them what we plan to do and how we will do it, where
the recycling plants will be built and where rubbish will be stored
until they are built.
Of course, we should
completely get rid of all grey schemes and crime. Simple order should
be restored. I will take advantage of your question – people are
certainly outraged at a tariff increase. There was never a separate
tariff for household waste, but now it appeared and immediately grew
many times. This should be explained.
In order
to explain these figures, it should be transparent and clear who pays
and what for. In rural areas, the waste removal tariff grew many
times, but in fact, waste was never removed there, it was just thrown away
in a neighbouring forest. But this is also a violation.
Then, rubbish needs
to be taken somewhere – and this also requires payment. It
should be transparent, so that people understand what they are paying
for – this is the main problem, I think.
By the way, there
may be a similar situation in Leningrad
and in the Leningrad Region. Why is waste transported from St
Petersburg to the Leningrad Region? Well, okay, let us remove it
somewhere closer to the Arctic Ocean, and then the tariff
will increase once again by 10 times.
After all,
the Leningrad Region and the city of St Petersburg, former
Leningrad, are a single economic region. During the Soviet era, it
was managed, in fact, by one body – by the Communist
Party’s regional committee.
Now that we have such
a separation, this single area but at the same time two Russian
regions certainly have slightly different interests. But so that people…
By the way, many
people from the Leningrad Region, as well as from
the Moscow Region, work in St Petersburg, and they generate this
waste there, in St Petersburg. This is the point, and then it is
removed to where they live, basically. The whole process should be
transparent, and it seems to me that the situation can
and must change.
But, among other things, we
need to develop the industry in terms of building
the facilities. They are already under construction. The number
of waste processing plants should be increased. And we must explain
to the people what kind of facilities they are, how they will
work, what the damage will be and whether there will be damage
to the environment and whether they will create any problems
for the people who will live next to these facilities.
Indeed, in cities
around the world, for example, in Tokyo, waste processing plants
are located directly in the city. But they do not emit smoke, they do
not stink, excuse my language, they do not affect people’s lives
or destroy the environment. If we use the latest technology,
and this is exactly what we are going to do, then no problems will
arise.
But we should do everything
as agreed, and this requires public control and public
organisations. I have already spoken with the leadership
of the Russian Popular Front and I ask them once again
to pay special attention to this issue. If we address this problem
all together, we will resolve it.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us
continue. I see a journalist from TV Centre. I recall we sort
of neglected this channel in the past years. Please, take
the floor.
Matvei Shestakov: Hello.
I am Matvei Shestakov from TV Centre TV company.
The media often make
the accusation that the real sector of the economy is
currently based exclusively on the achievements
of the Soviet era: plants and major roads were built in Soviet
times, and the deposits were developed in the Soviet
period. What is your response to these critics and what has been done
in the past ten years? What roads, plants, maybe airports have been
built? I know there is a relevant programme. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Criticism is
not always a bad thing; it makes us contemplate the issue
in question.
As for the opinion
that we are using Soviet achievements, we cannot neglect the legacy
of the thousand-year-old Russian state, including its Soviet period.
This is obvious. In the Soviet times, many things were done which we
can be proud of and are proud of: Victory in the Great
Patriotic War, the breakthrough in space exploration, and much
more. We should be thankful to our ancestors, our fathers
and grandfathers, who created such a huge and powerful state
during the Soviet period.
As for today,
I want to say just a few words to those who believe that
nothing has changed.
First, 75 percent
of the production capacity in the processing industry has
been created since 2000. The average age of machinery
and equipment in the processing industry is 12 years. Do you see
what this means? It shows what has been done in recent decades.
But it is much more than
that. You mentioned airports. Three new airports and 45 runways have been
built. Speaking of transport in general, there are 12 new railway
stations; dozens of railway stations have undergone modernisation, in-depth
modernisation. The number of federal motorways has been doubled.
Doubled! I believe there were some 39,000 kilometres of roads
[percent – ed. note], and now there are more than 80,000
kilometres.
Agriculture is,
of course, an excellent example. As you know, and there are
many people from the older generation here who remember this well,
the Soviet Union always was a purchaser of grain. We were among
the largest importers of grain, wheat. Let me remind you that today
Russia is the largest exporter of wheat to the global
market. We are number one. We are ahead of both the United States
and Canada.
They have bigger production,
but they consume more, and we produce so much that we hold the first
place in the wheat export to the international market.
The agricultural growth is 46 percent.
Our exports have multiplied
(I think they grew 2.6-fold). We sold $24 billion worth
of agricultural products, including not just grain, which is the main
source of foreign income in agriculture, but also livestock
production, including poultry, pork and so on.
In total, all
the ports of the Soviet Union transhipped (there were
transhipping capacities) 600 million tonnes per year. Do you know how much
Russia does now? 1.1 billion. All of this has been created over
the recent decades.
Now to the mineral
assets you have mentioned. There are about 600 new deposits, including 57 we
plan to open this year. About 600 new deposits. And we can say
the same for almost every industry. I am not even talking about
such modern industries as nuclear energy, with eight blocks launched
recently. I think there were 16 over the entire Soviet era.
By the way, this gives us a big advantage in fighting
climate change, because thanks to this, as well as hydropower
and gas, we have the greenest energy structure in the world.
There are brand new spheres
of energy as well, such as liquefied natural gas. Entire
international-class complexes have been established, both in the Far
East and the Arctic. A generation breakthrough has taken place
in hydropower, a real breakthrough.
This is why those who
believe we only use the old resources and capacities we inherited
from the previous generations are mistaken.
Dmitry Peskov: Let's move
to that side of the aisle. Interregional media, URA.RU. Give
them a microphone, please.
Anton Olshannikov: URA.RU
news agency. Mr President, my name is Anton Olshannikov.
I have a question
about negative developments in medicine, as they are still relevant.
The fact is that it may take up to a month to get
a doctor’s appointment in the regions, and doctors’
salaries can be so low that doctors are quitting en masse. However, a head
doctor may be paid hundreds of thousands of rubles a month,
whereas, for example, a surgeon, gets about 50,000, if that.
You have held several
meetings on primary care and healthcare in general this year.
You said that the reforms should be carried out quickly and be
meaningful. In this regard, I want to understand why
the system remains at a standstill. The fact is that
the reform is cosmetic, and there are no ground-breaking solutions
that could make a difference. You got personally involved in dealing
with this issue. I want to understand why. Perhaps, you think
the country needs a different healthcare management model?
Or does the state need to find resources to support what is
available?
Vladimir Putin: First, it is
best to let the model just be. It is evolving
at a satisfactory pace, but there certainly are problems.
You mentioned one
of them, salaries, but healthcare employees’ salaries are even higher than
the salaries in other social spheres. Overall, the numbers
outlined in the 2012 executive orders correspond
to the planned salary benchmarks. Frankly, I cannot disagree
with you, as these are average numbers as well.
You have just said that
while head doctors may be earning high wages, rank-and-file doctors, even
surgeons, are paid much less. This is one of those problems that we need
to tackle. As far as pay levels are concerned, we need
to look at the specific sector. After all, what are
the approaches to getting things moving? There is no secret about it,
and these solutions are quite simple. The first one is to simply
increase Compulsory Health Insurance tariffs or change the way
the tariffs are distributed within this system. Let me emphasise however
that there is little that can be changed in terms of redistributing
tariffs within the Compulsory Health Insurance system, since 70 percent
of them already go towards salaries. If we change anything, there will be
no money left for buying medicine or equipment.
What is the other
option then? It consists of simply increasing the Compulsory Health
Insurance tariffs. Can this be done? Yes, it can. However, at the end
of the day it will be a burden for the entire economy,
since all operators within it must pay for it, which will drive up prices
and cause an overall increase in the rate
of inflation. In such circumstances, any increase in salaries
would be eaten up by inflation. So probably this is not the best
option either.
But what can be done? Is
there anything that can be done within the existing system?
Of course, there is. Just look. First, as you have just said,
a head doctor may have a big salary, much higher than ordinary
doctors. The first thing that should be done is to eliminate this
unfair differentiation. This is my first point.
There is no doubt that
the base salary rate must be changed. In the regions, it is
currently in the range of 35 to 50 percent. We need
to have a single national approach to paying out incentives, so
that people earn a specific amount for the number
of patients they receive, for the number of patients they
visit at home, etc. At the same time, there should be no
question of cutting bonuses that are given for special working
conditions, such as working holidays, working at night, and so
on. I believe that even just putting this right would produce
a positive effect.
Of course, this will
not be enough. Salaries in the social services sector must grow
alongside the economy, especially and even primarily
in the healthcare industry. I do agree with that.
Dmitry Peskov: Thank
you. Let us proceed.
Let us talk about sports,
Match TV, if this is what you want to ask.
Olga Bogoslovskaya: Good
afternoon, Mr President. Olga Bogoslovskaya, Match TV. I am from
a sports channel, and so my question will be about sports,
or more precisely, the difficult situation with Russian sports.
On December 9,
the WADA Executive Committee adopted an unprecedentedly harsh
decision to ban Russian athletes from participating in all major
sports events, which include the summer and winter Olympic
and Paralympic games.
The reason
for that decision was the discrepancy between the data provided
by the Moscow laboratory and the data provided by WADA
informers. The Russian Anti-Doping Agency’s rights have been curtailed.
However, the sanctions
have hit the innocent athletes especially hard. This brings me
to my question: What should Russian athletes do in this
situation, and how can Russian sports develop in this difficult
situation?
Vladimir Putin: I will
answer your question, but first I would like to say that
I noticed that I did not answer the previous question
in full.
I would like
to say a few more words about the measures we plan to take
in the field of primary medical care. We have agreed, after all,
to increase healthcare allocations, in addition to what has been
stipulated under the Healthcare project, by 550 billion rubles.
These funds will be used
first of all to improve physical assets and to buy
equipment and vehicles. We plan to improve or built 10,000
medical facilities and buy 37,000 vehicles and approximately 10,000
pieces of medical equipment. In this context, I hope that we
will be able to implement all our plans very soon and that people
will feel the change.
The second component,
which is mostly stipulated under national projects, includes allocations
to primary care, but the bulk of funds will be invested
in fighting cancer. I hope we will see a positive result
in this sphere as well.
We can report achievements
in the field of cardiovascular diseases, where the figure
is some 0.6 percent. The situation with tuberculosis has improved
by 12 percent, and child mortality has decreased considerably. We
must continue working in the same manner in all of these
spheres.
As for WADA
and its decisions, I believe that they are not only unjust, but also
defy common sense and are illegal. Why? Because as far as doping
is concerned, decisions have already been taken against Russian athletes who
had to compete in a neutral status at the previous
Olympics. Now it is happening all over again. There has never been anything
of this kind in any of the world’s legal systems or in human
history, and I hope nothing of this kind ever happens again.
This is my first point.
Second, any sanctions must
target specific, individual breaches. If someone was caught doing something
illegal, sanctions are natural and fair. But if an overwhelming
majority of Russian athletes are clean, how can they be sanctioned
for someone else’s actions?
We have very young female
athletes competing in figure skating, they are practically little girls.
What do they have to do with doping? Nothing whatsoever. But they can do
quadruple jumps, which so far no one can, or almost no one can do
in women’s figure skating. This is how they make sure that these girls are
kept off the ice. Can this be done? Yes, it can. But what for? Will this
help international sports in any way? I do not think so.
Among other things,
as I already said at the news conference in Paris,
this decision by WADA runs counter to the Olympic Charter.
A national team cannot and should not compete under a neutral
flag when there are no claims against its Olympic Committee. This is what
the Charter says. If WADA does not have any claims against
the Russian Olympic Committee at this time, this means that
the national team can compete under the Russian flag. Go after
specific people, and of course we will be there to assist you
in these efforts. We are doing everything to make our sport clean.
By the way, RUSADA
was created in close contact with our WADA colleagues. We even selected
its executive team based on their recommendations. I think that
everything I said suggests that this decision was politically tainted,
as sad as it sounds.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s go
to the middle [sector], to the federal media. I can
see Channel One, pass on the microphone, please.
Konstantin Panyushkin: Thank
you.
Good afternoon, Mr
President. Konstantin Panyushkin, Channel One.
First of all,
I would like to thank you on behalf of the Channel One
journalists and perhaps many others for what you said
at the news conference in Paris. After the news
conference – we did a little eavesdropping when you were talking with
Chancellor Merkel and President Macron, explaining, as far as we
understood, problems concerning journalists’ work in Ukraine. Perhaps one
day, thanks to the work in the Normandy Format, we will be
able to work there confidently and calmly like Ukrainian journalists
work in Russia, who, by the way, should also be here today.
So I have
a question about Ukraine. After Paris, after everything your summit
partners have said in the two weeks since then, and I mean
Ukraine above all, do you think there is any point holding another meeting
in four months, as you agreed? And what do you think are
the Normandy Format’s prospects in general?
Also, do you think
the Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier Formula will survive
the next four months or survive at all in the future?
What do you think is the best-case scenario for the future
of Donbass?
In addition,
journalists were looking forward to your meeting with Zelensky
and Russian-Ukrainian talks. What are the current prospects of a settlement
in Russian-Ukrainian relations? Are there any problems
or breakthroughs due to the change of administration?
And the last
question, if I may. President Zelensky talked about you right there,
in Paris. What do you think about President Vladimir Zelensky? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s
begin with the last one. I always try to avoid such questions.
I do not believe it is correct for me to answer them
and to state my opinion of my colleagues. Perhaps you
have noted that I don’t even describe former leaders who left their
offices.
Let’s discuss historical
figures. We can do this. I do not have the heart to talk about
people who are in office today. Everybody has both positive
and negative sides. But when people take such offices, this means they have
passed through a serious selection process, so they are at least not
ordinary people.
As for the Normandy
format, the Minsk Agreements and so on, there is nothing more
important than the Minsk Agreements. Of course, I was worried
by the statement made by President Zelensky after he left Paris
to the effect that they could be revised. If we revise the Minsk
Agreements, the settlement process will hit a dead end, because
the main element of the Minsk Agreements is a law
on the special status of Donbass, which must be formalised
in the Ukrainian Constitution. It has been extended
for a year, but not permanently, although we keep saying – not
only do I, but the other Normandy format leaders say so
as well – that the law must be of unlimited duration
and that its formula must be incorporated in the Constitution.
However, it appears that neither the previous nor the current
Ukrainian leadership wants this. But there is no way around it. This is
the first point.
Second, there must be
a direct dialogue with Donbass. There is none so far. It has been
announced that amendments concerning decentralisation will be made. This is
good. But is this meant to replace the Minsk Agreements?
Or the law on the special status of Donbass? Can you
imagine that? Yes. But the Minsk Agreements say that any actions that
concern Donbass must be coordinated with Donbass. This initiative has not been
coordinated with it. This, of course, is alarming.
As for the next
meeting, for example, in April, it will only be relevant if we see
positive change. Has there been any positive change? Yes, it is
an objective fact. First, the law on the special status has
been extended, and hence the basis for a settlement has not
been destroyed. Second, troops have pulled back in several vital areas,
although our Ukrainian partners are against disengagement along the entire
contact line. I believe that they are making a mistake, but this is
their position. That was my second point.
The number
of artillery attacks has decreased, which is another achievement, although
regrettably, they have not stopped altogether. There are positive things
and there are alarming things. All this should be discussed. Overall, it
is desirable to continue meetings in the Normandy format.
By the way, you
mentioned our Ukrainian colleagues. Shall we give them the floor? Are any
of them with us today?
Dmitry Peskov: Please let
our traditional guest have the microphone.
Roman Tsymbalyuk: Good
afternoon, my name is Roman Tsymbalyuk, and I represent
the Ukrainian UNIAN news agency.
Vladimir Putin: Good
afternoon.
Roman Tsymbalyuk: Indeed,
we, and I personally, have no problem doing our work in Russia.
Perhaps, if the Ukrainian tanks were in Kuban, you would have
slightly different thoughts about us.
Vladimir Putin: Are you
talking about the 72 or the 34 model? (Laughter.)
Roman Tsymbalyuk: T-64 is
our staple combat tank made in Kharkov.
Vladimir Putin: T-64 is
a Soviet tank as well.
Roman Tsymbalyuk: You also
mentioned you are originally from the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Putin: Okay.
Roman Tsymbalyuk:
As a follow-up to the Minsk talks, could you give
the date of your decision to disband the occupation
administrations in Lugansk and Donetsk? You refer to them
as republics, but they are not mentioned in the Minsk Agreements.
Also, if I may, will
there be a gas war? It appears that you are not about to give us back
the $3 billion awarded to us by the arbitration court. You
are talking about cheap gas, but we know that Russia’s cheap gas is the most
expensive thing for Ukraine.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: So,
disbanding administrative bodies and gas. What else?
Roman Tsymbalyuk: Three
billion.
Vladimir Putin: Three
billion.
Here is my first point
regarding the Minsk Agreements and disbanding, as you said,
administrative bodies in the unrecognised republics.
Former president Petro
Poroshenko who represented Ukraine at the Minsk talks, which were
followed by the Minsk Agreements, insisted on having this
document signed by the leaders of these two unrecognised
republics. They just grabbed me by the throat, all three
of them, and representatives of these unrecognised republics
refused to sign. I am giving you, so to speak, the inside
facts about our talks in Minsk. However, we managed to persuade them,
and they signed the document. Thus, Ukraine itself recognised
the existence of these authorities. This is the first part
of the Ballet de la Merlaison, so to say.
The second part is that
the elections were held there, and the people cast their votes.
This, I believe, is a very democratic way of organising
government bodies.
Third, the Minsk
Agreements themselves outline explicitly the rights of these
republics, and what they are entitled to claim. Everything is spelled
out there about the language, the local police, and so on.
The next aspect has
to do with what it is all about, and I am getting
to the controversial part. I will not hide anything,
and there is no need to do it. People in both Russia
and Ukraine must know what these agreements are about.
There is a clause about
withdrawing mercenaries and foreign troops and closing
the border. Under the Minsk Agreements, the process
of closing the border is to begin on the second day
after an election takes place, and to be completed only after
an inclusive political settlement is achieved, including amendments
to the Ukrainian Constitution and these republics acquiring
the rights as set forth in the Minsk Agreements.
As soon as this is done, the border can be completely sealed.
Finally, let me respond
to the question about the withdrawal of foreign troops.
There are no foreign troops there. Yes, there are local militias, local
self-defence forces staffed with local residents. I get questions all
the time: Where did they get tanks or heavy artillery? Look,
conflicts and hostilities of all kinds are unfolding in many
hotspots around the world, involving tanks, artillery, etc. Where do they
get them? Probably from those government agencies that sympathise with them.
But let me emphasise that these weapons are theirs, not foreign.
As for the mercenaries,
I have just said in Paris that there are French and Germans
fighting there on both sides. We must address this issue
of mercenaries, but they are not the bedrock of these armed
groups.
You know what the main
problem is? I will be completely honest with you. The most important
problem is that there is a lack of willingness to resolve this
question through dialogue with the people. We have yet to see any
willingness to move in this direction, instead of trying
to create favourable conditions for resolving the problem
by force using tanks, artillery and air power. I said: air power
was used. And the current President of Ukraine replied: What air
power? He did not even remember or did not know this. But they did use air
power, you see?
As soon as we,
or rather the Ukrainian leadership, abandon what I believe
to be a completely misguided approach to resolving this problem
and move into dialogue mode, this is when there will be a path
towards a solution. It is stated in the agreements that they
need to restore economic and other infrastructure, but instead they
just cut off this part of the country from the Ukrainian
territory by imposing a blockade. Was Moscow the one who imposed
this blockade? The Kiev authorities were the ones who did it.
However, we are seeing some
positive shifts in this sphere, at least I hope we do.
As you already know, there are some changes for the better
there. At least there are crossing points, and the demining
effort is underway. This is not enough. A lot has to be done
to improve the lives of the people who live there. But it
can be done.
If we proceed from this
premise and focus on finding common ground and promoting
dialogue, the problem will be resolved. If attempts to strangle them
by force continue, I do not think that it can be done. There is
a saying that people in Donbass never yield under pressure. It
definitely has a ruffian and aggressive side to it, but this is
how people feel deep inside. People who live there have a sense of pride,
so this problem is unlikely to be resolved by force.
The gas war. You
mentioned three billion. Let me point out that part of our reserve money
from the Russian National Welfare Fund is invested in Ukrainian
bonds: $3 billion, exactly. There is a court ruling from London
on this, but it is not fulfilled.
Speaking about gas
relations, it is a complicated and sensitive issue. We want
to solve this problem. As someone who has a degree in law,
I believe that this ruling of the Arbitration Institute
of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce is not legal but more
likely political. Here’s one of the grounds for this ruling
(everyone here will find it strange, too, but it is interesting): “…due
to the difficult economic situation in Ukraine.” That is
nonsense. But it is written there. They should have refrained from writing such
a phrase.
Well, we have the court
decision, it is true, and we must proceed from this. We will proceed from
this and look for a solution that would suit everyone, including
Ukraine, while preserving transit through Ukraine, despite
the construction of new facilities, such as Nord Stream 1, Nord
Stream 2, and TurkStream. The question is what the volume
of transit and contract duration will be.
Let me also note that we are
not going to sign any contract to stop transit later. No, we are
interested in this, we want to do this; it is a good route.
By the way,
the Ukrainian route to Europe is longer than via the Baltic Sea.
It is longer and more expensive for us. But it is a good
and well-known route to Central and Southern Europe, and we
are ready to preserve it. We would also be ready to provide Ukraine
with a gas discount of 20–25 percent, as I have already
mentioned, by the way. It can be done.
This would also mean
decreasing costs for the end consumer instead of increasing them
as you are planning now. Starting from January 1, 2020, all
the discounts will be cancelled, as far as I know,
and the average gas price will be $300 for all categories of consumers,
including individuals.
I think we will come
to an agreement. By the way, we are already making headway.
We will try to make Ukraine happy with the agreement, too. We do not
want escalations in the energy sector that can be used to affect
the situation in Ukraine.
We are interested
in Ukraine getting the resource properly, so that our consumers
in Europe are calm about us having normal relations with our neighbours
and that everything goes as planned.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us
go to that sector. Omsk has the floor. I believe we have not
given the floor to Omsk yet. I see a lady standing.
Remark from
the audience.
Dmitry Peskov: I thought
we agreed to respect each other. Thank you.
Omsk, go ahead.
Olga Korobova: Good
afternoon. Olga Korobova, editor-in-chief, Argumenty i Fakty v Omske.
Mr President,
my question concerns not only Omsk but probably the whole
of the Trans-Ural area.
Vladimir Putin: Can you
raise your hand, please? I do not see you. Thank you.
Olga Korobova: I have
a question about demography and migration. It is a question
about everything, that is, the social situation
in the Trans-Urals.
Vladimir Putin: If it
is a question about everything, it will be the last question today.
Olga Korobova: First
of all, I would like to thank you for launching
the Far Eastern Hectare and Far Eastern Mortgage projects. But people
are also leaving Siberia for oversized Moscow and St Petersburg. It
would be wonderful if such measures, in particular a mortgage
project, were adopted for our region as well so that young, smart
and talented people aged 30–45 would not leave but take out mortgages.
Has this possibility been
discussed for Siberia, the Trans-Urals and, more precisely, Omsk?
Vladimir Putin: We have
indeed adopted several such measures for the Far East, where
the population is declining much more rapidly than in any other part
or region of Russia.
Many people have taken
advantage of the Far Eastern Hectare project. We have adjusted it so
that it is available not only to locals but also to people from any
other part of Russia who want to settle in the Far East.
This land is being used for several purposes: housing, agriculture
and other forms of business, including tourism. But we also see some
drawbacks to this project, first of all the fact that these land
plots are not always attractive because of their infrastructure,
or rather, they lack roads, electricity and other infrastructure.
Therefore, we must first of all implement these projects and plans
in full in the Far East before turning to other regions.
As for the Trans-Urals,
I assure you that we see what is happening there. We will revise our
demographic projects to include the Trans-Urals. I am referring
to assistance for households with children, primarily those that have
a third baby.
As for other
support measures, including a 2 percent mortgage rate, all this is
possible, of course. But first we need to analyse progress
in the Far East, calculate how much this will cost us, see how many
people request such assistance, and review our budget expenditures before
calmly taking any decisions on what to do next.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s have
a question from the centre.
Andrei Kolesnikov, one
of the patriarchs of Russian journalism. As usual, he holds
his hand up with great modesty, but he has been working with the President
for many years.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Good
afternoon. Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant newspaper.
Mr President, I have
two questions on the recent meeting of the Council
for Civil Society and Human Rights. You spoke out about Vladimir
Ulyanov as never before. You even brought up his nicknames, such
as “Old Man” and “Lenin.”
Vladimir Putin:
A pseudonym.
Andrei Kolesnikov: You said
nicknames.
Vladimir Putin:
As a matter of fact, it is all one and the same.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Party
nicknames.
You accused him
of breaking down a 1,000-year-old state. When you were saying this,
you facial expression was close to rage, it seemed to me. Will
anything come out of your comment? What would be a logical follow-up
to these words? Removing Lenin’s body from the Mausoleum,
at long last?
And the second
question. At the same meeting, you had a debate with Alexander
Sokurov on the title of the Hero of Russia, regarding
Ramzan Kadyrov’s case. At that point your facial expression simply showed
tolerance. Would you like to say something in this regard?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
I prefer not to raise subjects of this kind, but since Mr
Sokurov did, I had to respond, so now it seems that I have
to set it out in more detail.
Regarding Lenin and his
role in our history, and what I think about it, I believe
that he was a revolutionary rather than a statesman.
When I talked about
the 1,000-year history of our state, it was strictly centralised
and unitary, as we all know. But what did Vladimir Lenin propose? He
went even further than a federation and proposed a system that
can be described as a confederation. It was his decision to tie
ethnic groups to specific territories, so that they obtained
the right to secede from the Soviet Union.
What happened was that
a strictly centralised state was turned into a de facto confederation
with the right of secession and with ethnic groups attached
to specific territories. But these territories were divided in such
a way that they did not always correspond and still do not correspond
to where various ethnic groups traditionally lived. This is how cracks
emerged that still linger in the relations between the former
Soviet republics, and even within the Russian Federation. There are
two thousand cracks of this kind, and letting them out of sight
for even a second can have grave consequences. This is the first
point I wanted to make.
By the way, Stalin
was against such organisation. He even wrote an article on autonomy,
but, eventually, adopted Lenin’s formula. The upshot? Just now, our
colleague from Ukraine and I spoke about our relations. Back when
the Soviet Union was created, original Russian territories that never had
anything to do with Ukraine (the entire Black Sea region
and Russia’s western lands) were transferred to Ukraine under
a strange pretext of “increasing the percentage
of the proletariat in Ukraine,” because Ukraine was a rural
territory populated by petty-bourgeois-minded peasants, who were subjected
to dispossession across the country. This was a somewhat odd
decision. Nevertheless, it took place. We are now dealing with Vladimir Lenin’s
legacy of state building.
What did they do? They tied
the country’s future to their own party, and this tenet went
from one Constitution to another. It was the main political force.
As soon as the party started to crumble, the country
followed. That is what I meant. I stick to this point
of view to this day.
As you are aware,
I worked in intelligence for a long time. It was
an integral part of a much politicised organisation,
the KGB, and I had my own ideas about our leaders
and so on. But I know better today, and I understand that
there are geopolitical considerations in addition to ideology. They
were completely ignored during the creation of the Soviet Union.
All this was much politicised at the time. To reiterate,
the party began to fall apart, and that was the end
of it – the country followed. This had to be prevented.
This was a mistake. An absolute, cardinal and fundamental
mistake in state building.
Now, with regard
to the body. This is beside the point. I believe this
subject should not be touched at all, at least as long
as there are people, lots of them, who associate their lives
and destinies, and certain achievements of the past,
the Soviet years, with it. One way or another, the Soviet Union
is certainly connected with Vladimir Lenin, the leader
of the world proletariat. So, why delve deep into that? We just need
to move forward and grow. That is all.
As for Kadyrov’s
Hero of Russia title, you know I already spoke about it
and I want to say it again. When I first met his father,
the first President of the Chechen Republic, he came to me
himself. He did not come to surrender, he came to build relations
with Russia. It was before the active combat operation started
in Chechnya and in the Caucasus. And he told me then,
“We thought that we would be better off with other Islamic countries, but we
realised that we were wrong because they tried to bend us to their
will.” All those extremist, half-terrorist groups. He said, “We do not want it.
I understand now that we will be better off with Russia. Russia has never
had any issues with our religion or our everyday customs.” And so on.
It was his choice. You know his fate. He died at the hands of terrorists.
What did he die for? For Chechnya, the Chechen people,
and for Russia. It was his decision. I still cannot forgive
myself for letting him go home for the holidays, because he was
in my office and I asked him to stay, but he said that
he needed to be at home. And then he was killed
in an explosion.
The current president,
his son, is still exposed to danger every day. In addition, he
personally takes part in various combat operations. The Federal
Security Service Director was reporting to me once on the elimination
of a terrorist group, and I suggested that his guys should
be awarded state decorations. And he said, “It was not us.” I asked
him who it was, and he said that it was Kadyrov and his men.
I said, “I forbade him to do it!” But he is unstoppable, he is
always out there in the field. So I always present such titles
as Hero of Russia for a reason.
Look at what Grozny
looks like now. Look at the photos taken several years ago featuring
Minutka Square: Grozny looked like Stalingrad after the Battle
of Stalingrad. Exactly like that. And look how it has changed.
Actually, we could present
Kadyrov with the Hero of Labour title as well, but he is still
young, he can wait. But the situation has really turned around there. So
this is the answer to that part of your question.
Dmitry Peskov: By the way,
I saw a journalist from Chechnya. Would you like to add
anything? Central sector. Raise your hand, please, so that we can see you.
Please, identify yourself and speak as concisely as possible.
Alkhazur Kerimov: Good
afternoon, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Good
afternoon.
Alkhazur Kerimov: Alkhazur
Kerimov, Grozny TV.
It was very gratifying
to me to hear you speak so warmly about the first president
of the Chechen Republic and about our current leader. First
of all, I would like to say that the Chechen Republic is
developing rapidly in all spheres.
This became possible thanks
to your decisions and all-round assistance and help.
The people can see this, which is why your confidence rating
in the republic is the highest throughout Russia. People
in Chechnya love and respect you, and they look forward
to your visit. Now, my question.
There has been much talk
about building a road to Georgia via Chechnya. This would settle many
strategic problems and unclog the alternative route, which is
especially busy in winter, when cars stand for days in traffic
jams.
The head
of Chechnya raised this issue and commented on it many times,
because building one more road would help increase trade and boost our
economic progress through a rapid development of tourism
in the region. What do you think about this initiative? How can it
benefit the economies of Russia and Georgia? Do you support it?
One more thing. Some time
ago the head of Chechnya proposed building a high-speed railway
line from Krasnodar to Grozny and connecting it
to the existing Moscow-Adler high-speed road. This would greatly
increase the accessibility of the republics involved. What do
you think about this project? Can we count on its implementation?
Vladimir Putin: I would
like to say that there are several infrastructure projects
for southern Russia, including Chechnya. We are working on them
or considering them. Some of them are at a more advanced
stage than others. I would not like to go into detail now, but I know
about these plans.
We have recently discussed
this in the Government; there are several options for connecting
Chechnya with Krasnodar and the Black Sea coast. We will do this when
the time comes. For now, we do not have any concrete or calibrated
plans, but I agree that this is a rational idea.
What was the first part
of your question about?
Alkhazur Kerimov: The road
to Georgia.
Vladimir Putin: Yes,
Georgia. Indeed, there are problems with communication with Georgia, especially
in winter when there is a lot of snow. We are aware
of this. What you mentioned is a good idea, but it is not
on the Transport Ministry’s plans at the moment. Although,
I repeat, we know about it and it is a viable project. Yes, it
would be reasonable to implement it.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s move
over here. Dimitri Simes. Channel One, I guess?
Dimitri
Simes: Bolshaya Igra, Channel One.
Dmitry Peskov: Please give
him a microphone.
Dimitri Simes: Mr President,
two days ago the US Congress passed bills on sanctions against Russia
by such an overwhelming majority that it makes it difficult
for President Trump to veto the bill.
And, as you probably
know, the House of Representatives passed articles of impeachment
yesterday. This is the context in which he has to make foreign
policy decisions, and more specifically, those in relation
to Russia.
In this situation, do
you think you – and Russia – have any opportunity to try
to maintain or strengthen dialogue with the United States before
the end of Trump’s presidency? What can you do to enhance
strategic stability, and more specifically, to extend the New
START?
Vladimir Putin:
As for the chances to continue our dialogue until
the end of Trump’s presidency, you do sound like it is actually
ending. I am not so sure about that. The decision still needs
to pass through the Senate, where the Republicans, as far
as I know, have the majority, and they are unlikely
to want to remove the representative of their party from
power for something I, personally, see as far-fetched.
This is just another move
in that country’s domestic political campaigning, where one party that
lost the election, the Democratic Party, is trying to achieve
results they want through other means, such as charging Trump with
conspiracy related to Russia. When it turned out there was no conspiracy,
there was no longer a sufficient reason to impeach. Now they have
invented pressure on Ukraine. I do not know what this is all about.
But your Congresspeople certainly know better.
As for the decisions
that were made with respect to Russia, they are being made by people
who hardly have any responsibility for these decisions. These are not
executive authorities, but representative authorities, and their job is
to pass laws. They are making such decisions regarding Russia.
This will certainly affect
the level of interstate relations. We are aware of their general
approach – the United States will work with us in areas where
they have an interest and profit, while at the same time
restraining Russia with decisions like this. Knowing this, we too will mirror
their steps, we will do just that. I am not saying this is a good
thing. These are very unfriendly acts in relation to Russia.
They want to help Ukraine
keep its transits. As I have just told a colleague from Ukraine,
we also want to keep transits. In any case, this is what we are
interested in, and this is what we will do. If they wanted to help,
they should have given them money. How come they do not give any money
to Ukraine? This would have enabled them to provide subsidies.
You see, they give almost
nothing, only guarantees for future loans. But this is not actual money,
so the support they are getting is not real. At the same time,
the IMF, where the United States rules, demands that all energy
subsidies be cancelled, including for natural gas. This will once again
drive consumer prices up.
Others
in the West, I mean, the EU, want round timber to be
exported to Europe. If they do so, very soon, there will be nothing left
of the Carpathian mountains, with only bare rock remaining. It could
seem that they are supporting the current Ukrainian regime and its
leaders, but at the same time I believe that they are seriously
hurting it.
Now they are asking Ukraine
to start selling land. Land is sacred for Ukrainians,
and I can understand this, since these are “golden” soils.
Of course, the opposition was instantly all over this issue
and is now attacking Zelensky on the domestic policy front.
They blame us for some
actions towards Ukraine and pretend to be willing to help, but
in reality what they want is to have Russia support
the Ukrainian budget. Go ahead and give them the money, help
Ukraine, grant it subsidised loans with lengthy repayment periods. But there is
nothing of the kind.
Still, we are interested
in expanding and maintaining relations with the United States
and will move in this direction regardless of who is
in the White House or who controls the two chambers
of Congress.
Do we see any potential
in this? I think so. You have mentioned global security, including
the New START, as one of the foundations of our
relations. We put forward our proposals, as I have already said,
and will repeat: we stand ready until the end of the year
to extend the existing New START as is.
They can send it to us
by post, or we can sign it and send it to Washington so
that their senior officials, including the President, sign it, if they are
ready to do so. So far we have not received a reply to any
of our proposals. Without the New START there will be nothing left
in the world to contain the arms race. I believe that
there is nothing good about it.
Dmitry Peskov: MIR TV
channel, you have the floor.
Elina Dashkuyeva: Thank you,
Mr Peskov.
Good afternoon, Mr
President, I am Elina Dashkuyeva from the MIR Interstate Television
and Radio Broadcasting Company.
At the Ashgabat
meeting of the CIS Heads of State Council you spoke about
the celebration of the 75th anniversary
of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, and you said that
this victory concerns every citizen of the Soviet Union. You invited
CIS leaders to come here to take part in the commemorative
events, and also agreed to hold joint events to mark this date.
Mr President, do you regret
that the joint column of the victors will not include servicemen
from some former Soviet republics, including Ukraine and Georgia?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
I regret that there is no Soviet Union anymore. As for their
participation in the parade, it is their choice. But if someone
misses the event due to some interstate relations, I think they
will make a big mistake. Because it will mean that they do not show
respect for the people who fought and gave their lives
for the independence of their Motherland.
There is one thing
I would like to draw attention to. Nazi Germany had these documents
that said that part of the Slavic people should be used
as workers, but the majority should be sent beyond the Urals,
to the northern territories. What did they count on? On our
extinction. So that fight, it was not just about preserving our statehood, but
about preserving the East Slavic ethnic group, both Russians
and Ukrainians. This is was it was about.
When I hear someone say
that maybe it would have been better to abandon Leningrad
to the enemy and so on, I want to say, are you out
of your mind? You would not be alive today if they had done that. This is
what it is all about. And, of course, the presence
at the Moscow parade of the descendants of those who
saved our statehood and independence, and who preserved our peoples,
is a symbolic and important gesture, I think. We will be happy
to see everyone who accepts our invitation.
By the way, Minsk
wants to ask a question. Excuse me, Dmitry, I see a ‘Minsk,
Belarus’ poster there.
Go ahead, please.
Remark: Can we ask
a question about Iran?
Vladimir Putin: Yes,
in a moment, please.
Maria Nagibina: Hello, Mr
President.
Maria Nagibina, Ministry
of Ideas TV channel.
I have a question
for you that follows up on the topic of the Soviet
Union.
Millions of people
suffered from Gorbachev’s illegal actions in 1991. So here is
the question: how about looking at what happened in 1991 from
a legal perspective? This could make resolving questions regarding
territorial integrity, including with Belarus, easier.
I also have
a second question. Last year you talked about the Constitution
of the Russian Federation and its Article 13, paragraph 2, which
bans ideology. You said that this should be a matter of public
debate. As we all know, there is a massive drive by community
activists across the country to collect signatures, and 200,000
have already been collected and handed over to the Federation
Council, State Duma and other government institutions. Do you think that
this question was sufficiently debated by Russian society?
Vladimir Putin: Regarding
a legal assessment of what Gorbachev or anyone else did,
I do not know. I do not understand how this relates
to territorial integrity. We have resolved all the questions we had,
and all the documents are signed. I do not quite understand what
a legal evaluation of these actions has to do with it. This is
my first point.
Second, regarding
the Constitution and what it says on ideology, I have
already said that the Soviet Constitution had a very pronounced
ideological component, and the only ideology that guided it was
the ideology of the Communist Party. It is clear however what
came out of it, as I have already said. Among other things, it
served as one of the triggers that led a unified state
to break down. Without a party, it started to crumble,
and the country followed.
However, I believe that
in today’s democratic society there can be only one ideology: patriotism
in a broad, positive sense of the word. It should not be
driven by politics, but rather designed to strengthen the inner
foundations of the Russian state.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s
continue. It looks like we left out federal news agencies. I see ITAR-TASS
on the right. Please remain seated. Let's show some respect
for each other. This is a news conference after all.
Remark: I have
a question about the 75th anniversary
of Victory.
Dmitry Peskov: Sit down,
please.
Remark: All right.
Dmitry Peskov: Thank you
very much.
Veronika Ichetkina: May I?
Thank you.
Mr President, last year
the news conference opened with a question from TASS about national
projects. My question today is also about national projects, especially
since this year our agency became an operator of a special
website dedicated to this subject.
Here is my question.
National projects have been implemented for almost a year now,
and more and more experts from the regions are saying that
the national projects’ goals are overly high and need to be
revised.
Do you think we can say that
national projects are stalling? Do you think the national projects’ goals
should be revised? Or maybe it would make sense to develop additional
measures to stimulate this work? Such as to establish additional
personal responsibility of regional leaders for implementing national
projects in terms of goals or deadlines? Or maybe decentralisation
can help, such as expanding the powers of regional authorities,
or municipal authorities, including redistribution of taxes, so that
they have more money in their budgets and use it to more
vigorously participate in national projects on the ground?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: First,
I believe there is no need to revise anything fundamentally.
Second, personal
responsibility has been introduced, but it can certainly be strengthened
and detailed.
Third, national projects
are, of course, a major undertaking, and we have not had
anything like that before, we have not worked with such tools before, they
simply did not exist. There were state programmes, but they are different.
National projects pursue goals, and specific resources have been allocated
to achieve these goals, and personal responsibility has been
introduced and is being used. We should continue to move along these
lines.
Are they stalling
or not? Of course, mechanisms and the legislative framework
should have been created from the get-go. I even got anxious
at some point thinking about how this would continue to move forward.
Look, we consider 26 goals achieved and 12 not achieved out of 38
goals planned for this year. With regard to an important area
such as relocating residents from dilapidated housing, we went beyond
meeting the target figure for the current year and exceeded
it threefold. So, overall, the situation is under control. Of course,
we need to look at what is happening in real life, analyse it,
and, of course, some things will need to be adjusted. But
on the whole, there is no need to revise anything.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s
continue. Federal agencies now.
I see Interfax. Pass
the microphone to Interfax, please.
Ksenia Golovanova: Good
afternoon, Mr President. Ksenia Golovanova, Interfax.
This year abounded
in high-profile cases that caused public outcry. Members
of the HRC talked to you about some of them
at a meeting last week, and you did not comment on one
of them, the case of Ivan Golunov.
During the Direct Line,
you described this case, this situation with Golunov, as lawlessness
and said that those responsible should be found. However, no one
responsible has been found, the case file has been classified, and an investigation
is underway with regard to unidentified persons.
It seems to me that
the Golunov case is a reflection of something that is typical
for our law enforcement system; something, everyone has probably dealt
with, unfortunately – complete impunity and the we-don’t-betray-our-own
principle.
I have two questions
in this regard. Don’t you not think that maybe it is time to somehow
reshuffle and purge our law enforcement bodies again. And can you
guarantee that the Golunov case will eventually lead to a conviction,
and will not be soft-pedalled? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Earlier
today I was thinking how I began my career
as a security agent. When I joined, service veterans were still
there, and some would hide in their offices when one old man would
enter the building.
Who was that person? He
served in 1936–1937. What did he do? That was a time of “purges”
in law enforcement agencies, including security agencies. One could come
to work in the morning, unsuspectingly, not knowing anything,
but a criminal case had been initiated against them,
and by the evening, their family was given the body just
after they were executed. And that old man that everyone ran from was
the one who carried out those sentences.
So, as far
as “purges” are concerned, we have been through this, it happened in our
not-so-distant history, and we had better avoid any further purges here.
The fact that we need
to improve the system of law enforcement bodies’ work,
to control what is happening there – I also mean public
control – is completely obvious. All law enforcement agencies have their
own security services, and those are working quite efficiently.
The we-don’t-betray-our-own
phrase is just wrong. Because, indeed, probably, there may be cases where
the chiefs want to cover up for someone, the immediate
superiors, I mean. But, again, their own security services are effective.
And a significant number of criminal cases – there are many
cases brought against law enforcement officials – are based
on the findings of their own security services.
As for the Golunov
case (is this the name – Golunov?), indeed, it was decided
to classify these materials, because the investigation raises
questions related to the organisation of active search measures,
and this is restricted information. But this does not mean
the investigation is not proceeding as it should. I would like
to inform you that five people have been suspended from the relevant
services of the Interior Ministry. They have been fired from Interior
Ministry bodies, and criminal cases have been initiated against them.
The investigation is being conducted by the Investigative
Committee, not the Interior Ministry.
Dmitry Peskov: RIA Novosti,
on the right, please, go ahead.
Yelena
Glushakova: Yelena Glushakova, RIA Novosti.
Since you mentioned that you
are a lawyer, the first part of my question relates
to legal matters, Mr President. My question will be
on the Constitution. In your opinion, could it be that
the time has come to amend the Constitution? These questions
surface every now and then, and have recently been discussed. If
the time has come, what part could be changed? Are you satisfied with
the amendments that were introduced ten years ago to change some
articles in our Constitution?
The second part
of my question is about politics, and relates
to the political system our country has. Within a few days, it
will be 20 years since you came to the helm. Is there a need,
in your opinion, to make changes, like maybe reassigning powers
between the parliament, the government or even
the president?
And my final
question, if you allow me. Do we have competition in Russian politics,
in your opinion?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding
the Constitution, this is a live tool that has to keep up with
the evolution of society. However, it is my belief that we do
not have to change the Constitution, I mean adopt a new
one, especially since it sets forth some fundamental principles that we have
yet to fully achieve. This refers to its first chapter.
I believe this part to be sacrosanct.
All the other
provisions can be amended in one way or another. I am aware
of the ongoing debates on this subject; I see them
and hear them. I understand the logic behind what others
propose. This is related to possibly expanding the powers of parliament
and changing to some extent the powers of the president
and the government. But all this has to be well prepared, result
from a meaningful debate within society, and be carried out with
extreme caution.
Regarding the past
amendments, as far as I know, they were related
to the number of terms. What could be done in this respect?
We could take out the mention of “consecutive” terms. We have this
provision, and yours truly served for two consecutive terms, then
left this office and had the constitutional right to once again
become president, because this did not interfere with the “two consecutive
terms” limit. Some political observers and civil society activists have
voiced misgivings over this provision. We can probably remove it.
There are some other
questions, but they are more about preferences rather than necessity.
I can once again
mention the powers of parliament. I do understand political
parties, especially those represented in parliament, that believe that we
have reached a level in the development of parliamentarism
in Russia when parliament could take on additional functions
and assume greater responsibility. All we need is to give this idea
serious thought.
As for competition
in politics, 54 parties are registered in Russia, and four
of them I believe are about to be dissolved. Still, 50 parties
is a good number, and 12 of them operate
at the federal level. I believe that this meets
the standard for political competition.
Dmitry Peskov: We have
not yet given the floor to the organisers
of the broadcast of this conference – Rossiya-1. Give
the microphone to the right sector. Raise your hand
and stand up, please, Rossiya-1, now I see you. Go ahead, please.
Alexander Khristenko: Good
afternoon.
Alexander Khristenko,
Rossiya TV channel, VGTRK.
Mr President, our National
Welfare Fund is growing, there…
Vladimir Putin: Thank
God.
Alexander Khristenko: There
are trillions there, and more is expected next year. But our financial
officials always argue, including in this room not so long ago, whether it
is better to save or to spend? Do you think that more should be
spent, including in order to spur economic growth?
And in connection with this, another question: why are we so afraid
of inflation?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I will
start with the end of your question. We are not afraid
of inflation, but we believe that it is necessary to target
and reduce it, because rising inflation means declining real incomes. We
already have issues here that require additional attention, to say
the least. So why do we need inflation?
It means price increases,
but we do not want price increases. This is one of the fundamental
macroeconomic conditions for economic growth. Inflationary expectations
undermine the investment process, that is the point. But we have good
performance here.
Russia is certainly one
of the leaders among emerging markets regarding the state
of its financial and budgetary system. According
to the latest data, this year’s inflation is 3.25 percent; this is
a very good indicator for us, and at the beginning
of next year it may well come down to 3 percent.
As for the reserve
funds and the National Welfare Fund. Yes, it really has almost
tripled this year. This is a very good indicator.
To spend or not
to spend was your other question. Look, 20 percent
of the National Welfare Fund has already made its way
to the economy via a variety of tools, including through
VEB. Of this 20 percent, 8 percent was spent directly to fund major
infrastructure projects, such as the Central Ring Road
in Moscow.
Rolling stock is being
purchased for Russian Railways, which is good for transport, keeping
jobs and developing transport engineering. Finally, the money was
used to improve rail traffic on the Baikal-Amur Mainline and the Trans-Siberian
Railway. I am aware of the miners’ concern about
a bottleneck there, but the situation would be really bad if it
weren’t for the money already invested in eliminating
bottlenecks on the Baikal-Amur and Trans-Siberian railways.
Indeed, we are witnessing
changes in the coal market, in Europe for example,
and we need to ensure the development of the east, so
we will go ahead and do this, possibly using the National Welfare
Fund.
Last, we made
a decision to freeze spending from the National Welfare Fund
to allow it to grow to 7 percent of GDP.
As a matter of fact, we are already there at 7.3 percent.
Technically, this money will only reach the accounts
in the summer of 2020, and we will then be able to use
it more actively.
Notably, and most
importantly, these funds have a higher purpose, to ensure national
currency stability, which the fund is effectively doing. It is
to a certain extent our safety bag.
As you may be aware, we
honoured almost all of our social commitments in 2008 amid
the serious international crisis and spent funds from accumulated
reserves despite the sharp drop in federal budget revenue. We were
able to accomplish this thanks to these reserve funds. Spending money
left and right like a farmer sowing seeds oblivious to what
could happen if energy prices fall is the easiest thing. But we will not
do this, and will instead use the funds in accordance with
the decisions adopted earlier.
Dmitry Peskov: Let’s
move this way. Here is Yaroslavl, our colleagues from Yaroslavl. Stand up,
please. Please, pass on the microphone there, on the left.
Arseny Kondratyev: Good
afternoon, Mr President. Arseny Kondratyev, Yaroslavia State Television
and Broadcasting Company, Yaroslavl Region.
My question continues
Match TV’s topic about WADA, but it is not about sports – it’s about
the development of the regions. Now that our athletes have been
banned from participating in international competitions, other big events
are under question, and Yaroslavl was the proposed venue for the 2022
Volleyball World Championship.
For Yaroslavl
as well as other cities it is a unique opportunity to build
new sports facilities and to develop transport and tourism
infrastructure. Will we and other cities lose this opportunity now?
Vladimir Putin: I do
not think so, because WADA did not prohibit the hosting of these
events; let’s read this more closely: they recommend international federations
not to host events. Let’s just say, the UEFA European Championship is
still happening.
Recently I have had
a meeting with the head of this organisation, who said directly:
“The tickets are sold out.” Who will return them? WADA is not going
to reimburse the tickets; this is nonsense. I think that
the volleyball championship you mentioned will also take place.
You know, I think that
we should calmly wait for the decisions, including the decisions
by the Court of Arbitration for Sports, and then we
will see where we are. However, Russian athletes have been preparing
for all the competitions and will continue to do so. They
are brilliant, and they will impress us with their victories many times.
Dmitry Peskov: I can
see our largest state newspaper, Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Please. Stand up, please,
so everyone can see you. Wait, where are they? One moment, I just saw
Rossiyskaya Gazeta…
Vladimir Putin: While
he is choosing…
Dmitry Peskov: Just
a moment, please. Here we go.
Vladimir Putin: While
he is choosing, let’s have question from CCTV. Go ahead, please.
Sun Yao: Good afternoon, Mr
President.
I am
a correspondent of China’s CCTV media corporation. I have two
questions.
The first question is
about Chinese-Russian relations. This year marks 70 years since
the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. We
can say that our bilateral ties have entered a new era.
And my question is this: which results of our partnership do you
see as the most significant, and what future cooperation
potential do you see between our countries?
The other question is
about international affairs. The global situation today is full
of uncertainty and instability. Obviously, some countries pursue
a policy to maintain a unipolar world and protectionism,
undermining the foundations of international law and free trade,
while China and Russia are both supporters of a multipolar
world. So what steps do you think China and Russia could take
to support the original principles of a multipolar system
and free trade, and how could they effectively respond
to external challenges?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin:
The most important thing that we have achieved in recent years,
between Russia and the People’s Republic of China… The most
important thing is not even the figures I will cite
in a moment, or the industries in which we
cooperate – the most important achievement is the unprecedented
level of trust that has developed between our countries.
This is what forms
the basis for our accomplishments in the economy (our
bilateral trade has topped 100 billion, and we will certainly attain even
200 billion, we will reach that mark), and for our successful
high-tech projects – in space exploration, the aircraft
industry, and transport in general, and in many other
areas.
Russian-Chinese cooperation
is undoubtedly a major factor of international stability, including
the strengthening of international law and the creation
of a multipolar world.
As a matter
of fact, it has already been created; a unipolar world no longer
exists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was
an illusion that this system was possible and that it would last
for a long time, but it was only an illusion. I always said
so. The most recent events have indicated just that. When you say ‘some
countries,’ you, first of all, mean the United States.
The world’s multipolarity is a derivative of economic relations.
After World War II,
the US share in world GDP was 50 percent. And now China’s share
is higher than the US’s share, I may be mistaken, but China is ahead
of the United States in its share of global GDP.
And also in many other indicators. In terms of purchasing
power parity, the Chinese economy has become larger than the American
one.
This inevitably leads
to changes in many other areas. And apart from that,
the world simply cannot have a unipolar structure, with a single
centre that governs the entire international community.
The role of our
interaction with China is very important here. We will continue
to strengthen our multilateral strategic ties. I am sure that this
will benefit the people of China and the Russian Federation
alike.
Dmitry Peskov: Rossiyskaya
Gazeta, take the floor, please.
Remark: The Urals!
Vladimir Putin: Wait,
wait.
Remark: Mr President,
the Urals!
Vladimir Putin: One
moment, keep it down, please. Come to the meeting then.
Remark: Please give
money for schools and the metro.
Vladimir Putin: Alright,
I understand.
Kira Latukhina: Kira
Latukhina, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
I would like
to return to the issue of our Victory
in the Great Patriotic War. Next year we will celebrate
the anniversary – the 75th anniversary,
the Year of Memory and Glory. But at the same time,
in September this year, the European Parliament adopted
a resolution stating that Nazism and fascism are equated with
the Soviet regime, having timed it with the anniversary
of the outbreak of World War II. They are calling it totalitarianism
and suggesting introducing a new international holiday
to celebrate the day of heroes of the fight against
totalitarianism on May 25. What do you think about it? What is your
opinion?
Vladimir Putin: There
is nothing good about totalitarianism, it is worthy of condemnation,
without any doubt.
I know about
the European Parliament’s decision. I consider it absolutely
unacceptable and wrong, because you can condemn Stalinism
and totalitarianism as a whole, and in some ways these
will be well-deserved reproaches. Our people were the biggest victims
of totalitarianism. We condemned it and the personality cult
and so on.
But to equate
the Soviet Union or to put the Soviet Union and Nazi
Germany on one level is incredible cynicism. This means that people do not
know history; they cannot read or write. Let them read the documents
of that time, let them see how the so-called Munich Agreement was
signed in 1938, when the heads of the leading
countries – France, Great Britain – signed an agreement with
Hitler on the partition of Czechoslovakia.
How did Poland behave
in this situation, which, as one diplomat wrote
at the time, “did everything possible to participate
in the partition of Czechoslovakia?” How did the Soviet
Union behave then, proposing to all participants in international
life to create a united anti-Nazi front?
And how, by not
creating it, they were really trying to push Hitler to aggression
to the East, not realising then that Nazi Germany was interested not
in Polish-German relations, but in expanding their living space
to the East, that is, war against the Soviet Union.
You see, I mean
to write an article about this event. I will definitely have it
published because I asked my colleagues to select archive
materials for me. When I read some of them, everything becomes
clear: everything in the process of appeasing Hitler is sorted
out by year, month, and almost by day.
Stalin did not stain himself
with direct contact with Hitler whereas the French and British
leaders met with him and signed some documents. Yes
the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the secret protocols to it
were signed.
Is it good or bad?
I draw your attention to this – it is crucial – that
the Soviet Union was the last country in Europe to sign
a non-aggression pact with Germany. All the others had signed it
earlier. And what was the Soviet Union supposed to do? Face it
alone?
Yes, they say there were
secret protocols, the division of Poland. Poland itself joined
in dividing Czechoslovakia. It entered two regions – Tesin
and another one. And that’s it. Poland took them over. They in fact
gave an ultimatum and set up an entire group
for the aggression. But it was not needed because Czechoslovakia
surrendered under pressure and gave those territories away. But
the Poles did the same.
By the way, yes,
Soviet troops entered Poland under the protocols. I draw your
attention to the following circumstance: the troops did enter
but only after the Polish government lost control over their armed forces
and over the developments in Poland while the government
itself was somewhere near the Polish-Romanian border. There was no one
to talk to about it. Do you see this?
Moreover, we talk about
the heroic defenders of the Brest Fortress. Nazi troops captured
Brest-Litovsk and then just abandoned it, and the Red Army moved
in. Do you understand this or not? This is what I want to ask
all those who adopt such resolutions in the European Parliament.
That means the Red Army
did not invade those territories in Poland. German troops entered them
and then left, and after that the Soviet troops entered. Does this
mean anything? So I will definitely let you know about that.
By the way, we are holding a CIS format meeting tomorrow,
and I want to show my CIS colleagues some of our
archival documents. Anyone interested is welcome to come and listen.
Dmitry Peskov: You
know, I saw the upper part of the central sector: Irkutsk.
Yekaterina
Machavariani: Yekaterina Machavariani, the Krasnaya Liniya TV
channel.
Mr President,
my question is not about Irkutsk, but about former Irkutsk Region Governor
Sergei Levchenko, whose resignation you recently accepted.
Our correspondents have been
in the region, in particular, in Tulun, since August,
and they see a slightly different picture than the one shown
by the federal media. And the figures achieved
by Sergei Levchenko speak for themselves.
He is the only governor
who managed to double the budget over three years and increase
the speed of social housing construction six-fold
and of the region’s economic development by six percent,
which is higher than the world average.
Speaking about relief
efforts following the floods, even your Plenipotentiary Envoy
to the Siberian Federal District Sergei Menyailo praised their speed:
today 98 percent of the victims have received either housing
or housing certificates. There are only 46 people
at the temporary housing centre, and almost all of them
have housing certificates.
My question is why you
accepted the resignation of such an effective governor? Is Tulun
the real reason or is there something else? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Listen,
if you are hinting at his membership of the Communist Party, let
me assure you that this has nothing to do with it. There are
representatives of the Communist Party and other parties,
including the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, who won
the elections and work as governors in other regions, too.
This does not matter to me. The main thing is that the governor’s
work is effective.
You have mentioned some
figures. But I have different figures, which say that there are still many
problems in Irkutsk. This is the first point.
Second, I cannot say
that Governor Levchenko was bad at what he did. No. But the situation
there was too difficult to work slowly, and the elections were
approaching. I did not accept these resignations straight away;
I looked into them. You said that everyone has housing. Is that really so?
Winter has come. This is the second point.
Third, you may have noted
what people said when I was there. Including “Send us different people.”
I took my time and watched how the situation was
developing.
So there are many problems
there. You know, I do not want to throw stones at someone who
has already left. Of course, he was working hard, especially
in the beginning. But these conditions require a specialist who
can work on the tasks that need addressing.
I believe
the person we have chosen, a deputy emergencies minister, will
resolve this challenge, especially with the support
of the federal centre, which is allocating a lot of money
for this.
Dmitry Peskov: We have
undeservingly overlooked RBK.
RBK, please.
Polina Khimshiashvili: Good
afternoon. Polina Khimshiashvili, RBK.
You mentioned your meeting
tomorrow: you will meet with the President of Belarus. Tell me
please, what do you think the Union State should be like? What should be
shared in politics and in the economy? What specifically
does Alexander Lukashenko dislike in your proposals? And if Belarus
insists that gas prices should be the same as in Russia, does
this mean that with the gas issue we can have a single state
and in other issues we cannot?
And another question
on the same subject. Many people are focusing
on the year 2024 and think that hypothetically you
will be able to head the Union State.
And,
as a follow-up to my colleague’s question about Ivan
Golunov: maybe you have been told who ordered the planting of drugs
on him? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: So far
I do not have any information on who ordered that, just
to answer this part of your question.
As for our
relations with Belarus and energy resource prices: first, I think
the decisions made to form the Union State were correct.
The Russian and Belarussian peoples are, in my opinion,
the same as the Ukrainian and Russian peoples; it is almost
the same thing in terms of ethnicity and our history
and spirituality. This is why I am very happy that we have such
rapprochement with Belarus.
And we have achieved
certain goals here, especially in the social area. However,
the decisions taken on the creation of the Union
State, the majority of the basic decisions have yet to be
implemented. About 90 percent of each issue have not been done yet. Please
read what is written there, this is not a classified document; there is
almost nothing there.
A lot has been done
already within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union,
and in some respects economic integration in the EAEU is
more comprehensive than in the Union State. This is why I, and Alexander
Lukashenko, decided to return to this and see what should be
done to expedite the development of the Union State.
We have taken
the relevant decisions in the EAEU on energy resources:
to fulfil certain decisions, including establishing a common energy
market and on oil and gas issues, by 2024. Indeed, we sell
everything to Belarus duty free. This is the first thing.
Secondly, with regard
to our energy exports, including gas to Europe and Belarus.
Firstly, Belarus pays the lowest prices that are even possible
for our foreign partners. Let me remind you that they pay $127 per 1,000
cubic metres. We sell to Europe for $200. So Gazprom’s profitability
from sales to Europe and Belarus differs – do you know
by how much? Four times. In Russia, the weighted average price
of gas is $70 per 1,000 cubic metres – $70 is the weighted
average, with $75 for industry and $62 for retail consumers.
Furthermore, the longer
the distance from the production sites, the more we subsidise
this price. Smolensk is located in a zone where subsidies are
the highest. Smolensk consumes approximately 2 billion. We sell 20 billion
to Belarus. And if we subsidise the entire Belarusian economy,
it means that we, Russia, are subsidising a primary energy carrier such
as natural gas for a whole country. But this, you see, sounds
like a very strange idea. That Russia should subsidise another country
as much as its most subsidised region – Smolensk. This would be
just strange.
Is this even possible
or not? It is. But what do we need for this? To do this, we
would need general rules such as laws, including taxation laws, laws
on the subsidy policy, and on support of certain
industries through budgets of different levels. To do this, we would
also need common supranational bodies – control and issuance bodies.
Common rules should be applied in the field of antitrust policy,
and maybe a common body would be needed. This is a huge job,
and it can be done and realised only if there is political will
and interest on both sides. Incidentally, we have such
an interest. We are discussing this with our Belarusian partners,
and we are making significant progress on that. But how far we will
go is not yet clear. So it would be a mistake, on our part,
to jump the gun and begin to subsidise Belarus. We are not
ready to do so, given the unresolved issues in building this
Union.
As you know, we also
sell oil duty free, which entails a large shortfall
for the Russian budget. We are now reconfiguring our tax system
in this field, and gradually increasing the severance tax
(mineral extraction tax) simultaneously reducing the export customs
duties. Due to these changes, Belarus is indeed losing the premium it
had from the zero customs duties and the subsequent export
of oil products. This is our domestic policy.
This has nothing to do
with Belarus. It depends on a number of other
circumstances – the Government of the Russian Federation,
the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Energy
consider it better for us to regulate the industry differently,
in a different way, bearing in mind our budget losses arising
from the activities of economic operators within the country.
But we understand all these problems, and are conducting a dialogue
with our colleagues and we will continue doing so.
Allow me to remind you
that we support our Belarusian friends through so many channels. Belarus has
received about $7 billion or so in loans alone, as far
as I know. And we will continue to do this. But all this
should be done through dialogue, and we are ready for this dialogue,
and we are ready to open our market further. You know that Russia
accounts for almost 90 percent of all agricultural exports from
Belarus. And so on and so forth. This is just routine work;
in fact, we are working very smoothly, doing balanced work in this
area.
I repeat once again, we
are close to agreement on some matters; on others, agreements
have not been reached yet. We will continue working.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us
move away from our European borders. I see Magadan over there. Go ahead,
Magadan. Please stand up and introduce yourself.
(Remark from
the audience.)
Vladimir Putin: Thank
you very much.
Dmitry Peskov: Thank
you. And now Magadan, please.
Olga Burlya: Good
afternoon, I am Olga Burlya, Kolyma Plus regional TV company, Magadan.
Thank you from Kolyma residents, Mr President, for your support
for the Far East and care for the Magadan Region,
in particular.
Let me go back
to the Far East mortgage. Our colleagues from Omsk may have it, too,
whereas the programme has already been launched in the Far
Eastern Federal District, we already have the first borrowers. It is
an excellent initiative with an attractive interest rate of two
percent.
But could it happen that
the banks start toughening the conditions and requirements
for such unprofitable and inconvenient clients? We already know that
problems can arise when using the maternity capital to make mortgage
payments. Families with children are refused mortgages by large banks.
What are the guarantees
for potential participants in such state-support programmes? Thank
you.
Vladimir Putin: Banks
do not refuse to use maternity capital for resolving mortgage issues.
It is just that the procedures for receiving the money are too
complicated and create problems for people. You are absolutely right
here. The situation undoubtedly must change. We have to cut
the number of days needed to transfer the maternity capital
as the down payment or as a mortgage payment
and so on.
In general, such
decisions are being made now, the number of days will be halved. But,
as some of my colleagues think, this is also not enough. What do
we need to do here? We have to expand the use
of the so-called electronic turnover so that the relations
between the bank’s client and the Pension Fund, which channels
the maternity capital, and respective developers should not involve
a person. Thus a person can just submit an application,
and the banks will immediately take matters up with the Pension
Fund regarding how much money and when they will receive. In this
case, it can be done within one day, and we can and must do it. We
discussed it quite recently with my colleagues, and we will do that.
Concerning the two
percent mortgage interest rate for the Far East. Why should banks
refuse? We subsidise that from the federal budget. This interest rate will
not bring any losses to them; on the contrary, it is
a state guarantee. So I do not expect any problems here. However, we
will be monitoring the practice, the implementation of these
measures.
Dmitry Peskov: Here are
our colleagues from the foreign media. Introduce yourself, please.
Christian Esch: Good
afternoon, Mr President!
My name is Christian
Esch, I head Spiegel magazine’s Moscow office.
I have a question
that concerns a matter that worries and annoys Germany,
the murder of a citizen of Georgia of Chechen
ethnicity, Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. The information coming from Moscow
and Berlin is decidedly different.
Therefore, I wanted
to ask you, first, about the killer. Germany says it did not receive
proper information from Russia. It turned out that this person was identical
to a person who had already been in prison in Russia. So
there must be information about him.
The second question
concerns the murder victim. You mentioned in Paris
at a news conference following the Normandy meeting that Russia
repeatedly asked for the extradition of this person.
The German foreign minister recently confirmed that there have been no
requests neither from Russia’s Interior Ministry nor through other channels. So
who is right, you or him?
Vladimir Putin: Both
of us, because these issues have been discussed at the special
services level more than once. Indeed, there was no official request from
the prosecutor’s office, because our authorities believed that doing so
would be pointless, since they received a negative answer.
Once again, I will
repeat what I said at the news conference in Paris. He was
an absolute bloody killer. He killed 98 people, just think about that, 98
people in the Caucasus in one day. Many countries declare
national mourning with many fewer deaths. He participated in bombings
in the Moscow Metro. And the list of his crimes goes
on. Indeed, we have repeatedly raised this issue at the special
services level.
With regard
to cooperation, I believe the main thing we should understand
about this is that cooperation should be full and it should be
a two-way street.
In Syria, we are
witnessing developments in the camps and prisons where ISIS
militants are held. Natives of Central Asia account for most
of the foreigners there, followed by Russia. But there are many
immigrants from Western Europe as well, including France
and the Federal Republic of Germany.
We see that the people
you just mentioned – terrorists and murderers – walk freely
around European capitals. As far as I know, he was killed
in central Berlin. Picture such a person strolling down
the streets of a European capital. Would you like
the prisoners from these camps to come to you? Will you also let
them walk freely around your cities?
To avoid this, we must
establish joint and highly effective work. This is what we are calling
for. We hope it will be like that eventually. This does not mean that such work
does not exist. It does. But its scope and nature are still insufficient.
Incidentally, at some
point, we warned the Americans about the Tsarnaev brothers,
or whatever their name is. We told them directly. First, we asked
to extradite them, as well, and then told the Americans
that they were a threat. They ignored us. The brothers then committed
a notorious terrorist attack during the Boston marathon,
and people died. Do you see my point? And you have bandits like
that walking around Berlin.
Dmitry Peskov: Introduce
yourself, please.
Svetlana Drobysheva: Svetlana
Drobysheva, Editor-in-Chief of the School, Gymnasium, Lyceum magazine
and author and former employee of Ogonyok, Rossiyaskaya
Gazeta under the name Seregina, and even Pravda.
I have worked everywhere, even in Tribuna. I have taken off
my glasses, because I had lost the hope that I would get
the floor.
Mr President, first
of all, I would like to present to you a copy
of the October 2000 edition of Ogonyok magazine, with
my address to you. It is titled Where is the Monument
to the Teacher? It is for the public
and for you as the newly elected President.
First, thank you
for your quick response. The monument was erected
in the capital of Daghestan; my mother was
an innovative teacher who gave 49 years of her life to teaching.
I would like to be brief, but I have two questions about
the war, for Victory Day.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us
show consideration for our colleagues. Go ahead, please.
Svetlana Drobysheva: Yes,
well, if I may, I will ask for your help to present
my gift and ask all the questions I have.
I would like
to ask you to pardon the person who erected this monument back
in 2006. It is called Monument to a Russian Teacher, and it
is 25 metres high. The man is Said Amirov, he is in prison now.
According to numerous data, he was falsely accused. This is the first
amnesty.
I have a second
name here; it is the former head of Fryazino.
There are two questions
regarding the spring of 1945. Perhaps we will touch upon May 9,
the 75th anniversary of Victory, and what awaits
us.
First, I want
to ask you, Mr President, to award the status
of the Hero of Russia to Sofya Arakcheyeva, a scout
of the Znamensky squad who was tortured to death in Orel
Region in February 1942. I believe Sergei Mironov asked you about
this.
Secondly,
to immortalise her memory in films, music and television.
Newspapers wrote about this a lot, thank you all. Thanks to Potomsky,
former Governor of Orel Region, who erected a monument to Sofya
Arakcheyeva in Orel Region.
If possible, I would
like to ask for five or seven passes to the Victory
Parade for those who collected signatures, such as teacher Israilov
and Deputy Governor of Tambov Region: all the signatures were
collected in 2013 for you.
And my second
question. I will not take much time…
Dmitry Peskov: You
know, I am sorry, but you have already done this.
Svetlana Drobysheva: Thank
you. I am sorry.
Dmitry Peskov: Respect
you colleagues. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Speaking
about the Heroes of Russia, I have to look into this;
I do not have the materials at the moment. I will ask
my colleagues to take your materials and look into
the archives.
As for a pardon
for Amirov, yes, I receive a lot of requests
and I will look into this. But there is a court ruling,
and his crimes were proven during the trial; in any case, there
is no doubt. The pardon is a different thing, which is done
on different grounds. I know about this and we will think about
it.
Svetlana Drobysheva: (without
microphone.)
Vladimir Putin: Do you
want a dialogue or my answer? Let us see. Give us
the materials, please.
As for your
request about the Parade, please tell us who you want to bring
and it will be our pleasure to work on this.
Dmitry Peskov: Good.
Thank you.
We have Channel Five;
I think I saw them here. Where is Channel Five? Raise your hand,
please. No need to shout. Left side, Mr President, Channel Five, St
Petersburg.
Yevgeny Gusev: Good
afternoon, Mr President.
My name is Yevgeny
Gusev. I represent the Izvestia multimedia information centre
and Channel Five.
My question concerns
sanctions and political pressure from the European Union. Here is one
telling fact. Latvia recently banned several Russian channels, including
Channel Five. The situation is very unpleasant. To be honest, our
colleagues in Estonia are involved in a conflict now,
and in other countries as well.
The situation has not
improved of late, if anything, it has worsened. We can see this
in the attitude towards Russia in the European Union. Do
you think it can change for the better, especially since we all
understand that these sanctions are pointless? And how much does this
pressure affect Russia, and what impact will it have
in the future?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: We have
repeatedly discussed this topic. There are various assessments
of the consequences of these sanctions for all participants
in this unpleasant process, but they all boil down to the same
thing. For the European Union, the losses amount to some
of 50 billion euros. I do not remember exactly, but I believe
the World Bank estimated around $50 million; for Germany,
I believe, the losses amount to about 750 million a month
or so.
These are major losses. This
is not just about money, some abstract sums. This is about jobs, the loss
of markets, including the Russian market. Other participants
in international economic relations are coming to our market.
We actually support
a full normalisation, especially since none of that really works
effectively. Indeed, this policy causes us problems, but there are benefits,
too, and they are also obvious. One of them is the development
of agriculture, a leap in development: 24 billion in export
revenue – this is simply unbelievable! No one would have believed this
a few years ago. We spent a lot of money, trillions if we add up
all sources, on import substitution, but we used it well. Just look
at the result.
For example, Russia has
never had its own helicopter engine industry. We have one now. We have built
facilities, including the plant in St Petersburg – above all
in St Petersburg. We did not make ship engines; there was simply no such
industry in Russia. It is a whole separate industry now. We have it
now, a next-generation industry, operating effectively. We have launched
an entire industry, with its science base, school, and production.
In the field of defence, we have made great strides. There is
still work to do, but the breakthrough is very noticeable, obvious
even.
Therefore, it would be
better, of course, to eliminate politically motivated restrictions
in economic activities. They result in huge damage to world
trade and the global economy. There are analyses of this. Say,
the US imposes restrictions on China – in reality they are
also actually sanctions – this affects the overall world economy,
and world trade levels promptly drop.
If this continues, trade
will continue dropping. But there seems to be some progress, thank God,
in their relations. We can also be harmed by this, because it affects
us, it affects the demand for our major export commodities, etc.
So there is nothing good
about this. But our economy – I can say this with full responsibility –
has been able to adapt to external shock, while our national currency
has actually become much more stable even with possible fuel price
fluctuations. In this respect, our economy and our national currency
are somewhat “detached” from world oil markets.
The defence industry.
Go ahead, young lady, with what you have on the defence industry.
Lidia Novoseltseva: Good
afternoon, Mr President.
My name is Lidia
Novoseltseva, I am from Rostov Region.
Defence industry companies
have been successfully operating in our region since Soviet times.
The latest advances in military science
and in the defence industry are quite capable
of a technological breakthroughs. Can you tell us if there are
measures under consideration…
I am sorry, I am
very nervous.
Vladimir Putin: It is
OK.
Lidia Novoseltseva: Are
there additional short-term measures under consideration
for the support and development of defence industry
competitiveness?
And a wish, if
I may. Next year is full of anniversaries, including the 75th anniversary
of the Great Victory, and the 450th anniversary
of the Cossacks’ allegiance to the Russian state.
The city of Novocherkassk in Rostov Region will host
the World Cossack Congress. You have always supported Rostov Region
and the Cossacks. We would like to invite you
to the event.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank
you for the invitation. This is very interesting. I will look
into my schedule.
Regarding the defence
industry and the developments there, first, the key is that we
have not only maintained it but it is also progressing at a very fast
and strong pace with the latest scientific and technological
developments.
The first thing we did
in this area was upgrade the manufacturing base. We allocated huge
funds, I think it was 3 trillion rubles, to upgrade this industry.
And we actually created cutting-edge weapons systems on this base
using new design. We accomplished this expeditiously and consistently.
And we have achieved positive results, as life and experience show.
One of the key
issues now is the debt burden in the defence industry. I am
not going to scare you with the numbers, but they are significant. It
is a matter of billions of rubles. The Government,
the Central Bank, all the shareholders in the process,
including the defence industry companies and the government
officials in charge, are now working to untangle this knot. There are
feasible market solutions. I will not get ahead of myself.
Just a few days
ago, I had another meeting with my colleagues on this issue,
and I instructed them to draft the final version
of the solution within a week. These are big issues
for the people working in the defence industry,
and for the overall economy, because the defence industry
is to a certain degree a hi-tech industry driver. We
will continue to develop it.
Dmitry
Peskov: In the middle – Gazeta.Ru. The first row.
Please, pass the microphone.
Margarita
Gerasyukova: Good afternoon, Mr President.
I am Margarita Gerasyukova, from Gazeta.Ru.
This
past May you said if anyone can establish a monopoly in artificial
intelligence – the results will be clear – that person would
rule the world. Can you describe Russia’s position today
in the race for the development of artificial
intelligence technologies? Where are we now – are we competitive
or are we catching up? And in which future or maybe already
achieved projects can the average Russian see the application
of artificial intelligence technology?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: The average person can already see applications
in banking, for example. Sberbank is active in applying digital
technologies in its customer relations and it has a practical
application.
In general,
we have serious competitive advantages here too. I mean an advanced
mathematics school and everything related to it: digital technologies
based on mathematics. We have just discussed, your colleague asked
and I answered, the use of maternal capital. If we develop
these technologies, we will have fewer technical problems like this.
The modern
concept of artificial intelligence is still being developed. There are
several definitions of artificial intelligence and the highest
is a spontaneously developing, so-called “thinking” intelligence.
We
have made progress in some areas, and in some, we have not done
enough. But there are some obvious things: apart from banking, there are, say,
unmanned aircraft and autonomous vehicles. Our Yandex and KAMAZ
vehicles have already logged over a million kilometers.
Yes,
so far this is being done on a limited basis; yes, so far it is not
being applied comprehensively in everyday life. However, these are
the first steps, without which development is simply not possible. These
are technologies that can be used in almost every area of manufacturing
and life.
We
believe, and I continue to believe that the most important
question for our long-term development is the question
of national security and the survival of the Russian
state in general. This is because the capabilities of artificial
intelligence will influence both defence and the pace
of economic development.
We
have drawn up a programme and created a special pool
of potentially interested investors and participants in this
process. Each has received an assignment, each knows what to do.
There is a national project in this area and the resources
for it have been allocated. Therefore, this is one of the most
important of our development areas. I am not even talking about
the obvious things related to the quality of manufacturing
and labour productivity.
This
is especially important for us, given our huge territory
and relatively small population – 146 million; if we do not move
in this direction, we will not be able even to guard our territory
properly. This is the point. These are absolutely substantive things. This
is one of the key areas of our development.
Dmitry
Peskov: Perhaps let us get back to the foreign media. Turkey,
Anadolu Agency, please.
Ali
Cura: Thank you. Ali Jura, Anadolu Agency.
Russia
has stressed many times that it supports the legitimate government,
in particular, in Syria and other countries where a crisis
situation remains. There is also a crisis in Libya. There is
a legitimate government recognised by the international community
there. The Western media say that Russia supports the so-called
Libyan National Army, that Russian mercenaries support them.
Would
you comment on this? Will you discuss this with President Erdogan,
including the Syrian topic? What else will you discuss? Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: Do you believe what is written in the Western media? Read
what they write about Turkey and you will change your mind.
Seriously
speaking, of course, we are aware of the situation. We know that
various countries have relations with both sides in the conflict,
and the levels of relations are different.
Russia
actually maintains contacts with al-Sarraj’s government and stays
in touch with Marshal Haftar. We have a constant dialogue with our
partners, including those in Turkey, Europe, and other countries. We
understand that this is a very acute issue.
You
also know very well who drove the country to this state. Russia was
against using military force in Libya, and the UN Security
Council Resolution on this prohibited former President of Libya
Muammar al-Gaddafi from using the aviation against the opposition,
which was armed, by the way. Instead, the Western coalition
started using its air force against Libya, perverting the UN Security
Council Resolution. As a result of this, a prospering
country whose quality of life was close to some European standards is
now in ruins, in chaos, torn by an unending civil war. It
is very difficult to determine who is right and who is wrong.
In fact,
the Russian authorities are in touch with al-Sarraj and Haftar,
as I have said. We think that the best solution for all
the parties to the conflict would be one that would allow them
to end the hostilities and come to an agreement
on who, how and on what terms will run the country.
I believe that Libya is interested in this.
This
is what we will definitely discuss with our partners in Europe.
I have just talked about this in a telephone conversation with
the German chancellor and the President of France.
President Erdogan and I have also discussed this. A Turkish
delegation will arrive in Moscow in the next few daysfor
a working visit, and their agenda will include this issue.
I hope we will find solutions that will be accepted by Libya
and the Libyan people, and I hope that together with
Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ghassan Salame we
will find the final solution.
Dmitry
Peskov: PRIME Agency, they have the smallest sign.
Maria
Balyuk: Maria Balyuk, PRIME Agency.
Mr
President, my question is: why does the state change the pension
system rules every several years, and why has it been freezing
the pension contributions of citizens for several years? Maybe
it is worth consolidating long-term rules that will not change anymore
and that will support citizens’ trust in the pension system?
And is it true that a new pension reform is coming?
Vladimir
Putin: As for the pension system, all the decisions
have been made and written into law, and no changes will be made
there. No new pension reform is being developed or even discussed
in the Government, the Executive Office or anywhere.
Certain
proposals of the Finance Ministry in this area apply only
to [pension] savings, which in fact can be considered investments. We
are simply speaking about their protection.
Dmitry
Peskov: You know, we have not yet given the floor to NTV. He has
almost lost hope. You do not have to introduce yourself.
Vladimir
Kondratyev: Thank you.
Mr
President, I have a question on domestic policy.
The demographic situation, as we know, was complicated this year,
as well as last year, but this year we see a record negative
result. This is connected, of course, primarily with the 1990s, with
the low birth rate. But is it now necessary to make up
for the population decline with an influx of immigrants
from the former Soviet republics, especially from the southern
republics? This does not please a significant part of Russians.
And how
will the current Demography national project help here? Or maybe
the state has other effective measures, for example, simplifying or,
perhaps, easing legislation on granting citizenship
to Russian-speaking compatriots?
Vladimir
Putin: In my opinion, much more can be done concerning
migration.
There
are only two approaches (in the world and in general)
to solving the demographic problem in the world. They are an increase
in the birth rate, natural population growth, and immigration.
In Canada, for example, a whole ministry deals with immigration,
if I am not mistaken. But what do they do? They do not just accept everyone;
they accept people of a certain age, with a certain health
status and level of education. In fact, we also need
to approach migration in this way.
Of course,
it is easier for people who know and respect Russian culture
and who speak Russian to adapt to the situation
in Russia. This is why it is easier, for example,
for Belarusians, Ukrainians and Moldovans, because it is simpler
for them. And the locals take it easier. There are 3 million
Ukrainians living in Russia, and almost the same number came after
the tragic events in Donbass.
It
is more difficult to adapt for those who come, for example, from
Central Asia. What can we do? We have to introduce our education systems,
open Russian language courses, Russian schools and university branches, so
that those who come here feel more comfortable and do not irritate
the locals, which can happen when they see disrespect for our culture
and history. This is not only true for those who come from Central
Asia but also for domestic migrants, for example, from the North
Caucasus.
We
were talking about Chechnya or any other republic, Daghestan,
for example. Some people behave in a way they never would
at home. This can be irritating, but it does not mean we should ban people
from moving around. The economy requires an influx
of immigrants, and the lack of qualified people
in the labour market is an objective factor that holds
the economy back today.
We
must do this smartly, systematically. It is simply necessary that
the people in the Russian regions work there, so that people who
move from one Russian region to another feel comfortable
and at the same time respect local traditions, laws
and rules. I believe this can be done and must be done, if
approached systematically.
Dmitry
Peskov: We have been working for two and a half hours now.
Let
us give Crimea a chance to ask a question. Please stand up.
Stand up and raise your hand. No, not you. Yes, you, young lady, please,
go ahead.
Irina
Ivanchenko: Mr President,
First,
Crimeans are expecting to see you next week in Crimea, where, we
hear, you will be opening a railway across the Crimean Bridge.
Vladimir
Putin: That is right.
Irina
Ivanchenko: My question is about ill children. I am one
of those Russians who start their mornings by sending out text
messages collecting money for sick children’s treatments. I cannot
sit back and watch the televised reports, they tear up my heart
and soul, and it is impossible to live and breathe after
watching them.
Please
tell me whether it is possible to have Russian children treated
and rehabilitated free of charge, without any preliminary conditions
or benefits? Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: First of all, you are aware that healthcare is free
in our country, just like education. There are segments covered
by privately owned healthcare institutions. Therefore, we are talking
about the need for significant changes in primary care, since
people should be able to receive medical assistance free of charge.
This applies to everyone, including children, especially children. This is
what happens in the vast majority of cases.
By the way, I already mentioned that we had significantly
reduced child mortality. This is one way to resolve demographic problems.
I will
get back to your question, as I have something to add
to my answer.
You
mentioned 1999. Look what happened then. I have already mentioned it many
times, and the demographers are well aware of it. We had two
major demographic troughs. It is a horrible thing to say, but
the total birth rate stood at 1.1 in 1943–1944 and 1999,
as if there was a war, the same rate. A major decline,
indeed. We are now haunted by this. Every 20 years, a thin generation
of those born in these years enters adulthood, the childbearing
age, but by definition, there are few of them, both men
and women.
Men
do not give birth to children, women do. Therefore, I want
to share the latest data with you. The number of women aged
20 to 29 has decreased by 4.5 million over the past few years.
These are objective numbers. What we need to do is strive to ensure
that the birth rate increases through second and third births, etc.
We must create proper conditions for people with children, as their
lives are not easy.
If
there are more questions on this, I am ready to answer them. We
have planned a system of measures to support families with
the first child, and maternity capital – we have extended
the legitimate uses of maternity capital – and made changes
to the entitlement criteria for receiving child benefits.
Before, it was one and a half minimum subsistence baskets per family
member to be entitled to the benefit; now we have expanded
to two minimun wages. This will dramatically increase the number
of recipients of this benefit. And there is a package
of benefits. But still, we are looking at what else can be done.
As you know, we have made a decision on mortgages. If
a third child is born, the state immediately gives 450,000 rubles so
the family can apply for a mortgage.
We
added some regions that previously were not included in this support
for families with children, in the Urals and Siberia
(answering questions from our colleagues from Siberia). Now, there too, people
can receive additional support.
I know
this is not enough; we need to generally increase living standards,
on the whole, to achieve growth in wages and people’s
real incomes. The general sentiment, family planning and broader
planning horizons will depend on the economy.
Of course,
we need to make sure that children are treated with special concern,
and we are trying to do just that. With medicines, for example,
we have separated children’s pharmaceuticals into a special category
(which was not the case before). But this is far from the only thing
we have done.
As for charitable
activities such as crowdfunding calls on our leading channels,
projects to help specific children – these calls and projects
cannot be prohibited. Helping even one or two children matters. If this
saves at least one life – it is great, and God will bless you
when you appear before Him; it will be good. Yet, these activities change
little in the bigger picture. What needs to be done is
to improve children's healthcare and bring it to a higher
level; this is true.
Dmitry
Peskov: I see Life News over there.
Vladimir
Putin: Hold on. Domestic violence. Do you want to ask about
the law?
Dmitry
Peskov: Go ahead. The third row in the centre.
Elina
Zhgutova: Good afternoon. Mr President, Mr Peskov and the world
watching us now.
It
turns out that we do not have any problems more pressing today than domestic
violence. The Federation Council drafted a law it posted on its
official site.
And the Federation
Council got more messages from citizens than it gets in one year.
The Russian Orthodox Church is opposed to the draft law, but
families with many children sign along. The LGBT community, feminist
organisations and even the sex workers’ trade union are collecting
signatures to support this law.
You
said now that our demographics, the demography curve went into
a tailspin …
Vladimir
Putin: It is not a tailspin, but a predicted decline,
an obvious trend.
Elina
Zhgutova: We nevertheless say that we must somehow resolve demographic
issues. However, this law contains provisions that allow officials
to enter any family. That is, there is a certain number
of scoundrels and sadists, but forgive me, we are being fed
deliberately overblown numbers. I personally on behalf
of my news agency sent an enquiry to the Interior
Ministry’s Main Information and Analysis Centre and I was given
the numbers that are totally at odds with what we are being fed
by that infamous Anna Centre which is one of the main …
Vladimir
Putin: Your question.
Elina
Zhgutova: Your opinion. Have you read the text and do you think
it will be the last nail in the coffin of our demographics?
It actually containsprovisions for total control over the family.
The question
is, what is your opinion? Have you read the draft law because it is
the biggest… A poll conducted by the Federation Council
shows that the majority of the 11,000 people polled are against
it whereas VTSIOM states that 70 percent of citizens support it. However,
the latter poll does not imply that the respondents read
the draft law whereas the Federation Council poll presupposes it.
People do not breed in captivity, we all know that.
Vladimir
Putin: They do not breed in captivity, that is true.
Elina
Zhgutova: I called it juvenile justice for adults.
Vladimir
Putin: They do breed in captivity– babies are born in prison
and in correctional facilities. But it does not matter. So you want
my opinion, don’t you?
I have
not read the draft law but Valentina Matviyenko briefed me in detail.
What do I think about this matter? I have mixed feelings. One cannot
be forced to love, first and foremost.
In the past
people turned to their trade unions or party committees
and demanded that these organisations bring order to families, rein
in a spouse, mostly men, of course. But I am not aware if
all that had any positive effect. But what I resolutely oppose is any
violence, including in families, and of course, against children
and women.
This
is not just a sign of a very low level of general culture
when a stronger person starts pushing for their rights with fists
and crude physical violence. There is nothing good in it. Actually,
a number of felonies and misdemeanours can be prosecuted by applying
the existing legislative provisions, including hooliganism, battery
and grave bodily harm. All that is provided
for in the current legislation.
But
indeed, you are right in saying that the overwhelming majority, over
70 percent of people support this law. I really do not understand if
they support this law or they are opposed to violence.
Elina
Zhgutova: Of course, exactly.
Vladimir
Putin: I am also opposed to violence, just like those 70 plus
percent of our citizens. Do we need this law? Let us discuss it
reasonably, in public; it must go through this sort of a check.
We must understand what is written in each of its articles, try
to predict the results that would emerge after the adoption
and application of the law, and then take the final
decision.
Dmitry
Peskov: Life News, the right side of the section.
Alexander
Yunashev: Mr President, good afternoon.
On December 31,
half the country, those who do not work shifts, do not work anyway but
only pretend to be working. Perhaps it is time to make this
a day off, for example, instead of a workday
on Saturday? We will have time to prepare for the holiday,
and our wives will thank you, perhaps like your future wife. A year
ago, you said that you are a good man and will marry sometime.
And you are a good man.
Vladimir
Putin: You know, it would be better if your wives thank you. It will
strengthen your family. Family is part of society.
Regarding
a day off on December 31, I think this is of course
logical. I completely agree with your reasoning. This is obvious. But
I am not sure this should be done right now, impulsively,
on the eve of the New Year.
Some
employers have already announced that December 31 is not a workday.
In fact, I cannot but welcome this, if they find it possible. Can we
switch some non-work days for December 31? It is possible. We need
to analyse everything and see if it affects the people who work
in their gardens so we do not take an additional day away from them
in May, when everyone is at their dachas. This can be solved
as a matter of course. We will think about it.
Dmitry
Peskov: Let us hear from RT. We have forgotten about them.
Ilya
Petrenko: Mr President, Mr Peskov, colleagues,
Hello
to everyone. I am Ilya Petrenko from RT. Thank you for this
chance to ask a question.
RT
has a new social project, which is called Not Face to Face,
where my colleagues help solve topical problems in Russia. I can
say that recently we have had a lot of stories related
to the crisis and the lack of vital medicines.
The Health
Ministry cannot agree with the purchasers on pricing, but it tries
to reassure people saying that there are analogues, that everything is
fine. However, we are really into these stories, and it turns out that not
everything is fine; the analogues are often not of the same
quality and people desperately search for medicines
on the internet. This problem exists with various medicines;
I can name two, Prednisolone and Frisium.
By the way,
regarding Frisium, it looks like the problem has been dealt with
in a hands-on manner. However, this medicine still has problems
with registration. Another medicine – Fortum – is next in line.
Problems are cropping up with this as well, and the list goes
on.
Vladimir
Putin: We do not need an endless list. The New Year is fast
approaching.
Ilya
Petrenko: Maybe this is good because, as you know, when people hear
you, they begin to deal with problems quickly after the news
conference as they are haunted by your menacing look. But this is not
the most important thing; most importantly, we need a system-wide solution.
Here is my question. Do you have a system-wide solution to this
problem?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: The government has come up with a number
of solutions, which are being implemented. One of them, which they
themselves believe is very important, is about registering new prices
for medicines during an auction. This change should be implemented
soon. This decision has already been made. I mentioned children's
medicines, and children's prescription drugs have been put on that
list for the first time as well.
With
regard to rare orphan diseases that require a high degree
of subsidising, they are the most expensive, and some
of them are purchased through official channels and some are not.
But, of course, we should not deprive people of the opportunity
to use these medicines, and they need to be registered.
We
must not forget about developing our own pharmaceutical industry. Notably,
the Soviet Union was buying medicines in large quantities mainly from
Eastern Europe, the so-called countries of the people's
democracy. We are currently developing our own pharmaceutical industry.
We
are now exporting our medicines to 90 countries, which is unprecedented.
Since we are exporting them, this means their quality is recognised
as world-class, otherwise nobody would be buying them. I may be
mistaken, but last year we sold over 700 million (780 actually, I think)
of our medicines abroad.
There
are things that need to be approached delicately. People get used
to certain medicines, including foreign ones, and we must keep this
in mind and let people use them. The Ministry of Healthcare
has certain proposals, and I think they will be implemented soon.
I mentioned some of them.
Dmitry
Peskov: I can see a sign saying Ufa. Please stand up, show
yourself. Give them the microphone.
Azat
Gizzatullin: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Azat
Gizzatullin, Bashinform News from Ufa, Bashkortostan.
This
year the republic began to actively fight alcoholism.
In particular, the sale of alcohol was restricted on some
days, such as last school day and September 1.
Today
our parliament adopted a law that restricts the sale of alcohol
during the upcoming New Year holidays. Recently a survey was taken
that showed that two thirds (about 10,000 people) support these restrictive
measures.
There
is another change: we are actively fighting those who sell illegally produced
alcohol, and people can receive a reward for information
on such sellers.
My question
is that perhaps other effective measures are needed to fight this evil,
alcoholism, in addition to the many restrictive measures we
have? This year, thanks to these measures, the republic managed
to save almost 100 lives. This might seem like a small number, but
these are people who were not poisoned by alcohol.
Perhaps
you think other measures are necessary in addition to these
restrictions?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: Such measures are being taken. Look, there has been
in the past years and still is an anti-alcohol campaign
underway. People do not even see it.
Recently
I met with representatives from the German business community
in Sochi; perhaps you saw this. It is noteworthy that, counting pure
alcohol, Russians drink less than Germans. This is the result
of the anti-alcohol campaign. According to World Health
Organisation data, this is one reason that life expectancy in Russia is
growing, and we have reached 73.4 years, which is higher than last year,
and of course this is a notable achievement socially. This is
because people drink less alcohol among other things.
Are
any administrative restrictions necessary, like in the mid-1980s?
This would not hurt, but we should proceed cautiously. Probably we should work
on other areas, explain and give an opportunity to choose
between different types of alcohol, with an emphasis on products
with low alcohol content; I mean wine instead of hard liquor,
for example. By the way, winemaking in Russia is developing
quite impressively and effectively. This is why we have something
to work with here without using further legal restrictions.
The main
thing is we have results.
Dmitry
Peskov: The left section please. I saw Vedomosti. Where is
Vedomosti? Raise your hand please.
Svetlana
Bocharova: Thank you very much.
Good
afternoon, Mr President.
The newspaper
Vedomosti, Svetlana Bocharova, correspondent.
You
have repeatedly said that the state must stay with the freedom
of the internet principle and provide ample opportunity
for the exchange of information. Do you personally think our
state still supports this principle, or are we moving towards some kind
of sovereign internet?
And the second
question. If you think the internet is still free in Russia, what can
you say to the many users who are now afraid to be labelled
foreign agents under the new law?
Vladimir
Putin: A free internet and a sovereign internet are two
concepts that are not mutually exclusive. The law you spoke about has only
one goal: to prevent the negative consequences of Russia’s
possible disconnection from the global network, which is largely governed
from abroad. This is what it is about.
Herein
lies our sovereignty – that we have our own resources we can always keep
operating, so the internet is not cut off from us. The point
of this law is just that. Therefore, no, there are no restrictions,
and we are not moving towards suspending internet access and we will
not do that.
Regarding
individuals who may be recognised as foreign agents. I recently spoke
at a meeting with human rights activists, and I would like
to repeat – we did not invent the term “foreign agent.” This law
has been in force in the US since the 1930s – it was
adopted in 1938 or in 1939 (1938, if I remember correctly)
and it works perfectly.
Recall
a recent case where it was applied to an individual: our citizen
Maria Butina – an individual – was arrested, and locked
in jail without any reason. What kind of agent is she? Nothing
of the kind is being done here. Not even close!
They
put this woman in prison, and even threatened her with a longer
prison term. Come on! There, this foreign agent, or whatever it is, is
punished with a good prison term of up to five years.
And we have only administrative penalties.
As for individuals,
this is what is at stake. When the law was enacted because
of organisations receiving money from abroad that were essentially engaged
in domestic politics, every state – I want to emphasise
this – makes an effort to limit foreign interference
in domestic affairs. Therefore, our law is aimed precisely at that.
If
you receive money from abroad, from foreign sources, in order
to carry out domestic political activity, then just say so: as you
know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. This is folk wisdom.
If
you receive money from abroad, it is not unreasonable to assume that you
are taking orders from those who pay you. But you are still welcome; we do not
ban the organisation. In Russia there is no law prohibiting
the receipt of money from abroad even for domestic political
activity. But you have to at least declare it so that people know
about it.
As for individuals.
Law enforcement practice shows that, a) there are things to pay attention
to and improve to avoid a broad interpretation. This is
the most important thing. Because anything can be called political
and domestic political activity: environmental work and work
in clearly humanitarian areas, including in the healthcare
sector. This cannot be allowed, and law enforcement practice needs
to be improved. And if the law is written so that it allows
this, it also needs to be improved.
But
what did those bodies that were engaged in control over this type
of activity face? When an organisation begins to fall under
the criteria of a foreign agent, what did they start doing?
An individual receives financing from abroad and then transfers
the money to a legal entity, and it turns out that this
legal entity, an organisation, generally does not receive any money from
abroad. But the original source is understood – a foreign one.
This is the only thing this is about.
Dmitry
Peskov: We have not yet covered REN TV. REN TV, go ahead, please.
Andrei Dobrov: Izvestia Multimedia
Information Centre, REN TV, Andrei Dobrov.
Mr
President, a very simple question, and a very short one too. You
were close, but for some reason no one has actually asked over all this
time. It is about increasing people’s welfare. When will this actually happen?
I would really like to know. We have been talking about this,
in general, for a long time. It would be great to finally
see an increase.
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: I have the latest data on all the main
indicators. I understand what you are asking. Indeed, in recent
years, we have seen a decrease in people’s real incomes,
and this is not good. This is one of the problems that we must
certainly resolve, but we must resolve it through higher labour productivity
and GDP growth – this is completely obvious.
This
is where we should channel our efforts, because everything else, including
the distribution of money from our reserve funds or anything
like that will lead nowhere, and the money will quickly run out.
And if the situation in external markets, including oil,
changes, then the source will run out. Therefore, we need to address
fundamental issues of economic development and raise the level
of wages on this basis.
The wage
level has actually grown a little over the past year. Real incomes
are also growing slightly. We have seen this in the third quarter.
But this is not enough, of course.
Again,
we need to work more on this. We have a lot of questions
about salaries in education, and in healthcare. I just
spoke about healthcare in detail – what steps I think need
to be taken there first. We will certainly work on this,
on everything that I have just mentioned.
Dmitry
Peskov: Let us take a question from this side. Let Yamal ask their
question.
Alisa
Yarovskaya: Thank you.
My name
is Alisa Yarovskaya, and Yamal Region is our television channel. You
know, scientists say that one advantage of global warming is that
the Northern Sea Route is expanding. It passes Yamal. This is why
the port of Sabetta is developing now.
Vladimir
Putin: It does not pass Yamal but runs through our territorial waters.
Alisa
Yarovskaya: I agree.
The corresponding
surface infrastructure is developing, including a railway line. But
the bridge across the River Ob has not been mentioned often lately,
and it is very important for us.
Our
Governor, Dmitry Artyukhov, is doing everything possible
for the project to be implemented, but we hear less
and less about it and want to ask if the heavy “federal
artillery” could get involved in this.
Vladimir
Putin: You know, the development of transport infrastructure is
set by plan. The governors, the Russian Government
and the Transport Ministry all come to me with such proposals.
It
would hardly be viable to just take one project out
of the general context. Of course, the bridge you mentioned
is an important infrastructure project, because it contributes
to the development of that region.
The railway
leading to the ports along the Northern Sea Route, as you
have said, is very important for us. This must be synchronised with
the volume of shipment along this route,
and the infrastructure must develop accordingly. We understand
and consider this.
Dmitry
Peskov: Here is a seasoned journalist, Alexander Gamov.
Alexander
Gamov: Thank you very much.
Alexander
Gamov, Komsomolskaya Pravda website, radio and newspaper.
Mr
Putin, you said you were writing an article on international affairs
for Victory Day. Can we count on printing it? You can give it
to Komsomolskaya Pravda and we will print it. We have
a large circulation.
Vladimir
Putin: Yes, of course.
Alexander
Gamov: Good, thank you very much. I will take you up on that.
Here
is my question. Someone already mentioned here that you became Acting
President on December 31, 1999, and spent two decades
on the post of President. I do not think there will be
a separate news conference dedicated to this.
Vladimir
Putin: No, you are mistaken; I was Prime Minister for four
years.
Alexander
Gamov: Prior to that, on August 9.
Vladimir
Putin: No, why? You left out the period when I headed
the Government.
Alexander
Gamov: Do you want to subtract this period?
Vladimir
Putin: The head of state and the head
of government are different positions and different responsibilities.
Alexander
Gamov: I meant that 20 years ago you were appointed Acting President.
Vladimir
Putin: And?
Alexander
Gamov: Can you share with us the most positive and the most
negative moments in your life as President? This is my first
question.
The second
question is that sooner or later, we will have to come up with
a so-called power transition formula. Could you make us part of it,
so that we do not run into a surprise?
Vladimir
Putin: You could be one of the candidates. Of course. Why
not?
Alexander
Gamov: Who can it be, in your opinion? How can all this happen? You
are unlikely to want to change the Constitution, and we do
not want to let you go.
My last
question is that you mentioned the notion of a historical
figure. Can Vladimir Putin already be called a historical figure?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: It is up to the next generations to give
an answer to that question. I do not think that we,
contemporaries, especially I personally, should be answering this
question. In the future, the people will evaluate what has been
done for the country, and maybe something has not been done.
I think that public opinion is the best measure here. It will give
the evaluation in the future.
With
regard to the most outstanding and difficult events,
I already mentioned them: the most difficult are the major
terrorist attacks in Beslan (I will never forget that)
and Dubrovka.
And the most
striking, the most significant ones… We have been talking a lot about
the need to raise the real incomes of the population,
however, we have not completely solved the issue of poverty.
I think we had the lowest level in 2014 – 11.3 percent
of the total population, of the country’s citizens.
The number
has grown a little since then; the figures are not so noticeable but
there are real people behind them. So this is the most important issue we
have to resolve.
But
overall, I want to say that in general if we look at what
the country was like back in the early 2000s and what it is
now – these are almost two different countries. I am not even talking
about security issues.
Truth
be told, we must call things by their names: until 2006 there were combat
hostilities – combat! – in the Caucasus with the use
of tanks, aircraft and other heavy equipment. Do you understand? This
is why I reacted so emotionally to the question
at the meeting with human rights activists when a famous film
director – whom I love and respect a lot – said, why
do we not rewrite everything from the start.
You
remember what I answered. We rewrote everything once in 1917,
and we probably remember the lyrics – “We will destroy this
world of violence down to the foundations, and then
we will build our new world, he who was nothing will become everything.”
And at present we are trying to identify the names
of those who believed this, at the Butovo range and other
sites of mass shootings. This is a very dangerous road.
That
is why we now have internal stability and confidence that the country
will keep progressing in this stable manner. This is probably
the main thing. The economy has changed radically. Yes, we do have
many unresolved issues in the economy, very many,
and the key one is increasing labour productivity
and on this base increasing the economic growth rate.
Yet
this is incomparable to what we had. We now have one
of the lowest foreign debts in the world. And how much
was it then? Inflation stands at 3.25. In the 1990s, it was 200
to 300 percent. Can you imagine? We have forgotten what it was like. This
is a totally different economy.
This
foundation will let us resolve issues of ensuring our security. Take
the Armed Forces, what have they become now? And let us recall
the public sentiment when officers had their caps swept off in public
transport. Have we forgotten that too? But this is what we had, and quite
recently too.
And then
it turned out that the state cannot be without the armed forces.
And I believe we are all proud of the level of our
Armed Forces. They have become one of the world’s most hi-tech
forces.
All
this combined, in my view, is not my achievement alone but our
common achievement. Because what the Russian people and other peoples
of the Russian Federation went through from the 1990s
to early 2000s can be called a feat in itself.
Dmitry
Peskov: Now our Japanese colleagues, Kyodo Tsushin. Here they are. Go
ahead, please.
Hirofumi
Sugizaki: Thank you, Mr Peskov.
Good
afternoon, Mr Putin. Hirofumi Sugizaki from Kyodo Tsushin Japanese
news agency.
My question
to you is not about the islands, but about your attitude, about your
vision, your view of nuclear war. You mentioned that the US is
reluctant, at least for now, to extend START-3. When this treaty
expires, there will be nothing to deter us from a new arms race and,
possibly, an upcoming nuclear war.
What
do you think?
Vladimir
Putin: Curse the tongue that says it. An ‘upcoming nuclear war.’
What are you saying?
Hirofumi
Sugizaki: But nowadays we are seriously concerned, although we are well
aware that you are trying hard to at least maintain the status
quo, urging the United States to keep up the moratorium
and so on. However, you often warn of a mirror response. This
sounds very scary to me. I think that trying to win
a nuclear war is unacceptable and morally undue. What do you think
about this?
I understand
that armies do need to periodically modernise their equipment
and weapons, but still there is the concept of sufficiently
reasonable. This concept should help maintain a strategic balance.
I think that probably, someday, in the near future, you will
come forth with a comprehensive peace initiative. Maybe you are
considering an opportunity to do this from Hiroshima?
Please,
as I represent Japan, I will never be forgiven if I do not
ask you about it. Recently, our peace treaty talks came
to a standstill. One of the reasons for this is
Russia’s concern about the Security Treaty between the US
and Japan. You have repeatedly spoken out on this subject, so
I will not repeat or go into any detail. Recently, because
the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) has expired,
this has affected our relations because you have repeatedly said that
the United States and Japan are discussing the possibility
of deploying such missiles in Japan. On the other hand, you
told us in Sochi that you are helping China to develop a unique
early warning system. So we get the impression that Russia and China
already have if not a military alliance, very close allied relations
in the military technical field, as you put it. Please tell me
if a block confrontation is already emerging with Northeast Asia –
with Japan, the US and South Korea on the one hand,
and Russia and China on the other.
And in this
current situation, is it possible for us – Japan
and Russia – to find a compromise for mutual
understanding, for mutual trust, so that we could sign a peace treaty
in the future? Thank you very much.
Vladimir
Putin: As for military cooperation between Japan
and the United States, you have right now practically answered this
question yourself. We are not the ones who said that the United
States was in negotiations with Japan over the deployment of its
medium-range missiles. This news was reported by Japanese and American
sources. How can we possibly fail to ignore this, including
in the context of the islands issue? Are there any
guarantees that tomorrow new American offensive weapon systems will not be
deployed on these islands? Where are these guarantees? There is no way we
could fail to discuss this subject. It seems to me that elementary
formal logic suggests this.
Could
we still be looking for a solution? We could. And we are doing
this jointly with the current Japanese authorities. We have good
trust-based relations with them and we are discussing all this
in detail and honestly. Have we found a solution? Not yet. But,
most importantly, I also spoke about this, we want to find one. This
can be any solution. As I already mentioned some time ago,
and my Japanese friends liked it, this should be a hikiwake – a draw –
which is a term used in judo.
Is
it possible to find a solution that the public will agree with?
We have been looking for it for 70 years and have not found it
yet. But we are ready to move further in this direction.
As for alliances,
we do not have a military alliance with China and we do not plan
to create one. But we see that East Asia is seeking to forge
a military alliance, as well as some other countries, you have
just named them all – the United States, Japan and South
Korea – and we believe this to be counter-productive,
as this does not bode well.
We
are developing cooperation with China in the field of defence
technology, among other things. Today, China is also a high-technology
country but there are certain projects that take up a great deal
of time to implement. I believe China is capable
of creating a missile early warning radar system on its own but,
with our help, it will do this faster. This system will add new quality
to the defence capability of our strategic partner.
But
this is not an offensive weapons system. You named it correctly
and I was really surprised when you did so – surprised
to hear you refer to it correctly. This is a missile early
warning radar system, which means the system works when you are being attacked.
It is true that this is a purely defensive system and so far, only
the United States and Russia have systems like this. I would
like to repeat that this system does not encourage aggression and is
intended to protect one’s own territory.
Let
us ask another of your colleagues – from the BBC. They are so
fond of us, we really should give them the floor. I am eagerly
anticipating your question. Please, go ahead.
Steve
Rosenberg: I am Steve Rosenberg from BBC News.
Mr
President, Boris Johnson said different things about you. At one time, he
called you a merciless tyrant. He even compared you with Dobby from
a Harry Potter book. What do you think of him? What is your
impression of him? How do you think relations between our countries –
the UK and Russia – will change after Brexit?
Now
that people in the UK are waiting for the parliamentary
report on Russia’s alleged interference in political processes
in the country to be released, we hope, maybe, you will tell us
all about it. Has Russia interfered or is it interfering in UK
policy? Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: Regarding statements by different politicians in various
countries about Russia and about myself as the head
of state, you see, I have long got used to having a certain
attitude towards them. What kind of attitude is it? I know where
my country’s interests lie. And whatever anyone might say to me,
it has absolutely no relevance compared to the fundamental tasks
Russia is interested in solving. (Applause.)
Nevertheless,
we see, understand, hear and factor this in in our work. But
I would like to make a small remark. It is one matter when
a person speaks as he is striving for a position
of power, and a different matter when he speaks being vested
with that power. He has on his shoulders a responsibility for his
country, the economy and so forth.
I think
that with account of Brexit, which you mentioned, Great Britain is
interested in developing economic ties with us. This view is also
expressed by UK businesspeople who work in Russia and whom we
consider to be our friends, not just partners but friends. Because they
are investors who come, invest money in our economy and create jobs.
We appreciate it and do everything to support them so that they can
feel at home here.
Are
there any other areas of common interest? There are. Quite recently we
discussed with some European colleagues the possibility of engaging
Britain in solving and discussing issues
on the international agenda that have been voiced here too.
I will not list them again. And Britain is interested in having
a more active part in resolving them, including with Russia.
Regarding
interference or non-interference. We keep on hearing numerous
assessments of the developments in Russia from official bodies
of power in different countries, including the UK. You yourself
spoke about that now. Is that interference or not? You express your
position on what is going on in our country. We reserve
the right to behave similarly with regard to you. If you think
it is interference, keep thinking it. But I do not believe it has anything
to do with interference.
Concerning
what is happening now. We can congratulate Mr Johnson as he is ultimately
the winner. He had a better grasp of the sentiments
in British society than his rivals, and that is why he won.
I understand he is set to pursue all his plans regarding Brexit.
Dmitry
Peskov: There was a question about agriculture here
at the very top. Raise your hand, please. Go ahead.
Vladimir
Putin: Siberia.
Marina
Sevostyanova: Good afternoon, Mr President. Agriculture.
Vladimir
Putin: Where are you?
Marina
Sevostyanova: I am here, in the centre. Svetich Agrarian
Media Holding. My name is Marina Sevostyanova. We have been participating
in the news conference since 2007 and we always try to ask
questions related to our sector, agriculture. In 2007, we were
the first to bring over a poster with our name. As you see,
the tradition took on.
Our
question is the following. The readers of our magazine Niva
Rossii and the newspaper Agrozhizn are concerned about
the issues of support for upgrading the fleet of farm
equipment.
Which
priorities can you name? For example, the 1432 Programme is about
subsidies for machine builders, federal leasing and cheap loans. Will
financing be added? Is it possible to keep in place
the instruments in this area for the next few years, since
they are quite effective anyway? Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: I will not enumerate all these instruments because you spoke
so confidently about this, which may mean that you know all of them.
I believe we should use leasing more actively. It is a flexible
instrument that allows our farmers to work on the domestic
market and to promote their products abroad.
There
are certain benefits, including within the framework of these
instruments, such as the protection of our producers
on the market, especially when it comes to purchasing under
national programmes. We will definitely preserve these instruments.
Some
of our EAEU partners aspire to become part of these
state-subsidised acquisition programmes. In fact, this is partly taking
place, but we nevertheless believe that domestic producers must have certain
advantages. You know already about these advantages. Russian producers stand
to gain even if prices go up a notch.
Some
sectors use the ‘odd man out’ rule – I will not waste time
trying to explain it; I believe it is clear to everyone.
In other words, all these programmes, come what may, will definitely
continue; none of them will be curtailed. In terms of support,
the biggest allocations go to agriculture, including agricultural
engineering.
Dmitry
Peskov: Mr President, it has been three and a half hours.
Vladimir
Putin: I can see over there “Siberia Is Suffocating.”
Yekaterina
Nadolskaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Yekaterina Nadolskaya, Russia
News. I am from Siberia, but I live in St Petersburg now. First
of all, I would like to thank you for the Universiade.
It was unbelievable, our athletes are the best. Even despite
the ill-wishers throwing mud at us, we have proved that we are
the very best.
However,
I would like to say a few words about life after
the Universiade. As you know, Krasnoyarsk Territory is top
of the list when it comes to air pollution.
Vladimir
Putin: The city of Krasnoyarsk, not Krasnoyarsk Territory.
Yekaterina
Nadolskaya: Yes, Krasnoyarsk, but the people of Krasnoyarsk
Territory are not breathing easily either. They were suffocating from smoke
from the forest fires last summer, but they are also choking due
to toxic smog all year round. You probably felt it when you visited
the Universiade.
Vladimir
Putin: Yes, I did.
Yekaterina
Nadolskaya: You are aware then that many factories are located within city
limits in Krasnoyarsk. People hold demonstrations to point out that
they are suffocating, many die – a third cancer centre is being built
in Krasnoyarsk, yet the authorities do not seem to see
the problem. Will any measures be taken to prevent a repetition
of last summer’s inferno?
Since
I live in St Petersburg, I would like to ask you about
the Botkin Hospital. Dmitry Medvedev said recently that doctors should not
have to practice in a barn. What is the Botkin Hospital,
which is situated in the city centre and which
the authorities have been promising to repair for several years
now, if not a barn? Here are some pictures: broken glass, mice
and cockroaches. And the doctors who are trying to help
people there are paid 25,000–30,000 rubles. The authorities have promised
to reconstruct the hospital, but nothing is being done. There is no
infrastructure, only swans made of old car tires. And this is
in the centre of the city. Foreigners love to take
photos against these swans. Can anything be done to change this? We are
talking about the centre of St Petersburg. Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: I know that the situation there is not good, dismal even.
I do not know about the specific renovation plans
for the Botkin Hospital. It is one of the oldest medical
institutions in the city, I am well aware of this.
I will definitely talk to the Governor about it. But I do
not know whether the Botkin Hospital is included in one of our
projects that we talked about today, as a primary care institution,
or as part of the development of healthcare
as a whole under the National Project. But I assure you,
I will certainly discuss the situation with the Governor.
In addition
to this hospital, St Petersburg has other world-class medical centres
like, for example, the Almazov Centre. But this does not mean that,
while respecting those who work at the Almazov centre, we can neglect
those institutions where the situation is less favourable. I will
definitely talk to my colleagues about it, I promise you. This
is the first point.
The second
concerns the environmental situation in Siberia and several
other regions. Yes, indeed, the situation there is far from perfect.
As for the wildfires,
we have indeed had a lot this year. What is worse, they occur in such
places, I have to say, where it is very difficult to fight them:
to begin with, it is an over 600-kilometre flight. Do you see what we
have to deal with? It is a vast country. But the smoke emanates
from there, and with the wind blowing in the direction
of big cities, it easily reaches the cities, and it is hard
to do anything about it.
Unfortunately,
as a rule, all these fires are provoked by human activity; they
are the result of illegal logging or even legal activities,
where people believe they need to dispose of some industrial waste
this way. Even in everyday life, people often burn grass, leaves,
and so on. We need to work more often and more purposefully with
people on this subject to prevent such situations.
We
also need to improve the forest protection system, and we will
do it now. We will partly transfer these responsibilities
to the federal level, including, first of all, air-based forest
protection, control and forest management – these functions will be
returned to the federal level.
Incidentally,
although forests take up a large area in Russia in per hectare
terms, we are not the champions in this respect, ranking third after
Canada and the United States. This does not mean we are doing so
well – the problem is still there, but I mean it is typical
for many countries, Russia included. Last year, we finally curbed some
of the last wildfires in December, but in February, they
flared up in other places – we have to do it non-stop,
unfortunately, and this problem also has to do with climate change,
among other factors. I spoke about this at the beginning
of our meeting.
As regards
environmental problems, you know that we are implementing – we have
adopted a law on introducing modern technologies, something called
BAT – the best available technology. At the first stage,
300 enterprises that have the greatest negative impact
on the environment are required to adopt appropriate renovation
programmes. This work is ongoing; 12 companies have had their programmes
approved. Their effort has been recognised as meeting
the requirements. I know this is not enough. The remaining
companies of those 300, with the biggest emissions, will continue
working on it.
Dedicated
programmes were adopted for the twelve cities that face the most
appalling conditions, including Krasnoyarsk. In these locations,
industrialists will have to defend their development plans. The heads
of the corresponding regions are also expected to play
a role in this process.
There
should be a plan of this kind for Krasnoyarsk as well. Let
me assure you that we are keeping this matter on our radars, and we
will work hard on it. This will be one of the national
priorities in the near future.
Dmitry
Peskov: I suggest that we turn to Tatarstan. You have recently
visited this republic.
Vladimir
Putin: Let us have a question on veterans.
Dmitry
Peskov: A question on veterans and then Tatarstan.
Sergei
Komkov: Mr Putin,
We
are now preparing to mark the 75th anniversary
of Victory. As you are well aware, this is a major celebration.
Dmitry
Peskov: May I ask you to please introduce yourself?
Sergei
Komkov: Sergei Komkov, Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper President,
and also President of the National Education Foundation, and your
authorised representative during the 2000 election campaign.
I have
just returned from Krasnodar Territory where our newspaper carried out
a journalistic investigation on the situation regarding veterans
of the Great Patriotic War, including disabled war veterans. We
unearthed horrendous facts about the conditions these veterans live
in in Krasnodar Territory in general and specifically
in Sochi.
Sochi
built special retirement homes for veterans to mark the 60th anniversary
of Victory. Today, these buildings have turned into slums
or poorhouses. Veterans live there as if they were homeless,
and the buildings are falling apart. Today, the city authorities
are not only neglecting these properties, but also use them to their
advantage. They earn money by housing outsiders there, which means that
they operate a profitable business, while the veterans are suffering.
They
came to the President newspaper’s editorial office
and complained about their lives. At the same time,
the city administration in Sochi is demolishing buildings that are
well-built and in good condition, simply destroying them, while
developers and investors in the city are saying, “We are ready
to provide veterans with marvellous, well-equipped flats in these
buildings, including disabled war veterans, while it would make more sense
demolishing the slums in order to make room for new
housing.”
In doing
so, the city authorities in Sochi are referring to your
instructions. I told locals who came to see me
at my Editorial Office as Editor-in-Chief that I would
never believe that the President of Russia could issue
an instruction that would be at odds with the Constitution, defy
common sense and run counter to the interests of veterans,
including disabled war veterans. I think that you would agree with me.
I believe
that it is high time that order be restored and high-handed officials
in Sochi and Krasnodar Territory in general be brought
to their senses.
Second,
Mikhail Shchetinin’s unique school has been closed down and is about
to be liquidated in Krasnodar Territory. You supported this
institution back in 2010 when you issued an instruction to this
effect. This is one of the best schools Russia has in terms
of teaching patriotic values to the new generation
of Russians. This school was part of the UNESCO Associated
Schools Network.
This
school is being destroyed by officials from Krasnodar Territory’s
Education Ministry, with support from the federal Education Ministry. They
literally hounded Mikhail Shchetinin to death. He passed away
on November 10, and now they are destroying his school. Russian
Federation Human Rights Commissioner Tatyana Moskalkova and all
the human rights activists have become involved in this process.
Dmitry
Peskov: Would you be so kind, your question, please?
Sergei
Komkov: My question is simple. Is it not high time we put an end
to all the outrages perpetrated by Krasnodar officials
and put things right over there. For our part, we,
as journalists, will monitor this process. The results of our
journalistic investigation have been submitted to the Prosecutor
General’s Office and the investigative agencies. And we will
send them to you so that relevant measures are taken.
Mr
Putin, I think we must put things right and do whatever we can
for our veterans and those who educate our future rising generations,
future patriots of our country, so that they do not suffer from outrages
committed by officials, whom you rightly described at the 19th Congress
of the United Russia party as certain elements, who should be
got rid of at the right time. Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: Outrages, if they occur somewhere, must be eliminated, and not
only in Krasnodar Territory, but wherever they occur, everywhere.
As for the veterans’
homes you have mentioned, I certainly know nothing about it. I do not
interfere in city development projects, even in such big
and interesting cities as Sochi. I simply know nothing about
this. This is why you were right in saying that I am ignorant
of this matter.
At the same
time, I will make a point of talking about it with Venyamin
Kondratyev, the Governor of Krasnodar Territory, and I will
discuss the school with him as well – what is happening there. It
is, of course, the first time I hear about it, too.
Well,
as for cutting short outrages in Sochi, I think this is
quite possible and must be done as soon as possible, if there
are any violations, especially with regard to veterans and especially
ahead of the 75th anniversary of Victory. We
have replaced the mayor there quite recently and an entirely new
person has stepped in. We will certainly instruct him based on your
materials, thank you very much for this.
There
is a woman sitting quietly over there, “Building Bridges.”
Sergei
Komkov: Mr Putin, do you remember when you were running
for President, you published an article titled
“In the First Person?” Later I wrote a book titled In the Third
Person. Notes by the President’s Authorised Representative. I would
like to give it to you.
Vladimir
Putin: Thank you very much. They will take it now.
Please,
what bridges are you building? Please, pass on the microphone.
Olga
Fedorova: Good afternoon.
Samara
State Television and Radio Company. My name is Olga Fedorova.
It
is common knowledge that rivers divide, while bridges make us closer.
A project to build a bridge across the Volga near Klimovka
in Samara Region has been launched quite recently. You have supported this
project. The bridge is being built from Klimovka on one side
to Togliatti, on the other. We understand what this means
for Samara. It is part of the Europe-Western China international
transport corridor. In general, how will this project influence interstate
cooperation?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: It will influence it in the best possible way, because,
despite growing trade with China, despite the fact that we have
the biggest volume of trade with our fraternal –
in the direct sense of the word – republics
of the former USSR and now independent states, infrastructure
development is clearly inadequate.
I have
already commented on this: we have, regrettably, fallen behind our friends
in Kazakhstan. They have built their stretch of the road
to China. We must do our part of the job. And we will
certainly do it, including with regard to the bridge you have
mentioned.
The “Heroes
of Byelorussia” are over there. Let us go back to this, especially
since we have just talked about the 75th anniversary
of Victory. Go ahead, please.
Ivan
Afanasyev: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Thank
you very much for the opportunity to ask this question. First
of all, I would like to thank you…
Dmitry
Peskov: Could you introduce yourself, please?
Ivan
Afanasyev: Ivan Afanasyev, I represent Selmashevets from
Gomel, Belarus.
Dmitry
Peskov: What is your media outlet?
Ivan
Afanasyev: Selmashevets is what the newspaper is called, it is
affiliated with the Gomselmash holding company, which hopes
to continue its work on the Russian market. I believe there
will be enough work for both our friends from Rostov
and for Gomselmash.
Vladimir
Putin: Incidentally, our friends, Belarusian producers, sell a lot
of their equipment on the Russian market, and Rostselmash
is unable to sell even one piece of farming machinery
on the Belarusian market.
Ivan
Afanasyev: Mr President, there is a universal solution that has not
been made public yet. My father headed the Gomselmash production
association for 15 years, from 1972 until 1987. And today’s
Gomselmash, as you know it, is the result of his work. If you do
not mind, we will send this proposal to the executive offices
of the Belarusian and Russian Presidents.
Vladimir
Putin: Please, send it to them and to us.
Ivan
Afanasyev: But, first of all, allow me to thank you
for your history-making decision of February 2018, when you signed
an executive order on awarding the Order of Zhukov
to Major General Alexander Lizyukov, Commander of the 5th Tank
Army, who is my grandfather. Thank you very much for this.
Vladimir
Putin: Congratulations on your grandfather, you have good genes.
Ivan
Afanasyev: Thank you, Mr President.
Vladimir
Putin: Is that all?
Ivan
Afanasyev: I have not finished yet.
Vladimir
Putin: Let the colleague say, please.
Ivan
Afanasyev: Mr President, first of all, allow me to invite you
to the city of Gomel, where a monument to Alexander
Lizyukov and his two brothers was unveiled this year. This is
the result of citizens’ diplomacy. We create these monuments when
monuments are being desecrated outside Belarus and Russia, and when
false heroes are being placed on the pedestal.
I know
that you must visit Belarus, which probably sustained the greatest
casualties during World War II in percentage to the population.
And I strongly hope that you and Alexander Lukashenko will find
time to pay tribute to the heroes of Gomel, those three
brothers who gave their lives.
And here
is another related question dealing with this matter. The public in Gomel
Region and Voronezh Region have suggested holding a regional meeting
of the leaders of those regions in the Russian
Federation and the Republic of Belarus, where the heroic
Gomel residents fought.
The administration
of Gomel Region supported this idea and initiative. The leaders
of Moscow, St Petersburg, Smolensk and Novgorod Region made this
proposal prior to unveiling the monument.
We
will voice this initiative once again, but if you support it, I believe
that it will become highly probable that this initiative will be implemented
next year, when we will mark Alexander Lizyukov’s 120th birthday
in March. We ask you to support this initiative. This is
the first thing.
Second,
allow me to present to you a book on Alexander Lizyukov. It
will remind you of the person whom you brought back from historical
oblivion. You have restored tremendous historical justice and reinstated
this name in the great history of the Great Victory.
Vladimir
Putin: Thank you. Let me have the book, please. Thank you
for the book and for your initiative. We will certainly
consider it.
That
young woman over there, will you please stand up?
Dmitry
Peskov: Please give the book to the colleague who handed
you the microphone.
Vladimir
Putin: Miss, take the microphone, please.
Wait
a second, we will get to the Jews.
Dmitry
Peskov: The young woman in a yellow top, just raise your
hand and stand still, and someone will come over to you.
Vladimir
Putin: Please, I am listening.
Farida
Jafarova: Hello, Mr Putin.
I am
very nervous. You probably noticed my poster “Yekaterinburg loves You!”
Vladimir
Putin: Yes, I caught sight of it.
Farida
Jafarova: We desperately need a metro system.
Vladimir
Putin: Please, introduce yourself.
Farida
Jafarova: My name is Farida Jafarova, FREEPRESSA, a web edition.
Mr
Putin, we need a metro system really badly. Please help us to build
one.
Vladimir
Putin: Where?
Farida
Jafarova: In Yekaterinburg!
Please
help us to build a second metro line.
Vladimir
Putin: Yekaterinburg is rapidly developing and emerging
as an increasingly modern city. Of course, its infrastructure
needs developing.
Some
time ago now, it was decided that projects of this kind should be
implemented based on regional capabilities and resources, but this is
impossible. Therefore, these projects should be implemented jointly with
the federal authorities and with federal support.
We
were talking quite recently about similar plans to develop a metro
system in Krasnoyarsk, where a metro system started to be built
but subsequently the project was abandoned and frozen.
As a first step, this must be done there, but I have no doubt
that this type of transport will be of vital importance
and popular in Yekaterinburg. What is really needed is to simply
work with the authorities, the regional authorities,
in the right manner. We will certainly do this.
It
is hard to see. A question on women, please. You are next, all
right? Settled.
Marina
Volynkina: I am Marina Volynkina, from the Eurasian Women’s
Community.
Mr
Putin, numerous women’s fora have been held in Russia and elsewhere
in recent years. These in effect show the world the huge,
constructive, powerful female energy that really exists and is supported
by the leaders of many countries, including our own country.
A female
G20 has been established. Valentina Matviyenko has held two Eurasian Women’s
Forums. This is, of course, an astounding force, which shows that
women are creating the economy and are implementing many striking
social projects and initiatives.
But
primarily, of course, women are making peace; I mean they are
establishing the communications that are highly needed for you, men,
to find it easier and more comfortable to pursue economic,
political and social policies.
My question
to you, Mr Putin, is this. As a strategist, politician
and an incredible man with an astonishing charisma, do you think
that a woman could at some point assume the office
of the President of Russia? If you do, what qualities should she
possess?
Thank
you very much.
Vladimir
Putin: In terms of governance and responsibility
for the country and its people, these requirements cannot be
distinguished by some gender standards; the requirements are
the same – competence, decency, and so on.
But
women do introduce a certain feminine vibe into politics – less
aggressive, I think. This will certainly be needed.
Dmitry
Peskov: Mr Putin, do you know what suggestion I have? I saw
a journalist from Estonia around here.
Vladimir
Putin: Just a minute. I promised. Please bring
the microphone over there.
Dmitry
Peskov: Please fetch the mike to the centre.
Vladimir
Shakhidjanyan: I can speak without a mike. Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: Good.
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: Good afternoon, Mr Putin.
My name
is Vladimir Shakhijanyan.
Vladimir
Putin: Good afternoon, Mr Shakhijanyan.
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: Half of this room are my pupils. Some of them
were trained at the Moscow University’s School of Journalism,
where I taught for 35 years, some were even using my method
to make children, population… There was a multi-million print-run of…
Vladimir
Putin: Don’t we all use the same method? (Laughter)
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: No, my book, One Thousand and One Questions
about This, was published in a multi-million print-run. It is about
culture, upbringing, that one child in a family is not enough, but
two or three is fine.
Vladimir
Putin: Wonderful.
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: I continue to receive many letters. I need
your support.
And lastly,
about my ten-finger typing programme called SOLO: Touch Typing Tutor.
You spoke about labour efficiency and digitalisation. I am grateful
to Mr Minnikhanov and Mr Gref. These two people have supported me
and have introduced my programme in Tatarstan
and at Sberbank.
Besides,
I have three files of unbelievable cursory replies. As your
namesake, Vladimir Mayakovsky, wrote, “I’d rip out bureaucracy’s guts.”
I need your help, so that ministries and agencies, doctors, teachers,
police officers and FSB staff take care of their eyes and learn
touch typing – Mr Peskov knows about this programme, or at least
he heard about it. This will improve labour efficiency five- or six-fold.
And lastly,
I wrote a book, which is now available online, about giving up smoking.
It is one of our biggest problems. We must fight smoking. Personally,
I smoked for 55 years, but I quit 11 years ago.
By the way, I was in Leningrad during the siege,
I went to the Luch cinema in Baskov Lane,
and I remember everything very well.
Vladimir
Putin: It is no coincidence that he is talking about this. I used
to go there too.
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: Of course.
Vladimir
Putin: I lived nearby.
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: If we resolve the problem of tobacco smoking
in the country, we will have fewer problems with cancer, pneumonia,
blood and liver diseases, birth disorders, infertility and very many
other problems, because smoking affects everything.
I tried
Veronika Skvortsova. Mr Gref wrote to her asking her to meet with me.
Vladimir
Putin: What did you try to do with Ms Skvortsova?
Vladimir
Shakhijanyan: I tried to meet with her. You can see what
I mean, which is nice. If you understand me, other people will probably
understand me as well.
All
the very best and thank you. Good luck and happiness.
Vladimir
Putin: Thank you very much.
Dmitry
Peskov: Let us go on. Mr President, I saw a journalist from
Estonia here. Is he with us? Please, stand up. There was a journalist from
Estonia. So, it is Sputnik. Sputnik is a media outlet that is being
harassed in Estonia.
Vladimir
Putin: Harassed? Really?
Yelena
Chernysheva: Good afternoon.
Yes,
Mr President, harassed. Two months ago, Sputnik Estonia became the target
of an economic blockade. Citing sanctions, local banks prohibited all
and any money transfers to the accounts of our staff
and contractors, as well as to the tax department.
The transfer of our taxes has been suspended, and the money
cannot reach the addressee. Special services have talked with our
leaseholder and forced him to terminate our lease contract.
And lastly,
two days ago our personnel received letters from the police informing them
that Rossiya Segodnya is on the sanctions list
and that therefore all its personnel can be held criminally liable. We
have been notified that sanctions will be applied to us, starting
January 2, unless we terminate our employment contracts with Rossiya
Segodnya.
I believe
that this is unacceptable for a country that claims to be
a democracy. I am asking you for help. What can the Russian
state do for Russian journalists who are fighting against Western
censorship? And, please, what is your assessment of the Estonian
authorities’ actions?
Vladimir
Putin: Regrettably, there is not much we can do. I think that you are
doing a great deal. The situation you have described cannot go
unnoticed. When I hear about such events, I am at a loss
what to think. Because while demonising us and accusing us
of putting pressure on independent media outlets, they themselves are
doing exactly what they are accusing us of doing. This is unbelievable
cynicism.
Unfortunately,
I have to tell you that acting on the state level
and imposing restrictions and the like would be ineffective. All
this would do is play into the hands of those who want to drive
our countries and our peoples apart. We will not assist them in any
way. As unpleasant as it may be, you have to find a way
to work in countries that are afraid of your reporting, afraid
of you and the truth that you deliver to your viewers
and listeners. Otherwise, I do not see any reason for being
afraid of your reporting or the influence you may have
on the minds of the people.
Freedom
of information is one of the fundamental freedoms
in today’s democratic world. Unfortunately, not everyone wants
to operate within this paradigm, guided by other rules that they
write themselves.
There
is nothing we can do about it. The world is complex and diverse.
As far as we are concerned, we will do everything to support you
no matter where you are, but we will use the available methods that do not
interfere with Russia’s interstate relations.
We
will see what else can be done here.
Dmitry
Peskov: Mr Putin, we have been working for four hours now.
I suggest that we have two more questions before we wrap up.
Vladimir
Putin: Quiet please.
Let
us have a question from the Land of Volunteers.
Laura
Miziyeva: Hello,
The AZERROS
multi-ethnic project. My name is Laura, and I represent
the My Yediny! [We Stand United] news portal.
Mr
Putin, in 2020 Russia will mark National Unity Day for the 15th time.
On this day, we celebrate the many generations of our ancestors
who made it possible for us to come together on this day. What
we have today is the legacy of our wise ancestors who sacrificed
their lives to this cause. It is thanks to their efforts that today’s
youth understands what it means to have a united country.
Mr
Putin, thousands of people get a chance to attend a My Yediny! free
concert titled on November 4 every year. It has been held for 15
years now. The kind words you said about our project
at the Territory of Meanings forum was the most gratifying
reward we could dream of. What could be better? Only your personal presence
at the 15th annual concert we will have
at the MTC-Arena next year. We also invite all the guests from
this room to join us. You will see what the young people
of Putin’s generation are capable of.
Here
is my question: Mr Putin, what do you think about youth initiatives
of this kind?
And,
I almost forgot to ask you how we can arrange your visit. Who should
we talk to?
Vladimir
Putin: Arrange what?
Laura
Miziyeva: Your visit.
Vladimir
Putin: The boss is here, you can talk to him.
We
do support all initiatives of this kind and we will keep doing so.
The volunteer movement is gaining momentum in Russia, with millions
of people involved. This is simply incredible. As you well know,
I have recently met with volunteers in Moscow. We will support this
movement in every possible way, and in various areas. This
includes veterans, helping veterans, sick children, ensuring that rights are
respected in healthcare, construction and cleaning up territories.
For example,
only recently, I think it was yesterday, we discussed this subject.
Someone, I think it was the Russian Popular Front or some other
organisation proposed cleaning up the banks of the Volga River.
A million people showed up. They expected to have people
in the tens of thousands, but almost a million came with
900,000 people cleaning up this territory. These are real efforts. We will definitely
promote initiatives of this kind.
As for my schedule,
you can ask him. Agreed?
There
was a question on pensions, go ahead please.
Yulia
Izmaylova: Good afternoon.
Yulia
Izmailova, Molodoi Leninets newspaper, Penza.
Mr
Putin, pensioners are worried: the federal law on pensions stipulates
indexation of benefits ahead of the inflation level only until
2024. What will happen after that? Who could guarantee them further indexation?
Would Russia have to raise the retirement age again?
Vladimir
Putin: No. I have already said that no further increases
in retirement age are planned or even discussed.
As for the recent reform, it has not affected those people who
are already retired in any way. The only way it had to do with
them was the government’s effort to increase their incomes –
pensions – faster. For example, next year, pensions are to grow
by 6.6 percent, and inflation, as I said, is 3.25,
for now at least. This means pensions will be indexed
by a margin that is twice the inflation rate. This
to a certain extent fulfils our earlier promises to retired
Russians. And pensions will continue to be indexed after
the period that you mentioned.
Dmitry
Peskov: There was Altai somewhere in the back. Altai, stand up,
please, and raise your hand, you will be given the floor.
And no,
we are not ignoring Daghestan.
Emina
Kudachina: I have this question. Good afternoon, Mr Putin. I am
so nervous, I am sorry. I was told yesterday that issues that could
not be streamlined in 30 years get resolved in 30 seconds here.
This
is the question I have. There is only one school in one city
in the Altai Republic for ethnic Altai children, where they are
taught their native Altai language properly. The school was founded
exactly 30 years ago, but it is housed in a rented building. They
promise all the time that they will build a school, its own building,
but it has not been done yet.
So,
my question is actually a request. Please help us with the Altai
school construction. Thank you.
Vladimir
Putin: Do you mean the Altai Republic?
Emina
Kudachina: Yes.
Vladimir
Putin: The Altai language is classified as one
of the most ancient Turkic languages. In fact, it largely formed
the basis for all other Turkic languages. Not even largely, but
almost by 100 percent. And in general, I think, we should
pay much more attention to the study of ethnic cultures,
customs, and languages. So if your school is dilapidated, especially
a school that teaches an ethnic language, it is certainly
unacceptable.
You
just told me, help us save and restore the school. I promise you
we will do it.
Dmitry
Peskov: This was the final question.
Vladimir
Putin: Please give the floor to that young woman standing with
the Family poster.
Dmitry
Peskov: Please raise your hand, so that the staff would see you.
Farida
Rustamova: Good afternoon.
Thank
you for this chance to ask my question.
My name
is Farida Rustamova, and I am a correspondent with the BBC
Russian Service.
Here
is my question. Four years ago, when my colleagues asked you about
your relationship to your younger daughter, Yekaterina Tikhonova, you said
that your children “do not engage in business or politics, just keep
a low profile”. But the situation has changed since then, to say
the least.
The company Innopraktika,
headed by Yekaterina Tikhonova and established by a state
budgetary institution of Lomonosov Moscow State University, earned 500
million rubles in 2018.
Nomeko,
a company in which your older daughter Maria Vorontsova has
a stake, is currently building one of the largest clinics
in Leningrad Region using Sogaz funding.
Your
old friends, managers of state companies, are helping these two women with
their business operations. We can see that television channels have started
showing them very often. Everyone knows them and what they look like
today. This is an open secret.
Here
is my question: Tell me, please, when will you admit that they are your
children, and when will they open themselves to society, just like
the children of other world leaders?
Vladimir
Putin: You have just spoken about business-linked matters and mentioned
one woman and another. You probably did not say everything. You mentioned
their personal corporate stakes and the volume of this business.
You said nothing and merely stated a fact. But this is not enough.
You should delve into the matter, and you will realise what their
real business is, whether there is any such business, who owns what,
and who helps whom.
The question
about Innopraktika came up a long time ago. This is
the initiative of the Rector of Lomonosov Moscow State
University. To the best of my knowledge, as Chairman
of the University’s Board of Trustees, I can say that this
is linked with a desire, an absolutely legal and correct desire
of our higher education institutions to combine the capabilities
of the national science and education system with the real
needs of Russian producers and beneficiaries inside the Russian
economy.
We
often buy many goods abroad, including in the United Kingdom, goods
that we can manufacture here. We should combine what can be generated here with
the goods that our companies need while making certain purchases.
In effect, Innopraktika and its entire activity deal with
precisely this matter. This is the entire reason
for establishing Innopraktika. It was Moscow State University that
started all this.
They
have many talented people who are ready to offer their innovations, but
the Russian beneficiaries and business community need to find
out about them, so that they would be able to take advantage of this.
This is a link between science and education and the real economy.
This is what they are doing. I strongly hope that they will succeed
and achieve tangible results that all of us need.
Speaking
of the second area, healthcare, as far as I know,
their so-called share capital is now close to zero. But this is
a highly interesting aspect linked with the use of cutting-edge
medical technology at a time when the Russian population
decreased by 260,000 in 2019. We consider these statistics to be
unacceptable.
The Russian
Federation prioritises everything linked with measures to reduce
the mortality rate caused by external and domestic factors,
and everything linked with the development of healthcare.
I believe that we should only praise this work.
Over
there, ‘Ethnic Issue’, go ahead, please.
Dmitry
Kutyavin: Good afternoon, Mr Putin.
My name
is Dmitry Kutyavin, editorial director of the First Russian ethnic TV
channel. The channel was established at the initiative
of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations
to support interethnic communication.
My question
is as follows. Almost seven years ago, you published
an article, Russia: Ethnic Matters. In your opinion, has
anything changed in ethnic matters over those seven years? What is your
assessment of the current inter-ethnic relations in Russia? Are
there problems in specific regions?
And a second
question, if I may. A year ago, after your annual news conference,
you issued instructions to support the First Russian ethnic TV
channel, in terms of both content and methodology. We would like
to ask you to continue, as a follow up – a lot
has been done over the year, and the Government is helping
significantly, and our curators too – we would like to make more
energetic forays into the regions so that they also get involved,
and the regional leaders cooperate more with us. Could you help?
Thank
you.
Vladimir
Putin: You just said you were getting help. Is this support not enough?
Interethnic
relations in Russia are among the most important issues. We have
mentioned here today the tragic events of the late 1990s –
early 2000s, an actual civil war with active military operations
in the Chechen Republic. How many people suffered then? That was also
the result of unfavourable developments in the field
of interethnic relations.
We
know that, apart from the Caucasus, people in other regions that are
constituent entities of the Federation also have in their
historic memory unfair decisions such as deportations, when they were
forcibly moved to places such as the steppes of Kazakhstan
in cattle cars. How many people died on the way?
They
have not forgotten. And that was also the result of interethnic
relations. This is something we must do everything in our power
to avoid, anything that might lead us to similar tragedies. It is very important.
The future
generations of Russian politicians must also know that public opinion will
not allow us to make any decisions that would destroy interethnic harmony.
This is my first point.
Secondly,
we will certainly support all entities – the media and public
organisations – whose activity is aimed at smoothing out any disputes
or relieving possible interethnic tension.
As you
know, life is complex and diverse. Russia, too, has a complex
structure, with so many ethnic groups living here. No wonder we forget about
some things. Now, we are having disputes with Ukraine. There is
a Ukrainian identity. Who shaped that identity? Count Pototsky,
a prominent academic, researcher and author who first mentioned
Ukrainians as a separate ethnic group.
However,
other Polish studies later separated them even further, even removed them from
among the Slavic peoples. They believed, they claimed that Ukrainians were
the descendants of some nomadic peoples. But this is all complete
nonsense, and we must know the truth. We must understand that some
elements of a real ethnic identity emerged at some stage,
and we must respect that. We are doing so and will continue doing so,
especially domestically.
A journalist
just mentioned problems with a school in Altai. Unfortunately, we do
have many problems with the native languages of the peoples
of Russia, with their cultures and customs. What kind
of problems? We pay too little attention to this. And every
person who lives in Russia should feel that this is their home,
and they do not have any other home.
Thank
you very much. I would like to wish you a Happy New Year. We
definitely need to wrap this up now, we have taken so long.
Thank
you.
*
* *
Anton
Zhelnov: Mr President, can I ask just one last question about Kotov,
please?
Vladimir
Putin: About what?
Anton
Zhelnov: I would like to ask about the ‘Moscow case’,
and to ask you to take note of the case
of Konstantin Kotov, who has been given a four-year sentence under
the ‘Moscow case’. He did not violate any laws, yet he has been sentenced
under the same article as Dadin.
Vladimir
Putin: I spoke with human rights activists when we met…
Anton
Zhelnov: They did not mention Kotov’s case.
Vladimir
Putin: Fine, I may look into it. I remember the name,
Kotov.
Punishment
for such violations is much harsher in many other countries.
For example, unauthorised public actions, such as blocking
the border, are punishable with up to 10 years in prison
in some countries. Our sentences are much more lenient, although…
Anton
Zhelnov: Mr Putin, he did not threaten anyone or throw anything
at anyone, that is the problem. He simply took part
in a demonstration.
Vladimir
Putin: I am not talking about whether he threatened anyone
or not. Maybe he did this many times before.
By the way,
all legislation stipulates increased penalties for repeat offenders, with
civil liability for first offenders and criminal punishment
for repeat offenders.
Anyway,
I will take a look at this.
Anton
Zhelnov: Will you take a look at his case, please?
Vladimir
Putin: Yes, I will. Thank
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment