Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif has blamed internal issues, including military interference in politics and governance, for the country’s deep economic crisis as he seeks another term as PM in next year’s general elections. Sharif was speaking at an event on Tuesday of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), which is one of the two main opposition parties in the country.

He  pointed out that it was neither India, with which Pakistan currently has the worst diplomatic relations in a decade, nor the US that should be blamed for the country’s problems.  

“The state the Pakistani economy has reached today was not done by India, the US, or even Afghanistan,” Sharif told the news agency PTI. “We shot ourselves in the foot. The military imposed a government on this nation by rigging the 2018 polls, which led to the suffering of the people and downfall of the economy.”

Pakistan is facing its worst economic crisis since independence from British rule in 1947, with food and fuel prices soaring and a great chunk of the population falling below the poverty line. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July approved a $3-billion bailout for Pakistan to prevent it from defaulting on debt repayments. On Tuesday, the World Bank’s board of executive directors approved $350 million in financing for the Second Resilient Institutions for Sustainable Economy (RISE-II) operation, continuing to provide aid to the cash-strapped nation, Reuters reported.

Sharif, 73, was referring to his own ouster as the PM thrice. Most recently, the military establishment removed him from power in 2017 to pave the way for Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party Supremo Imran Khan to come to power. That year, Sharif was jailed on corruption charges, disqualified for life from holding public office, and eventually entered a self-imposed exile in London. A Sharif-led government was also overthrown in 1990 by Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf, who would go on to become the president of the nation. From 2000 to 2007, Sharif was in exile in Saudi Arabia.

Khan, who was sworn in as prime minister in 2018, was eventually removed from the post in 2022 through a no-confidence motion passed in the lower house of Parliament.

Sharif returned to Karachi in October this year to kick-start his party’s campaign ahead of parliamentary elections in January 2024. Earlier this month, the High Court in Islamabad acquitted Sharif in a corruption case related to the Al-Azizia steel mill, clearing the way for a fourth term in the country’s top position. Last month, the politician was acquitted in another corruption case linked to purchasing properties in London with ill-received money.

In advance of his visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Vladimir Putin answered questions from Al Arabiya senior presenter Mohammed Tomaihi, Sky News Arabia senior presenter Mohannad Khatib and RT Arabic Public and Political Programmes Department Head Salam Musafir.

This is the full video and transcript of the interview. Key excerpts are available here, here and here.

Mohammed Tomaihi, Al Arabiya: (retranslated): Dear viewers, welcome to this unique interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, which we are recording in Sochi.

With me here today are Mr. Mohannad Khatib, a reporter at Sky News Arabia and Salam Musafir, a reporter at RT Arabic.

Thank you very much for this unique opportunity, considering your upcoming visit to Saudi Arabia.

‘There’s a lot to be done, but we’ve set a good pace’

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: It is my pleasure. I think it is a good tradition to meet with a country’s media before visiting it.

As for the visit to Saudi Arabia, we attach great importance to it. It is, in a sense, a return visit after the visit by King of Saudi Arabia, Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, to Russia. It was the first, historic visit. We consider it historic, and it really is.

There is one more thing that I believe is important to note. In Soviet times, relations between Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union were at a rather low level. In recent years, the quality of our relations has changed dramatically. We consider Saudi Arabia a friendly nation.

I will start with the economy. There is still a lot to be done, but we have set a good pace. Last year it was up 15%. In the first six months of 2019 growth was as high as 38%. We are considering some good joint projects. Our Direct Investment Fund and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia have jointly established a $10 billion platform. $2 billion have already been invested. Work is underway on other projects, and some promising and interesting projects have already been implemented.

We also consider it possible to operate on the territory of Saudi Arabia. One of our companies is exploring the possibility of building a petrochemical facility with investments of more than $1 billion. It is SIBUR Holding, Russia’s largest company in this sector.

We are fostering a partnership in the trust-based, sensitive area of military and defence cooperation. We have been negotiating for a long time.

Equally important are our joint efforts to resolve the regional crises. In this regard, I would like to emphasise the positive role Saudi Arabia has played in resolving the Syrian crisis. We are working especially closely with Turkey and Iran, as you all know. But I believe that without Saudi Arabia’s contribution towards a Syrian settlement, it would have been impossible to achieve a positive trend. Therefore, I would like to express our gratitude to both the King and the Crown Prince for this constructive approach. I am confident that my visit will help to build up the momentum both in developing bilateral relations and enhancing cooperation in international organisations.

Mohannad Khatib, Sky News Arabia: (retranslated): Mr. President, thank you very much once again for giving us the opportunity to record this interview.

Your visit to the Middle East will possibly have an impact on the United Arab Emirates as well. What do you think about strategic cooperation between Russia and the UAE, and how will this cooperation evolve? Can this cooperation play a certain role in strengthening collective security, considering the Russian initiative to establish collective security architecture in the Gulf region, especially in the area of the Strait of Hormuz?

I have to say that, as is the case with Saudi Arabia, our partnership is vigorously developing in all areas. Of all the Gulf countries, we have the highest level of trade, $1.7 billion, but of course, this is not enough, we are well aware of that. So currently, we are working with the UAE’s sovereign fund. The joint platform is worth approximately $7 billion. $2 billion have already been invested, work is underway on other projects. And of course, it is safe to say that the United Arab Emirates greatly contribute to resolving regional crises, and play a stabilising role in the region.

It is no great secret that we maintain regular contacts with the leadership of the United Arab Emirates. There is even an established tradition, a practice to compare notes regarding different topics. In my opinion, we are doing it for the benefit of both parties, and the region as a whole.

‘We can’t allow terrorists to run loose in Syria’

Salam Musafir, RT Arabic (retranslated): Mr President, in the more than 10 years of your presidency some harsh, dramatic developments have taken place in the Middle East, and the statehood of several countries has been undermined, namely Iraq, Libya. We see that this could be the fate of other states as well.

We see what happened in the Syrian Arab Republic, what catastrophic events took place there. Now, many members of the Arab public think that Russia can really bolster its role in the region. You surely know that our network, RT Arabic, covers Russia’s foreign policy as well.

Many of our viewers have been asking straightforwardly: why has Russia taken such a harsh stance in the case of Syria, but the position regarding Libya and Iraq was perhaps not as hard?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, during the crises in Iraq and Libya, I was not in office. But this is not the main reason. The thing is that, as is commonly known, in the case of Iraq, the United States circumvented the United Nations Security Council. The US had no mandate to use force against Iraq.

Actually, I was President at that moment. Anyway, Russia did not support the invasion. Russia, France and Germany did not support the US plans regarding Iraq. What is more, we warned about the potential adverse implications, and that is exactly what happened.

The initial euphoria of military victories soon gave way to despondency and pessimism about the consequences of the victory. Because all Iraqi government institutions were destroyed, but no new institutions were established, at least in the beginning. On the contrary, the radical forces got a boost, and terrorists groups became stronger.

Many former officers of Saddam Hussein’s army and security service agents resurfaced and joined the ranks of what later evolved into ISIS. So, those who led and supported this campaign had not considered the ramifications.

We do expect that there will be some positive developments in Iraq, and despite some internal problems, the country will continue to move forward. Although there are still a lot of problems to deal with, we are perfectly aware of that.

So, basically, what happened there was done circumventing the UN Security Council. And we are all aware of what happened next. There is still chaos and confusion; a flow of migrants went through Libya to Europe. Gaddafi had always warned about that, he said that he stopped African migrants from going to Europe. As soon as this ‘wall’ was gone, they started pouring into Europe. And now they have what they were warned about. But that is probably not even the main issue. Most importantly, it is destabilising the entire Middle East region.

As for Syria, we came to Syria to support the legitimate government, and I would like to emphasise the word ‘legitimate.’ It does not mean that they do not have internal problems; I am ready to talk about it in detail later.

It does not mean that the current leadership is not responsible for what is going on there. They are, but it does not mean that we were to allow terrorist organisations to capture Syria and to establish a terrorist pseudo-state there. We could not allow militants to move to former Soviet republics. We do not have hard borders or a visa regime with them. We could not allow militants to infiltrate Russia from there. We already had such an experience and we know what this might lead to.

We still remember what happened in Russia’s North Caucasus region not that long ago. This is why we made a decision to support the legitimate government.

This idea was conceived right here, in Sochi, at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress that brought together various political forces, including the opposition and the government. And here Syrians agreed among themselves to set up a constitutional committee that would work on changing the Syrian Constitution or drafting a new one.

We have trodden a hard, arduous, and long path to form this committee. Now it has finally been formed, on behalf of the government, on behalf of President Assad, and on behalf of the opposition. I expect that in the coming days, it will take its first steps in Geneva under the auspices of the UN.

Al Arabiya: Mr. President, you spoke earlier about the relations between Saudi Arabia and Russia. As you know, it is a strategic partner of the Russian Federation in terms of energy security. You must be aware of the two missile and bomb strikes on the oil refinery, and of the most recent developments.

There has been talk in Saudi Arabia about Iran playing a destabilising role in the region. You said that evidence had to be found to prove that Iran was really behind that. What is the official position of the Russian Federation regarding this incident?

Vladimir Putin: Our official position is as follows: we condemn any such actions, end of story. This is the official position. We said this at the very beginning, and I have recently reiterated it at the Russian Energy Week forum in Moscow. There should be no room for doubt here. Such actions never yield any results for anyone, including those who plot and execute them. Why? If someone may have wanted to deal a blow to the oil market, they failed. There were indeed some fluctuations in prices, but I do not think it was anything too serious, even though the initial response was quite strong. The prices went back to normal in the very first week, because the fundamental factors that the market depends on will never allow the prices to either skyrocket or take a nosedive.

Al Arabiya: Mr President, can Russia give any assurances that if it is revealed that Iran masterminded the attack, Russia will join other countries in condemning it?

Vladimir Putin: I have just said it and I will repeat, regardless of who stood behind the incident, we condemn any such actions. That is exactly what I said before, and I really meant it. There is no other way to interpret this.

Sky News Arabia: Let us now put these attacks on the oil facilities aside. I think you are well aware of the tension that has mounted in the region, and you must have been analysing this situation yourself. There is concern about Iran’s role in not only these recent attacks, but also in what is happening in other countries - in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and some others.

Do you think Russia has the same concerns about Iran’s activities, which we think are having a destabilising effect? Can Russia do anything to change Iran’s behaviour?

Vladimir Putin: As I said, we have an unprecedented level of partnership, I would even say friendly relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. But Russia will never be friends with one country against another. We build bilateral relations that rely on positive trends generated by our contacts; we do not build alliances against anyone. This is my first point.

Secondly, you and your audience understand, I believe, that Russia and Iran are neighbours; this is a factor we always bear in mind.

Of course, it is debatable what is legitimate and what is not, which interests are legitimate and which cross the line. However, you need to have dialogue to understand each other, to puzzle out all the nuances, intricacies and issues. Without dialogue, you cannot solve any problem. That is why I think I can share the concerns of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, but in the case of bilateral issues, it is up to them to resolve them.

As for Russia, we will do everything in our power to create the right conditions for positive change. Russia has cordial relations with Iran and is on very good terms with our Arab friends. Back in the Soviet times, we did not have any particularly deep relations with Saudi Arabia, but we were truly close with almost all the Arab countries. The Soviet Union was on very good terms with the entire Arab world. Today we are back to the same level of partnership. Therefore, if we put to good use the cordial relations that we have with Iran, the Arab world, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, I think we can come up with something that would be of interest to everyone.

Previously, I mentioned the positive role that we play in Syria. It is true that we – Turkey, Iran, and Russia – work hard, shoulder to shoulder, to achieve positive results. However, it would have been impossible without support from Saudi Arabia, and we all understand that. And, of course, without assistance from the UAE as well. It means that, despite acute contradictions, there is still something that brings us together towards a common goal. You just need to find such a goal and then apply concerted efforts to reach it. That can create the right setting for the normalisation of relations between the countries in the region.

‘Iran should follow the nuclear deal, but it’s being treated unfairly’

Sky News Arabia: Staying with Iran. Some say that the P5+1 talks should be resumed. Moreover, the common opinion is that the agreement should also cover the ballistic missile programme. What is Russia’s position here regarding the call to revive that framework and possibly modify the agreement, extending it to some other issues?

Vladimir Putin: There is the JCPOA or the Iran nuclear deal, which specifies certain limits and commitments for Iran, and Iran has accepted them. Let us be frank here, otherwise the conversation will be too dull: the countries of the region do have some contradictions, and you have just mentioned them. There is disagreement between Iran and Israel, Iran and the US. I believe that attempts must be made to settle those disagreements, to seek a way out of the complicated situations that we observe today. However, if we agree that there are contradictions between regional powers and Iran, then who can take up the role of an arbitrator and decide whether Iran complies with the JCPOA or not? First and foremost, an arbitrator should be impartial, right? Second, an arbitrator should be a professional. Third, it should be someone respected by the international community. We have such an arbitrator, the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. And the IAEA has publicly, without any hesitation, said that Iran fully complies with all of its obligations.

As for the missile programme, I suppose the issue can and should be part of the discussion too. In Russia, there is a saying, and I think Muslims would understand the meaning as well: “You should know the difference between God’s gift and fried eggs [dollars to doughnuts].” These are two different matters. The missile programme is one thing, and the nuclear programme is something different. It does not imply that the missile programme should not be part of the conversation, especially since it raises certain concerns. There is a place for discussion, but let us not mix apples and oranges here; otherwise, all the progress that has been made could be totally lost.

Therefore, I think that such a discussion can take place, but it should not cancel out all the achievements on the principle track, that is putting a cap on Iran’s nuclear activities.

‘Russia-Middle East oil cooperation helps keep prices low’

RT Arabic: I would like to ask you a question on the matter, namely security in the Gulf region. It has truly seen a lot of developments recently. There have been many dramatic incidents: detention of tankers, a missile and bomb attack on the Saudi Aramco refinery, and the aggression that continues around Yemen. The recent attacks on Saudi Aramco’s oil facilities strongly affected sentiment in the region, as we can see.

In your view, what will be the impact of all these high-profile incidents on cooperation under the OPEC+ agreement? So far, regional powers have not made any specific statements regarding Russia’s proposal for a collective security strategy in the region.

How do you plan to promote that collective security initiative? Do you think it will ever see the light of day?

Vladimir Putin: Your questions seem to be linked, but still deal with separate issues. Our cooperation within OPEC+ is one thing, while regional security and stability and our proposals is a different one.

First, if anyone thinks that seizing tankers and attacking oil infrastructure can in any way affect cooperation between Russia and our Arab friends, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, that they can undermine or break down our cooperation with OPEC+, then they are profoundly wrong. On the contrary, we will forge ever closer ties because our main goal is to stabilise global energy markets. Technically, we need to cut global reserves to some sensible level, so that these reserves do not affect prices.

We need to respond to any attempt to destabilise the market. Russia will certainly continue working with Saudi Arabia and other partners and friends in the Arab world to counter any attempts to wreak havoc in the market.

Now let us turn to Russia’s initiative to stabilise the situation in the Gulf region. We put that initiative forward some time ago. We proposed to establish some sort of an organisation that would bring together the countries of the region as well as several other stakeholders, the US and the EU, to name just a few. This organisation would serve as a platform to discuss crises and all kinds of pressing problems. Some have already voiced their support; others say it is too early to launch such an initiative. And the reason for that, by the way, is the serious contradictions between regional powers. From my point of view, these deep contradictions call for such a platform, so that countries could at least sit at the negotiating table. As you may be aware, sometimes it is not the negotiations that matter, but a handshake. A handshake can mean a lot.

RT Arabic: A follow-up question, if I may. Can we rely on Russia’s efforts as a mediator between the Islamic Republic and Saudi Arabia, or on a larger scale in order to help relieve the tension in the Gulf region?

Vladimir Putin: The role of mediator is not a rewarding one. I believe that our partners in Iran and Saudi Arabia do not need any mediation.

Since we maintain very friendly relations with all the countries in the region, including Iran and the Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, we could certainly help relay some messages between the parties, so they could hear each other’s position. But since I personally know the leaders of these countries, I am perfectly sure that they have no need for any advice or mediation. What you can do is maintain a friendly conversation with them and present some ideas from a friend’s perspective. I am convinced that as highly intelligent people they listen and analyse everything they hear. From this point of view, yes, we could play a positive role in the process, to some extent.

Al Arabiya: Mr. President, if you allow me, I would like to ask a straightforward question. You have just said that all allegations against Iran in regard to these strikes are premature. You recently met with President Rouhani. Did he assure you in any way that Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with these strikes and was not involved in this in any way?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, that is exactly what he said. He said that Iran had nothing to do with this. We met “on the sidelines” of an international summit. It was the summit of the Eurasian Economic Union, an organisation we created with a number of ex-Soviet states. A few months ago, the Eurasian Economic Union and Iran signed an interim agreement on a free trade area. We have a free trade area agreement with Singapore and Vietnam, and we are also working on one with Israel and Egypt. The Eurasian Economic Union has enjoyed successful cooperation with many states across the globe. Iran is about to join this process, and we discussed these prospects just recently, on the sidelines of the summit in Yerevan, Armenia.

Russia certainly plays a role in the Gulf region, and your intelligence agencies have a huge capacity. It is hard to believe that Russia does not know what really happened to those oil facilities. Is it possible?

Vladimir Putin: Believe it or not, we do not know. I asked the heads of the Foreign Intelligence Service and the Ministry of Defence the very next day. We do not know. I will refrain from any further comments as to who should know in order not to hurt anyone’s feelings, but I can say that we do not have any definitive information regarding the incident.

‘Only Syrians can decide their future; I hope it won’t be by taking up arms’

Sky News Arabia: Can we move to Syria now, Mr. President?

You recently announced a suspension of large-scale combat operations in Syria, and everyone is now hopeful that political settlement will work. You spoke about it at the Valdai Forum here in Russia. You said that Syria could become a good example of how such conflicts must be approached and settled.

Do you think that we can talk about a political settlement while other countries’ forces are still deployed in Syria? I mean the United States, Russia, Turkey and Iran? Is there hope to achieve stability in Syria amid these destabilising factors?

Vladimir Putin: There is always hope. Do not ever give it up. I can only agree with you that all the forces deployed illegitimately inside any sovereign state – in this case Syria – must leave. This is true for everyone. If Syria’s new legitimate government chooses to say that they have no more need for Russia’s military presence, this will be just as true for Russia. Right now, we are discussing this openly with all our partners, including Iran and Turkey. We spoke about it with our American partners many times. And I will be as open with you as I have been with my counterparts: Syria must be free from other states’ military presence. And the territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic must be completely restored.

Sky News Arabia: Do you have a vision for Syria’s political future? And what role does Russia play in it?

Vladimir Putin: It is a difficult question, and it is a question that only Syrians can answer. I hope that they do so not by taking up arms and fighting a war against their own people, but through negotiations, in this case, as I said, in Geneva. The very first step along this path is to work on the country’s Constitution, whether by amending the existing Constitution or drafting a new one. In either case, it must protect the interests of all the ethnic and religious groups. People need to know that they live in their own country and that it protects them by law. This must be equally true for Sunnis and Shia, for Alawites and Christians, because Syria has always been a state with many religions, and it could pride itself on this. Only insane people could have started a deranged, purging campaign, killing other people, as these terrorists did in Syria.

I am happy to say that Syrians welcome and trust Russian troops and Russia’s military police. The military police units deployed there are doing a good job. They are mostly Muslims from the North Caucasus. And the local residents trust them and feel free to ask them for help and protection. I have reports of such cases. I am happy to say all this, but in order to have long-term peace, people need to find a way to settle things between themselves. The worst peace is always better than the best of wars.

‘[US] domestic politics prevent the US president from improving relations with Russia’

RT Arabic: Let us leave the Middle East and the Gulf region for now.

You always say that Russian-American relations need to improve, because otherwise, if there is a ‘fault’ in these relations, this may change the situation for the worse globally.

Today, as you look at the Trump Administration, as you read Donald Trump’s tweets, do you see any hope for any steps to improve relations between the two countries? You surely follow the US President’s statements, don’t you?

Vladimir Putin: I must say that I do not have any Twitter account or anything, so I do not follow anyone there. Of course, I get reports from my staff from time to time. The opinion of the President of the United States always matters; it is always very important for many parties and for the world overall, but I do not follow him personally.

RT Arabic: Let us assume President Trump is re-elected next year. Do you think he could be the more promising president, that he might have more courage to de-escalate tension between Washington and Moscow? And will Russia be willing to resume dialogue?

Vladimir Putin: You work for Russia Today, don’t you? Well, it is because of people like you that Russia will be accused of meddling in the election, because you said just now that Trump could be re-elected. They will say, “Gotcha! This is Russia interfering with the election campaign”.

In any case, we will work with any administration to the extent it is willing to work with us. However, we cannot help but feel concern over overall global security and strategic balance. This is obvious.

In 2002 (and President Trump has nothing to do with it), the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty, which, I would like to reiterate, was the cornerstone of the entire global strategic security system, because it imposed limits on the missile defence systems of our countries. Do you see the point? The point was to make it clear that neither party can ever win a nuclear war, should it happen. That was the whole point. The United States withdrew from the treaty in order to secure some serious strategic advantage for themselves, thinking that they might shield themselves from a threat, unlike Russia. It would leave Russia in a very vulnerable position, while the US would be protected by an ABM system.

Back then, I told our US partners that there is no way of knowing how well such a system would work and so we will not waste tens of billions on it. But strategic balance must be maintained, which means that we will develop offensive weapons that will defeat any ABM system. And we have developed them, and everyone knows it by now. The ABM systems are designed to intercept ballistic missiles, i.e. missiles that follow a ballistic trajectory whereas what we did was we enhanced and improved ballistic missiles significantly and developed a new weapon that has no rivals in the world. We have hypersonic missiles that follow a low trajectory rather than a ballistic one. No one has hypersonic missiles today, except us. Of course, the world’s leading powers will one day develop them, sooner or later. But we will be able to come up with something new by that time. I know what projects our scientists, researchers, designers and engineers are working on right now. Unfortunately, this has led to an arms race of sorts. But that is what has happened. It is a fact. Sadly, this is true.

Now, recently, the US also withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. It think it was a mistake, too, and that they could have gone a different path. I do understand the US concerns. While other countries are free to enhance their defences, Russia and the US have tied their own hands with this treaty. However, I still believe it was not worth ruining the deal; I believe there were other ways out of the situation.

The New START Treaty is actually the only treaty that we have to prevent us from falling back into a full-scale arms race. It serves to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, that is to limit the entire range of strategic weapons, the entire strategic triade: land, sea and air-based combat inter-continental ballistic missile launchers. This treaty expires in 2021. To make sure it is extended, we need to be working on it right now. We have already submitted our proposals; they are on the table of the US Administration. There has been no answer so far. Our understanding is that they have not made up their minds yet as to whether they need to extend the treaty or not. But if this treaty is not extended, the world will have no means of limiting the number of offensive weapons, and this is bad news. The situation will change, globally. It will become more precarious, and the world will be less safe and a much less predictable place than today.

‘I hope there is no new Cold War but, if there is, Russia will be hurt the least’

Al Arabiya: Let us get back to disarmament. Mr. President, do you think that a new arms race could plunge us back into another cold war?

Vladimir Putin: I wish it does not happen. In any case, Russia will be the least affected party because, as I said, we already have the next generation of weapons, and these are unprecedented, with unmatched capabilities. In that sense, we have done our homework. We do not need to rush now and can calmly think of what could be done next.

What has made it possible? It comes as a result of focused research on priority areas, and the credit here goes to our specialists, their ability to identify those areas, mobilise resources. It has been made possible thanks to research institutions, production know how, fundamental knowledge and competences.

Therefore, an arms race is a bad thing, and it will not be good for the world. However, we will not be dragged into exorbitant budget spending games.

Al Arabiya: Despite this, NATO continues to press forward. Do you feel that the alliance’s march towards Russia’s borders is a threat? How will you respond to it?

Vladimir Putin: We do feel it, certainly. We have always felt it and voiced our concerns. We were told, “Don’t be afraid. You are not the target and there is nothing to fear. NATO is changing, it is no longer a military bloc, it does not have belligerent intentions”, and stuff like that. In the meantime, the North Atlantic Treaty remains in place, in particular Article 5, if I am not wrong, that guarantees military support to other members, etc. It is a military bloc. As its infrastructure is moving closer to our borders, we are not happy about it.

There is another trick. I think it is clear to everyone that NATO is just a US foreign policy tool. Europe is aware of it. Take the French president. I do not need to make anything up. Another trick is that once countries join NATO, they have no say over the arms that are installed on their territory. This was the case in Romania with missile defence. Poland will soon get it, too. It will be really close to our border. It is certainly a threat to us. We see it as an attempt to neutralise our strategic nuclear capabilities. However, it is clear their efforts are doomed to failure. I believe experts now see this as well. Now that we have the cutting edge systems that I mentioned earlier, these moves are no longer a threat to us. I do not want to say what we really think about it. Still, there is nothing positive about it. So yes, we do see this as destructive activities that escalate tension. There is nothing good about it.

‘We’ll support any deal that brings Israeli-Palestinian peace, but we need to know what’s in it first’

Sky News Arabia: Mr. President, another issue that used to be in the limelight. I am referring to the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Like the Soviet Union, Russia has played an important role in resolving the issue. Take the Madrid conference, for instance. However, in recent years, Russia has not been very active on that track while the US is trumpeting a so-called deal of the century. In the meantime, the Israeli government is going ahead with its arbitrary authoritarian policy. What is Russia’s role in resolving the issues that are so fundamental to the Middle East?

Vladimir Putin: This does not depend on us or our actions. It is up to all the stakeholders whether they want to see someone in the process or not.

Incidentally, we have very good relations with Israel as well. Almost 1.5 million Israelis come from the former Soviet Union. Israel is almost a Russian-speaking country. The Russian language is often heard in shops everywhere. We do care about what is happening in Israel. However, we have a principled position on the Israeli-Palestinian settlement: we are fully committed to all the UN decisions and believe that they must be executed.

We believe it is important to ensure a two-state solution and establish the State of Palestine. We suggested hosting direct talks in Moscow between the Israeli Prime Minister and the head of the Palestinian Authority, but the meeting never took place, unfortunately. We have been doing what we can: we have held several meetings between different Palestinian groups. Restoring Palestinian unity would be a major contribution to the process. Speaking with different voices undermines the united Palestinian stance. But we are working on it.

It does not mean that we have quit the process altogether, and are no longer interested in it. We are deeply committed primarily because we believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is key to resolving many other regional issues. Unless it is resolved, it will continue to feed radicalism and terrorism, among other things. When people feel they have no legal ways to uphold their rights, they take up arms. In this sense, I feel the Israelis are also interested in a long-term, ultimate solution, not just the Palestinians.

‘It’s not about the Russian president’s name, it’s about national interest’

Al Arabiya: Mr President, we are running out of time. We do not want to steal time from our colleagues.

You have made fairly positive comments about Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman. You seem to have close and good ties with him. Do you count on the positive role that he can play in fostering the Russian-Saudi relationship and in the Middle East agenda in general?

As for Saudi Arabia’s role in the region, it is definitely one of the key countries there. It does have an impact based on its capabilities and its position in the energy market. Saudi Arabia can be safely called a global player since it has an impact on the world energy market, on world energy in general.

This is why cooperation with Saudi Arabia, its King and Crown Prince bin Salman is very important, and we will develop our relations going forward.

RT Arabic: Before we came here, we did a poll on RT Arabic’s website. We asked a simple question: “If you had a chance to meet the Russian President, what would you ask him?” It generated a lot of interest, and we picked the most popular questions. I will not list all of them, but one of the biggest concerns among our Arab audience is the future of Russian-Arab ties when you will no longer be the President of Russia. What will be the stance of your successor on the issue?

Vladimir Putin: It is not about the name of the Russian president, it is about our national interests. It is in the interests of the Russian and other nations of the Russian Federation to nurture relations with the Arab world. It has always appealed to Russia with its enigma, culture, opportunities and potential. I have no doubt that Russia is set to boost the pace of its interaction with the Arab world in the years to come.

RT Arabic: Thank you.

Sky News Arabia: I will try to be brief. The Arab world is following the recent developments, in both Russia and the Arab world, as part of the so-called Arab spring. The situation is rapidly changing in Sudan and Algeria; Tunisia just had an election. Do you see any positive signals? Do you think the region is entering a new phase that will culminate in a stable Middle East?

Vladimir Putin: Clearly, the region is not in a state of stability. We all understand it; we can see it with our own eyes. But all things pass. I hope it will be over one day. It will not get better quickly on its own, if you just leave things as they are, without attempts to improve the situation. Russia will do all it can to make sure things get back to normal and as soon as possible.

We do not think you can and should handle the situation ‘from above’. As I said, we have many friends in the Arab world. It is time to get Syria back into the Arab family, to re-instate it in the Arab League. We will work hard to bring it back to normal and to help our friends. However, the pace of improvements will ultimately depend on the people who are responsible for the situation in their countries. I am convinced stabilisation is inevitable and I wish it happens as soon as possible.

Remark: Thank you so much, Mr. President, for the productive interview.

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get stories the mainstream media won’t tell you.

“World at a crossroads and a system of international relations for the future” has been written by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for “Russia in Global Affairs” magazine, September 20, 2019.

The session begins at a highly symbolic historical moment. Next year we will celebrate two great and interconnected anniversaries – the 75th Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic and Second World Wars, and the establishment of the UN.

Reflecting on the spiritual and moral significance of these landmark events, one needs to bear in mind the enormous political meaning of the Victory that ended one of the most brutal wars in the history of mankind.

The defeat of fascism in 1945 had fundamentally affected the further course of world history and created conditions for establishing a post-war world order. The UN Charter became its bearing frame and a key source of international law to this day. The UN-centric system still preserves its sustainability and has a great degree of resilience. It actually is kind of a safety net that ensures peaceful development of mankind amid largely natural divergence of interests and rivalries among leading powers. The War-time experience of ideology-free cooperation of states with different socioeconomic and political systems is still highly relevant.

Interpreting the past in such a manner also means that some of our partners see the establishment of a transatlantic link and the permanent implanting of the US military presence in Europe as a major achievement of the post-war system of international relations. This is definitely not the scenario the Allies had in mind while creating the United Nations.

The Soviet Union disintegrated; the Berlin Wall, which had symbolically separated the two “camps,” fell; the irreconcilable ideological stand-off that defined the framework of world politics in virtually all spheres and regions became a thing of the past – yet, these tectonic shifts unfortunately failed to bring the triumph of a unifying agenda. Instead, all we could hear were triumphant pronouncements that the “end of history” had come and that from now on there would be only one global  decision-making center.

It is obvious today that efforts to establish a unipolar model have failed. The transformation of the world order has become irreversible. New major players wielding a sustainable economic base seek to increase their influence on regional and global developments; they are fully entitled to claim a greater role in the decision-making process. There is a growing demand for more just and inclusive system. The overwhelming majority of members of the international community reject arrogant neocolonial policies that are employed all over again to empower certain countries to impose their will on others.

“Liberalism”, that the West claims to defend, focuses on individuals and their rights and freedoms. This begs the question: how does this correlate with the policy of sanctions, economic strangulation and overt military threats against a number of independent countries such as Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea or Syria? Sanctions directly strike at ordinary people and their well-being and violate their social and economic rights. How does the bombing of sovereign nations, the deliberate policy of destroying their statehood leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and condemning millions of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians and representatives of other peoples to innumerable suffering add up to the imperative of protecting human rights? The reckless Arab Spring gamble destroyed the unique ethnic and religious mosaic in the Middle East and North Africa.

In Europe, the proponents of liberal concepts get along quite well with massive violations of the Russian-speaking population rights in a number of EU and EU-neighboring countries. Those countries violate multilateral international conventions by adopting laws that infringe language and education rights of ethnic minorities.

What is “liberal” about visa denials and other sanctions imposed by the West on residents of Russia’s Crimea? They are punished for their democratic vote in favour of reunification with their historical homeland. Does this not contradict the basic right of the people to free self-determination, let alone the right of the citizens to freedom of movement enshrined in international conventions?

Liberalism, or rather its real undistorted essence, has always been an important component of political philosophy both in Russia and worldwide. However, the multiplicity of development models does not allow us to say that the Western “basket” of liberal values has no alternative. And, of course, these values cannot be carried “on bayonets” – ignoring the history of states, their cultural and political identities. Grief and destruction caused by “liberal” aerial bombings are a clear indication of what this can lead to.

The West’s unwillingness to accept today's realities, when after centuries of economic, political and military domination it is losing the prerogative of being the only one to shape the global agenda, gave rise to the concept of a “rules-based order.” These “rules” are being invented and selectively combined depending on the fleeting needs of the people behind it, and the West persistently introduces this language into everyday usage. The concept is by no means abstract and is actively being implemented. Its purpose is to replace the universally agreed international legal instruments and mechanisms with narrow formats, where alternative, non-consensual methods for resolving various international problems are developed in circumvention of a legitimate multilateral framework. In other words, the expectation is to usurp the decision-making process on key issues.

The intentions of those who initiated this “rules-based order” concept affect the exceptional powers of the UN Security Council. A recent example: when the United States and its allies failed to convince the Security Council to approve politicized decisions that accused, without any proof, the Syrian government of using prohibited toxic substances, they started to promote the “rules” they needed through the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). By manipulating the existing procedures in flagrant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, they managed (with the votes of a minority of the countries participating in this Convention) to license the OPCW Technical Secretariat to identify those responsible for the use of chemical weapons, which was a direct intrusion in the prerogatives of the UN Security Council. One can also observe similar attempts to “privatize” the secretariats of international organizations in order to advance interests outside of the framework of universal intergovernmental mechanisms in such areas as biological non-proliferation, peacekeeping, prevention of doping in sports and others.

Separately, attention should be paid to the controversial concept of “countering violent extremism”, which lays the blame for the dissemination of radical ideologies and expansion of the social base of terrorism on political regimes that the West has proclaimed undemocratic, illiberal or authoritarian. This concept provides for direct outreach to civil society over the head of legitimate governments. Obviously, the true goal is to withdraw counterterrorism efforts from beneath the UN umbrella and to obtain a tool of interference in the internal affairs of states.

The introduction of such new concepts is a dangerous phenomenon of revisionism, which rejects the principles of international law embodied in the UN Charter and paves the way back to the times of confrontation and antagonism. It is for a reason that the West is openly discussing a new divide between “the rules-based liberal order” and “authoritarian powers.”

Revisionism clearly manifests itself in the area of strategic stability. The US torpedoing first the ABM Treaty and now the INF Treaty (a decision that enjoys unanimous NATO members’ support) have generated risks of dismantling the entire architecture of nuclear arms control agreements. The prospects of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (The New START) are vague – because the US has not given a clear answer to the Russian proposal to agree to extend the New START beyond its expiry date in February 2021.

There is one more example of introducing revisionist “rules”: the US withdrawal from the  Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program, a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council that is of key importance for the nuclear non-proliferation.

Yet another example is Washington’s open refusal to implement unanimous UN Security Council resolutions on the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the economic field, the “rules” consist of protectionist barriers, sanctions, abuse of the status of the US dollar as the principle means of payment, ensuring competitive advantages by non-market methods, and extraterritorial use of US laws, even towards the United States’ closest allies.

At the same time, our American colleagues are persistently trying to mobilise all of their foreign partners to contain Russia and China. Simultaneously they do not conceal their wish to sow discord between Moscow and Beijing and undermine multilateral alliances and regional integration projects in Eurasia and Asia-Pacific that are operating outside of the US oversight. Pressure is exerted on those countries that do not play by the rules imposed on them and dare make the “wrong choice” of cooperating with US “adversaries”.

Against this background, attempts by Western liberal ideologues to portray Russia as a “revisionist force” are simply absurd. We were among the first to draw attention to the transformation of the global political and economic systems that cannot remain static due to the objective march of history. It would be appropriate to mention here that the concept of multipolarity in international relations that accurately reflects emerging economic and geopolitical realities was formulated two decades ago by the outstanding Russian statesman Yevgeny Primakov. His intellectual legacy remains relevant now as we mark the 90th anniversary of his birth.

As is evident from the experience of recent years, using unilateral tools to address global problems is doomed to failure. The West-promoted “order” does not meet the needs of humankind’s harmonious development. This “order” is non-inclusive, aims to revise the key international legal mechanisms, rejects the principle of collective action in the relations between states, and by definition cannot generate solutions to global problems that would be viable and stable in the long term rather than seek a propaganda effect within an electoral cycle in this or that country.

There are some people in the West who often speculate that polycentric world order inevitably leads to more chaos and confrontation because the “centers of power” will fail to come to terms among themselves and take responsible decisions. But, firstly, why not try? What if it works? For this, all that is necessary is to start talks on the understanding that the parties should seek a balance of interests. Attempts to invent ones’ own “rules” and impose them on all others as the absolute truth  should be stopped. From now on, all parties should strictly comply with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, starting with the respect for the sovereign equality of states regardless of their size, system of government or development model. Paradoxically, countries that portray themselves as paragons of democracy actually care about it only as they demand from other countries to “put their house in order” on a West-inspired pattern. But as soon as the need arises for democracy in intergovernmental relations, they immediately evade honest talk or attempt to interpret international legal norms at their own discretion.

We should use to the fullest the potential of the G20, an ambitious, all-encompassing global governance body that represents the interests of all key players and takes unanimous decisions. Other associations are playing a growing role as well, alliances projecting the spirit of a true and democratic multipolarity, based on voluntary participation, consensus, values of equality and sound pragmatism, and refraining from confrontation and bloc approaches. These include BRICS and the SCO, which our country is an active member of and which Russia will chair in 2020.

It is evident that without collective effort and without unbiased partnership under the central coordinating role of the UN it is impossible to curb confrontational tendencies, build up trust and cope with common threats and challenges. It is high time to come to terms on uniform interpretation of the principles and norms of international law rather than try to follow the old saying “might goes before right”. It is more difficult to broker deals than to put forward demands. But patiently negotiated trade-offs will be a much more reliable vehicle for predictable handling of international affairs. Such an approach is badly needed to launch substantive talks on the terms and conditions of a reliable and just system of equal and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasia. This objective has been declared multiple times at the top level in the OSCE documents. It is necessary to move from words to deeds. The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) have repeatedly expressed their readiness to contribute to such efforts.

It is important to increase our assistance to the peaceful resolution of numerous conflicts, be it in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America or the post-Soviet space. The main point is to live up to the earlier arrangements rather than to invent pretexts for refusing to adhere to the obligations.

As of today, it is especially relevant to counter religious and ethnic intolerance. We urge all the nations to work together to prepare for the World Conference on Interfaith and Inter-Ethnic Dialogue that will be held in Russia in May 2022 under the auspices of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the UN. The OSCE that has formulated a principled position condemning anti-Semitism should act with equal resolve toward Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

Our unconditional priority is to continue providing assistance to the unhindered formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, a broad integration framework stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific that involves the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and all other countries of the Eurasian continent, including the EU countries. It would be unwise to contain the unifying processes or, worse still, to put up fences. It would be a mistake to reject the obvious strategic advantages of the common Eurasian region in an increasingly competitive world.

Consistent movement towards this constructive goal will allow us not only to keep up the dynamic development of the national economies and to remove obstacles to the movement of goods, capital, labor and services, but it will also create a solid foundation of security and stability throughout the vast region from Lisbon to Jakarta.

Will the multipolar world continue to take shape through cooperation and harmonization of interests or through confrontation and rivalry? This depends on all of us. Russia will continue to promote a positive and unifying agenda aimed at removing the old dividing lines and preventing the appearance of new ones. Russia has advanced initiatives to prevent an arms race in outer space, establish efficient mechanisms for combating terrorism, including chemical and biological terrorism, and to agree upon practical measures to prevent the use of cyberspace for undermining national security or for other criminal purposes.

Our proposals to launch a serious discussion on all aspects of strategic stability in the modern era are still on the table.

There have been ideas floated recently to modify the agenda and update the terms. The proposed subjects for discussion vary between “strategic rivalry” and “multilateral deterrence.” Terminology is negotiable, but it is not terms but the essence that really matters. It is now much more important to start a strategic dialogue on the existing threats and risks and to seek consensus on a commonly acceptable agenda. Yet another outstanding statesman from our country, Andrey Gromyko (his 110th birth anniversary we mark this year) said wisely: “Better to have ten years of negotiations than one day of war.”

By Sergey Naryshkin, chairman of the Russian Historical Society and head of Russia’s foreign intelligence agency SVR.

Exactly 80 years ago, in the early hours of August 24, 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed a nonaggression pact in Moscow.

The news came as a bolt fromthe blue. Thousands of Soviet people wrote letters to central and local newspapers, expressing their anger and dismay, as the Soviet Union and the Third Reich were mortal enemies.

In the late 1930s, the USSR was the only European nation whose soldiers and officers fought face to face with Nazi Germany and its satellites. Undeclared wars were raging in Spain, where the Soviet government supported the Republicans, China, which was on the defensive against Japan's aggression, and Mongolia, where a large-scale offensive started on August 20, 1939, near the Khalkhyn Gol river – only three days before the signing of the treaty.

Driven by the ambition to destroy the USSR and simply out of cowardice, Britain and France made unprecedented concessions to Hitler.

There were many reasons for the unexpected shift in the Soviet Union's foreign policy, and you have to understand the complicated background.

Along our western border there was now a "cordon" consisting of the countries that had emerged on the rubble of the Russian Empire, and many of the new states had nationalist regimes. Poland with Józef Piłsudski at the helm, the largest of these countries, gained Russia's territories in western Belarus and western Ukraine in 1921. By the end of the 1920s, forced Polonization of the local population had spiraled into blatant state terrorism. The situation in the neighboring Baltic region was no better.

Great Britain and France revealed their true feelings towards "Europe's back-door entryway" in the 1925 Locarno Treaties. Fearing the growing rapport between the Weimar Republic and the Soviet Union, the guarantors of the Treaty of Versailles moved to make a distinction between Germany's western borders that could never be disputed, and eastern borders, where Germany was given significant leeway. In other words, it was decided that Germany's rising revanchism should not be suppressed but rather "properly" channeled eastwards. Thus, it is not surprising thatwhen the Nazis rose to power in Germany, the calls to "conquer more living space inthe East and unmercifully Germanize it" became the focal point of the Third Reich's foreign policy.

Driven by the ambition to destroy the USSR and simply out of cowardice, Britain andFrance made unprecedented concessions to Hitler.

The policy of appeasement made it easier for the Nazis to create a capable army, have a convenient training camp in Spain, and recapture demilitarized Rhineland in 1936.

The appetite of the aggressor, unaccustomed to resistance, only grew with time. In March 1938, Hitler, with the connivance of Britain and France, concluded an Anschluss of Austria and started the Sudetenland Crisis that ended with the shameful Munich Betrayal. On September 12, right before his meeting with the Führer, the leader of the British 'appeasers' Neville Chamberlain proclaimed that Britain and Germany were "the two pillars of European peace and buttresses against communism." After that came the division of sovereign Czechoslovakia, whose representatives, for the record, were not even invited to the negotiating table.

"What happened in Munich was the end of Bolshevism in Europe, the end of any political influence of Russia on our continent," Italian dictator Mussolini said in triumph. It became clear that abstract matters like international law would not stop the fascist aggressors and their supporters. The Soviet Union found itself in a truly difficult situation and had to urgently adjust its foreign policy priorities.

It should be noted that ever since the Nazis came to power in Germany, the USSR pursued a policy of collective European security. In 1934, the Soviet government supported the proposal of French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou to sign the Eastern Pact that would bring together all countries of Eastern and Central Europe, includingthe USSR and Germany. For reasons that became obvious later, Hitler categorically refused to enter into such treaty. Ironically, it was Poland that strongly supported Germany.

The central tenet of history holds that one should never assess past events exclusively from a present day viewpoint.

In March 1939, Europe was shaken by yet another diplomatic crisis. Despite all the assurances given to Britain and France in Munich, Hitler occupied the Czech Republic and proclaimed Slovakia a protectorate of the German Reich. Building on this success, Hitler annexed the Memel territory in Lithuania and delivered an ultimatum to Romania and Poland. The prospect of a new great war breaking out in Europe was now clear to all.

To this day, historians argue as to what caused the Anglo-Franco-Soviet initiative to fail. First of all, it is noteworthy that neither the British nor the French leader wantedto meet with Stalin personally. Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George described it this way: "Mr. Chamberlain negotiated directly with Hitler... He and Lord Halifax paid a visit to Rome... But whom did they send to Russia? They have not even sent an ordinary minister. No, they sent a clerk from foreign office. It is an insult."

Documents, some of which were obtained by Soviet intelligence, show that London did not even attempt to negotiate with Moscow. Unlike the French, who were well aware of the threat to their national security, the British still saw Hitler as an unruly ally who needed to be 'tamed' by invoking a hypothetical alliance with the Russians.It is also clear that the 'appeasers' did not mind negotiating a new Munich Agreement, now with Poland as its target. Up until August 1939, Soviet intelligence was regularly informing the country's leadership on communications of that nature between London and Berlin.

In July, Latvia and Estonia announced their refusal to accept Soviet guarantees and entered into non-aggression treaties with Germany. Thus, the entire Baltic region was turned into a springboard for Germany's invasion of the USSR. Realizing the imminent threat, the Soviet Union suggested abandoning political consultations andmoving directly to military talks.

The deciding factor, or rather the final straw, were the disagreements regarding the Red Army's passage through the territory of Poland. Poland, still in denial about its situation, emphatically refused to allow the Soviet troops to pass through. Even pressure from Paris could not change Warsaw's position. "It will be Poles, not Germans, who will charge deep into Germany in the very first days of the war!" responded Poland's ambassador Juliusz Łukasiewicz boldly to every attempt at persuading him. Later, seeing off the Western military delegations, Marshal Kliment Voroshilov said to Admiral Drax bitterly, "So does this mean we should have conquered Poland first, in order to offer them our help? Or maybe we should have gotten down on our knees and begged the Poles to let us save them?" As we know now, history itself answered this rhetorical question.

After this, events started to unfold at a lightning pace. Seeing no promise or progress in the consultations with London and Paris, the Soviet leadership reaffirmed its readiness for direct talks with Germany. And on August 23, 1939, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich Joachim von Ribbentrop arrived in Moscow with an urgent visit. German diplomacy made unprecedented concessions in order to secure Soviet neutrality ahead of the Poland campaign. The draft treaty was approved on the same day, and signed in the Kremlin the following night.

This tactical agreement with Hitler allowed the coalition of Anglo-French 'appeasers' and the axis powers to be split, bought the Soviet Union a couple more years of peace and helped push the border with Germany westwards. The main reasoning behind the treaty was national security – by that time, no one actually believed in lasting peace with the aggressor.

The signing of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact was completely ignored by Warsaw, but strongly condemned by Tokyo. The developments at Khalkhin-Gol didn't benefit the aggressor, which made Germany's betrayal a particularly painful blow to Emperor Hirohito. Five days later, the entire anti-Soviet government of Kiichiro Hiranuma resigned. Once again, the Japanese could see that Hitler was a man driven by political opportunism and expediency. In fact, some historians believe that this very lesson kept Japan from attacking the USSR in the fall of 1941.

A week later, on September 1, 1939, the Second World War broke out in Europe. This was the single largest failure of the British and French governments, diplomacies and intelligence services. In an effort to protect themselves and push Germany to attack the Soviet Union, the 'appeasers' fell victim to their own schemes. "I must admit that the Soviet Union was clever in its foreign policy," said Finnish leader Karl Mannerheim, who, it should be noted, was never a big fan of the Soviet political system.

Despite Hitler's insistent demands, Soviet forces had not crossed over to Poland's territory until the Polish Army stopped resisting and the government of the Polish Republic evacuated. On September 17, 1939, the first Red Army units crossed the Soviet-Polish border. Commander-in-Chief of Poland's armed forces Marshal Edward Rydz-Smigly took a rational approach and ordered his troops not to engage.

It is important to note that Soviet military presence both in Poland and later in the Baltics prevented large-scale pogroms that were often initiated by local Nazi thugs who attacked Jews even before their German masters got there. We must take all these factors into account as we assess the Soviet Union's foreign policy during thatperiod.

The new Soviet-German border was implicitly recognized at the international level. Winston Churchill stated in his address, "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessitated for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace." Paris also gave its implicit consent to the territorial changes.

And the Soviet government used diplomatic channels to inform Britain and France that "the current demarcation line is not to be considered an official state border between Germany and the USSR", and the future of Poland "will depend on many factors and opposing forces that are impossible to take into account at this point."

As we know, the beginning of the Great Patriotic War ended up being the main factor. In 1941-1944, Polish national units were formed and armed behind the Sovietfrontlines. Soldiers of the First Polish Army fought shoulder to shoulder with Red Army troops liberating their homeland from the Nazis. Over 600,000 Red Army soldiers gave their lives fighting in Poland. Together with their brothers in arms they liberated the prisoners of Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka...

Let me give you one more detail: after the victory over Nazi Germany, it was the Soviet Union that made sure that major industrially developed territories like Silesia,East Prussia, and Pomerania, would become part of Poland. Through the efforts of Soviet diplomacy, the Polish Republic expanded by almost a quarter. So our Polish partners should look for the right role models in their past – I doubt that Polish nationalists, whose only deed was to flee the country in grave danger, deserve to be commemorated.

In conclusion, I would like to say that as we study history, we shouldn't forget about its main principle – not to evaluate past events merely from our present circumstances. We can only learn important, relevant lessons from history if we embed ourselves in the context of that period, study original sources, and take into account a range of expert opinions shared by professional historians. In this respect, I would like to invite my distinguished readers to a historical exhibition organized bythe Federal Archival Agency. It's called ‘1939. The Beginning of World War II’. You will find it in the exhibit hall of the Federal Archival Agency, at 17 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya, Moscow. I think that when you see the unique documents and other rare exhibits, you will understand how tense pre-war foreign relations were, and alsosee for yourself that when some power seeks to rule the world, whatever their pronounced goals might be, it will inevitably lead humanity to tragedy.

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

New intelligence has emerged showing that terrorists are trying new means and methods to carry out attacks, FSB chief Alexander Bortnikov told his counterparts at the CIS security services conference in Tajikistan’s capital Dushanbe on Tuesday.

According to the Russian official, international terrorist groups are trying to better equip their cyber units, which target critical infrastructure and aim at creating havoc in government work. In particular, cybercriminals use email services to spread false information about terror threats.

Among other threats, Bortnikov warned of terrorists using women and children returning from conflict zones. “We know about intentions of the leaders of international terrorist organisations to use widows, wives and children of militants who come back en mass,” he said.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Putin's article, dubbed ‘BRICS: Towards New Horizons of Strategic Partnership,’ was penned ahead of the 9th BRICS Summit in China.

The 9th BRICS Summit will be held in Xiamen, China, on September 4 and 5. I consider it important in this regard to present Russia’s approaches to cooperation within the framework of this large and respected association and to share my views on the future of our further cooperation.

I would like to begin by expressing our appreciation of China’s significant contribution as this year’s chair of the organisation, which has allowed the BRICS countries as a group to move forward in all the key areas of our partnership, including politics, the economy and culture. Moreover, the group of five has greatly strengthened its global standing.

It is important that our group’s activities are based on the principles of equality, respect for one another’s opinions and consensus. Within BRICS, nothing is ever forced on anyone. When the approaches of its members do not coincide, we work patiently and carefully to coordinate them. This open and trust-based atmosphere is conducive to the successful implementation of our tasks.

Russia highly values the multifaceted cooperation that has developed within BRICS. Our countries’ constructive cooperation on the international arena is aimed at creating a fair multipolar world and equal development conditions for all.

However, the fight against terrorists in Syria and other countries and regions must continue. Russia calls for going over from debates to the practical creation of a broad counterterrorism front based on international law and led by the UN. Naturally, we highly appreciate the support and assistance of our BRICS partners in this respect.

I have to say a few words about the situation on the Korean Peninsula, where tensions have grown recently and the situation is balancing on the brink of a large-scale conflict. Russia believes that the policy of putting pressure on Pyongyang to stop its nuclear missile programme is misguided and futile. The region’s problems should only be settled through a direct dialogue of all the parties concerned without any preconditions. Provocations, pressure and militarist and insulting rhetoric are a dead-end road.

Russia and China have created a roadmap for a settlement on the Korean Peninsula that is designed to promote the gradual easing of tensions and the creation of a mechanism for lasting peace and security.

Russia also calls for promoting the interaction of the BRICS countries in the area of global information security. We propose joining our efforts to create a legal basis for cooperation and subsequently to draft and adopt universal rules of responsible behaviour of states in this sphere. A major step towards this goal would be the signing of an intergovernmental BRICS agreement on international information security.

READ MORE: Putin approves major international agreement targeting cyber-crime

I would like to point out that on Russia’s initiative a BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership was adopted at the Ufa Summit in 2015 and is being successfully implemented. We hope to be able to discuss new large-scale cooperation tasks in trade and investment and industrial cooperation at the Xiamen Summit.

READ MORE: Russia pays off balance of Soviet Union's foreign debt

Russia is interested in promoting economic cooperation within the BRICS format. Considerable practical achievements have been recently reported in this area, primarily the launch of the New Development Bank (NDB). It has approved seven investment projects in the BRICS countries worth around $1.5 billion. This year, the NDB is to approve a second package of investment projects worth $2.5-$3 billion in total. I am convinced that their implementation will not only be a boost to our economies but will also promote integration between our countries.

I am confident that the BRICS countries will continue to act in a consolidated manner against protectionism and new barriers in global trade. We value the BRICS countries’ consensus on this issue, which allows us to more consistently advocate the foundations of an open, equal and mutually beneficial multilateral trade system and to strengthen the role of the WTO as the key regulator in international trade.

Russia’s initiative on the development of cooperation among the BRICS countries’ antimonopoly agencies is aimed at creating effective mechanisms to encourage healthy competition. The goal is to create a package of cooperation measures to work against the restrictive business practices of large multinational corporations and trans-border violations of competition rules.

I would like to draw your attention to Russia’s initiative on the establishment of a BRICS Energy Research Platform. We believe that this would enable us to coordinate our information, analysis and research activities in the interests of the five BRICS countries and would ultimately facilitate the implementation of joint energy investment projects.

Another priority is to build up our cooperation in the area of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME). We believe that we should integrate the national SMEs’ online resources for placing crosslinks and other commercial information and for exchanging data on reliable partners.

Russia is advocating the Women and the Economy public-private dialogue. This initiative provides for holding regular debates by members of the BRICS countries’ business and expert communities, women’s associations and government agencies. The first such meeting was held in Novosibirsk on July 4, 2017, on the sidelines of the First International Women’s Congress of the SCO and BRICS Member States. Another related idea is to create a BRICS Women’s Business Club as a network of professional interaction between women in business through a specialised online information resource.

Our other priorities include cooperation in science, technology, innovations and cutting edge medicine. Our countries have a big potential in this respect that comprises a solid and mutually complementary research base, unique technical achievements, skilled personnel and huge markets for science-intensive products. We propose discussing at the upcoming summit a package of measures to reduce the threat of infectious diseases and to create new medicines to prevent and fight epidemics.

I believe our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere has excellent prospects. While working to implement the BRICS Intergovernmental Agreement on Cooperation in the Field of Culture, we hope that our partners will take part in the New Wave and New Wave Junior international contests of young pop singers. We have also advanced the initiative to create a joint television network of the BRICS countries.

Russia stands for strengthening the BRICS countries’ partnership in politics, the economy, culture and other areas. We are ready to continue working jointly with our colleagues to promote democracy and to strengthen the healthy elements of international relations based firmly on international law. I am convinced that the Xiamen Summit will help invigorate our countries’ efforts towards finding solutions to the challenges of the 21st century and will propel cooperation within BRICS to a higher level.

I wholeheartedly wish health and success to your readers and to all people in the BRICS countries.

In July and August, Russia joined two conventions of the Council of Europe – one countering terrorism financing and the other focussing on security at sporting events. Russia has also signed the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism. Ivan Soltanovsky, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe, spoke to RT and Sputnik about Russia’s priorities in these areas.

RT: How important is it for the Russian Federation to join the convention on countering terrorist financing?

Ivan Soltanovsky: In the early 2000s the World faced the unprecedented surge in international terrorism. Terrorist organizations gained considerable capacities and support. One of the major causes was their ability to gather large resources through both criminal and legal activities and donations of various NGOs. It is evident that the efforts of single states were insufficient to cope with this challenge.

RT: The Council of Europe does not limit itself to fighting terrorism financing. What can you say about the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism?

IS: Indeed, we develop different mechanisms to combat terrorism in the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, terrorism continues to evolve, it takes new forms and adopts new methods. The Syrian crisis has given rise to so-called “jihad-tourism”. States encounter the problem of prosecuting their citizens for terrorist activities which have been committed in another country. It is also critical to stop foreign terrorist fighters in their own territory. The Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism which was signed by the Russian Federation on July 27 is a response to these challenges. This document criminalizes trips to other countries to participate in terrorist organizations as well as the organization and financing of such trips even if such activity is not aimed at committing terrorist attacks per se.

READ MORE: Europe should brace itself for more attacks – top EU anti-terrorism official to RT

I would like to say something about the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism of 2005. Our country initiated its development and was one of the first signatories. One of its most important features is that it enshrines the principle “extradite or prosecute” as well as criminalizes public incitement to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism. The ‘extradite or prosecute’ principle means that a party to this convention is obliged to initiate a prosecution against a suspected terrorist whom it denies to extradite to another party of the convention. The terrorists should be unable to find a safe haven anywhere.

RT: Could you please talk about the activities of the Committee of Experts on Terrorism which is the main specialized body of the Council of Europe on counterterrorism?

IS: Unfortunately, the Russian Federation has gained great experience in combatting terrorism in recent years. And this experience unequivocally demonstrates that antiterrorism is much more efficient if it is implemented in cooperation, if competent authorities exchange information on a regular basis and share the best practices. This is why the Russian Federation is active in the Committee of Experts on Terrorism or CODEXTER. This Committee coordinates antiterrorism in the Council of Europe, analyzes international counterterrorism norms, standards and practices and overcomes their shortcomings.

RT: In 2015, the Council of Europe adopted the Action Plan “The fight against violent extremism and radicalization leading to terrorism”. What can you say about it?

IS: We welcome integrated and systemic approach of the Council of Europe to counterterrorism. We consider the action plan which stipulates the priorities of antiterrorist activities of the Council of Europe for 2015-2017 against this background.

We are positive about the fact that this document focuses on terrorism prevention. We consider preventative work against radicalization in prisons to be very important. As both Russian and international experience demonstrates many terrorists become radicalized in prisons. Thus, relevant developments of the Council of Europe which are based on the best international practices are highly topical.

READ MORE: ‘Jihadist jails’ set up within British prisons to isolate extremists

Recent events show that terrorists acting alone pose all the greater threat. The plan envisages that the Council of Europe elaborates a recommendation on terrorists acting alone given the experience obtained by a number of countries. No doubts that such a document will be very useful for the Russian Federation.

RT: What could you say in conclusion before we move on? How would you evaluate current results of antiterrorism in the Council of Europe?

IS: Counterterrorism has become one of the main activities of the Council of Europe. It has found its own niche in the global fight against terrorism. The main efforts of the Council of Europe are focused on counterterrorism through legal, social and cultural means.

READ MORE: Belgium opens 189 terrorism cases since start of 2017, focus on ‘homegrown’ extremists – reports

I think that multilateralism is a distinctive feature of counterterrorism in the Council of Europe. We obtain a capability to thwart international terrorism, to cut its foreign financing, prosecute crimes committed abroad, request terrorists’ extradition from other countries. So the Council of Europe contributes to a common European legal framework of law and order area and facilitates European democratic stability. We are satisfied that the Council of Europe has managed to retain a depoliticized and result-oriented cooperation in this area in current difficult political climate.

We have always supported stronger antiterrorist cooperation. Unfortunately, practically all the Member-States have encountered the problem of terrorism. In this context, our country advocates stronger human and financial potential for the Council of Europe in this area. We are sure that this will increase antiterrorist capabilities of the Council of Europe.

IS: Sporting issues are gaining an ever-growing importance in the dimension of humanitarian cooperation in the Council of Europe. One of the reasons for this is that the organization seeks to become a major developer of international sports standards. I believe that the Council of Europe has the necessary potential to succeed here if it keeps current balanced and depoliticized approach. I am convinced that the Council of Europe can play a role of utmost importance in protecting sportsmen from discrimination in different international sports organizations. The European Court of Human Rights could deal with these issues. The reasons are obvious. The breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights are more often than not evident.

RT: This August, Russia ratified the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated Safety, Security and Service Approach at Football Matches and Other Sports Events. What are the priorities of the Russian Federation in this area in the Council of Europe?

IS: I am sure that the ratification of the Convention will help Russia to prepare even better for the upcoming Football World Cup. Hooliganism at sports events has a trans-border effect. The convention will aid in establishing a new system of ensuring the safety of such events. This step demonstrates Russia’s serious attitude towards both implementation and the development of new sports standards in this area.

This is completely true for fighting doping. A bilateral anti-doping action plan was signed by Russia and the Council of Europe in May 2016. It is aimed at overcoming the doping scandal with our country. As a co-author of this plan the World Anti-Doping Agency also approved it.

Its systematic and successful implementation has borne fruit. WADA has recently allowed the Russian Anti-Doping Agency to take tests (although under control of the colleagues form the UK) and published a favorable report on the status of the Russian anti-doping system. This plan is unique because it provides for establishing the highest anti-doping standards. After it has been implemented, Russia will become the most advanced country in this sphere and set the bar for other countries.

READ MORE: Russian Prosecutor General’s Office denies link to Trump Jr. meeting with Russian lawyer (EXCLUSIVE)

RT: Some foreign media wrote about the meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya which reportedly took place last June, and possible involvement of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in brokering the meeting. How would you comment on this information?

Denis Grunis, head of the International Cooperation Department for Major Cases at the Office of International Legal Cooperation of Russia’s Prosecutor General's Office: I would not want to comment on something that is totally untrue. You have to understand that the Office of the Prosecutor General does not share information with individuals in the US. Such contacts can only happen through official channels – as stipulated by international agreements – and after a formal query is submitted by a prosecution agency.

This is exactly what we told your foreign colleagues – and we had about a dozen major Western media outlets asking us to comment. Interestingly enough, they did not publish any of our comments.

RT: So you are saying that the Prosecutor General’s Office could not have sent Veselnitskaya?

Denis Grunis: It is insane to think that the Prosecutor General’s Office would use a private lawyer to transfer information. Let me explain how this communication between our agency and the US usually happens.

This treaty states that any exchange of information about criminal cases is done through the countries’ official agencies – the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office and the US Department of Justice. So if we need to share information with our American colleagues, we send it to the Justice Department, after processing it in full compliance with the Treaty.

There is a direct channel of communication between our agencies. For instance, in 2015, we sent 109 queries to the US, asking for legal assistance in criminal matters, and received 35 such queries from our American colleagues.

The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office is in constant communication with the American colleagues – we hold video conferences and meet with the law enforcement employees of the US embassy in Moscow. These contacts allow us to coordinate practical steps that we take under this Treaty.

The Prosecutor General’s Office views this cooperation with the US as quite an efficient mechanism.

RT: So the Prosecutor General’s Office can share information with the Justice Department. How does that work?

Denis Grunis: I’ll give you some examples. Even though we have no extradition treaty, we still succeed in ensuring the inevitability of punishment for those who commit crimes via sharing information and evidence that DOJ needs. For instance, upon the query from the US Department of Justice, a Russian citizen named Rakosiy was charged with murder of two people in New York in 2011. The court sentenced him to 19 years in prison.

Last March, the California Central District Court sentenced a US citizen, Mr. Abramov, to life in prison for pedophilia. Justice was served, because we shared evidence with the US law enforcement. 

RT: You said that there is no extradition treaty – is that the only problem hindering the cooperation between the prosecution agencies of the two countries?

Denis Grunis: We appreciate our colleagues’ level of professionalism and respect them. But at the same time, we have to admit that in some areas the Americans are not as eager to work with us as we would hope. As an example, I can mention investigation of economic crimes.

In Russia, we are at the final stages of the investigation into the illegal acquisition of 200 million Gazprom shares, tax evasion and deliberate bankruptcy of a number of companies.

Then in 2006, all assets (Gazprom shares and dividends) were funneled out of the affiliated Russian companies. The companies failed to pay 1 billion rubles in taxes and were dismantled, while their assets (at least 1 billion dollars) were transferred to Cypriot companies and then, after a very short period of time, to US companies, in the same manner.

By the way, according to some media reports, Ziff Brothers Investments financed the US Democratic Party.

RT: Have you shared this information with your American colleagues?

Denis Grunis: Yes, we have. Back in March 2016, we met with representatives of the US Embassy in Moscow, including some FBI operatives. We officially informed them that in the course of the investigation we had found certain information that showed that those people and organizations could have violated not only Russian, but also American tax and financial regulations.

The US Embassy delegation promised to inform Washington about this issue in every detail, since they understand how sensitive it is. They advised us to relay the information we had about the potentially illegal activities on the US territory in a separate query so that it could be used to conduct an investigation in the US. They assured us that the query would be reviewed and handled with its importance in mind.

In May 2016, the Office of the Prosecutor General officially declared its intention to contact the US law enforcement agencies on this issue. In July, all the files, several volumes of them, were sent to the US Department of Justice. We also asked our US counterparts to carry out a number of investigative actions on the US territory, including interviewing the witnesses and seizure of documents.

RT: What response did you get from your American counterparts?

Denis Grunis: Not the kind we expected, unfortunately. At first, our counterparts told us they were reviewing the files they had received. They assured us they would be very thorough and involve various experts. In early February 2017, after numerous reminders and discussions during video conferences and phone calls, we were told that working on our query might interfere with one of the investigations conducted on the US territory. As far as we know, the investigation and legal proceedings mentioned have nothing to do with the files we sent and have been completed by now.

RT: Where do things stand now?

Denis Grunis: Our query regarding potentially illegal actions of a cross-border criminal group that includes the Ziff brothers, William Browder and Jamison Firestone, remains unanswered. We have not received the evidence we need for our investigation. Our American counterparts have conducted no inquiry or investigation based on the information we sent.

RT: Why do you think that is? Could politics have played a part in it, just like you warned your counterparts it might in May last year?

Denis Grunis: I wouldn’t rule that out. Nevertheless, we continue to cooperate with our American counterparts and hope for a response to our query. Neutralizing this criminal group is first and foremost in the US interests, since it operates predominantly on US soil.  

You came to France in order to open an exhibition that marks 300 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties between Russia and France. There have been highs and lows in the relations between the two countries. What is your perspective on the current state of these relations?

Vladimir Putin: It is true that President Macron invited me to take part in the opening of the exhibition. However, let me tell you straight away that the relations between Russia and France have a much longer history and much deeper roots, as the French President and I both mentioned on several occasions today. In fact, the younger daughter of Yaroslav the Wise, one of Russia’s Grand Princesses, Anna, came here in the 11th century to marry King Henry I of France. She was actually called Anna of Rus, Queen of France. Her son Philip I of France was the founder of two European royal houses, the Valois and the Bourbons, and the latter rules in Spain to this day. This goes to say that the roots of our relations go much deeper, although over the last 300 years they did pick up momentum. This is true. I very much hope that today’s event, the exhibition and my talks with President Macron will give a new impetus to these relations.

LF: Mr President, what is your vision of Peter the Great, who came to Versailles in 1717 to establish diplomatic relations?

VP: As I have said to my French colleague and our French friends today, Peter the Great was above all a reformer, a man who not only implemented the best and the most up-to-date practices, but also was undoubtedly a patriot, who fought to secure for Russia the place it deserved in international affairs. But above all, he was committed to reforming his country, making it modern, resilient and forward-looking. He succeeded in many, if not all, of his undertakings. He focused on research, education, culture, military affairs and statehood, leaving an immense legacy that Russia has been relying on to this day, let alone the fact that he founded my hometown, St. Petersburg, which was the capital of Russia for many years.

LF: You said that you recently met with Mr. Macron. Did you have any expectations from the first meeting? You said that it is important to overcome the stage of mistrust. Is it over now?

As for the main issue, the sanctions, can you say you reached any kind of understanding?

VP: At any meeting, in any contacts, at any events of this level, especially if it is the first contact, there are always expectations. If there are no expectations, it is pointless to hold meetings of this kind. I certainly had expectations this time. I wanted to get a closer look, to learn first-hand the position of the incoming President of the French Republic on the key issues on the international agenda and on the development of bilateral relations.

As the newly elected president takes office, he certainly has his own view of things, of bilateral relations, of international politics. Overall, I would say it is a very pragmatic view. We certainly have points for rapprochement, for joint work in key areas.

VP: Progress in resolving any conflict, including the conflict in southeast Ukraine, can be achieved first and foremost by the conflicting parties. This conflict is internal – a Ukrainian conflict primarily. It occurred after an unconstitutional forceful seizure of power in Kiev in 2014. This is the source of all problems. The most important thing to do is to find the strength to negotiate with all the conflicting parties, and above all, I am confident that as they say, the ball is in the court of the official Kiev authorities. First of all, they must take care of implementing the Minsk agreements.

LF: What could help achieve progress in this area? Can Russia put forth an initiative that will bring about peace?

VP: This is what we keep talking about. We believe that the main condition is to withdraw the armed forces from the contact line. This is the first thing that must be done. The withdrawal has been completed in two areas, but this goal has not been reached in the third area. The Ukrainian authorities say this cannot be done because of the shooting there. But shooting will not stop unless troops and heavy weaponry pull back. Heavy weaponry must be withdrawn. This is a key priority.

The second goal in the political sphere is to put into practice, at long last, the law on the special status of these regions, which the Ukrainian parliament has adopted. The law has been adopted but has not come into effect.

The law on amnesty has been passed, but President Poroshenko has not signed it. The Minsk Agreements stipulate the social and economic rehabilitation in the self-proclaimed republics. Instead of doing this, Kiev has blockaded these territories. The blockade was initiated by the radicals who blocked the railway lines. At first, the Ukrainian president denounced their actions and said that he would restore order. However, he failed. Instead of continuing his efforts, he officially joined the blockade and issued an executive order to this effect. Can we speak of changes for the better in this situation? Regrettably, we have not seen any so far.

LF: Let us forget about Eastern Europe for a minute and talk about the Middle East, primarily Syria. After Russia’s military intervention in September 2015, what do you think are the main solutions for Syria to get out of this long-term war?

VP: First, I would like to note the constructive approach of Turkey and Iran, and, of course, the Syrian government, which, together with Russia, have managed to achieve a ceasefire. The ceasefire would not have been possible without the so-called Syrian armed opposition. It was the first and very important step toward peace.

Another step, which is no less important, is the agreement on establishing the so-called de-escalation zones. Currently there are four such zones. We believe this is an extremely important milestone on the way to peace, if I can phrase it this way, because it is impossible to talk about a political settlement without stopping the bloodshed. Now, in my opinion, we are all facing a different task, which is technically and I would even say technologically completing the creation of these de-escalation zones, agreeing on their boundaries and how government bodies will function there, as well as how these de-escalation zones will communicate with the outside world.

Incidentally, President Macron mentioned this when he was speaking about humanitarian aid convoys. Generally, I believe that the French president is right and it is one of the points of contact where we can cooperate with our French colleagues. Once the de-escalation zones are formalized, I do hope that at least some elements of cooperation will begin between the government and those people who will control the de-escalation zones.

I really hope (and what I am about to say is very important) that these zones do not become a prototype for the future territorial division in Syria. On the contrary, I expect that these de-escalation zones, if peace is established, and the people who will be controlling them, will cooperate with the official Syrian authorities. This is how an environment of basic interaction and cooperation can and must be built. The next step is a purely political reconciliation and, if possible, the development of constitutional regulations, a constitution and holding elections.

LF: Indeed, Russia and the other parties differ on the Syrian issue regarding primarily the fate of Bashar al-Assad, whom the Western countries have accused of using chemical weapons against his own people.

Mr. President, can you envision Syria’s political future without Bashar al-Assad?

VP: I do not think I have the right to determine the political future of Syria, be it with or without al-Assad. This is for the Syrians themselves to decide. Nobody has the right to claim the rights that belong to the people of another country. This is the first thing I wanted to say.

Do you have an additional question?

LF: Yes, I do. You say that this is not your decision. However, this does not mean that Syria’s future is possible without al-Assad, does it?

VP: As I have said, this is for the Syrian people to decide. You have mentioned allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. When the attack happened, we called on our American partners – and everyone else who considers this to be expedient – to send inspectors to the airfield from which the planes that dropped chemical bombs allegedly took off. If chemical weapons were used by President al-Assad’s official agencies, modern verification equipment would certainly find traces of this at the airfield. For certain. These traces would be found in the aircraft and at the airfield. However, everyone refused to conduct such an inspection.

We also proposed sending inspectors to the site of the alleged chemical attack. But they refused as well, claiming that it was dangerous. Why is this dangerous if the attack was delivered in an area where peaceful civilians live and the healthy part of the armed opposition is deployed? In my opinion, the accusations have been made for the sole purpose of justifying the use of additional measures, including military ones, against al-Assad. That is all. There is no proof that al-Assad has used chemical weapons. We firmly believe that that this is a provocation. President al-Assad did not use chemical weapons.

VP: Yes, I do.

Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons impossible for anyone.

LF: After Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, many people spoke about a new era in Russian-US relations. However, these relations do not seem to have made a new start. The NATO leaders spoke about the Russian threat at their summit last week.

Are you disappointed by the US attitude?

VP: No, I am not. We had no special expectations. The US president is steering a traditional US policy. Of course, we remember that during his election campaign, and also after he was elected and assumed office, President Trump spoke about his intention to normalize the relationship with Russia and said that it cannot be any worse. We remember this. However, we also see and realize that the political situation in the United States is influenced by those who have lost the elections but refuse to accept their defeat, and who continue to use the anti-Russia card and various allegations most actively in the political infighting. This is why we are in no hurry, we are ready to wait, yet we strongly hope that Russian-US relations will become normal again sometime in the future.

As for increasing…

LF: In a perfect world, what would you expect the United States to do to improve relations with Russia?

VP: There is no such thing as a perfect world, and there is no subjunctive mood in politics.

I would like to answer the second part of your question, regarding plans to increase military spending by 2 percent or more. It is a fact that the US defense budget is larger than the defense budgets of all other countries taken together. This is why I understand the US president when he says that his NATO allies should take over part of this burden. It is a pragmatic and understandable approach.

However, what attracted my attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against? I see an inner contradiction here, although this is not our business. Let NATO decide who will pay and how much. We have our own defense to deal with, and we are working to ensure it is reliable and with a view to the future. We feel confident.

LF: However, regarding NATO, some of your neighbors want to ensure their security through NATO. Is this a sign of mistrust toward you, something that causes a scandalous attitude?

VP: For us this is a sign that our partners in Europe and in the United States are, pardon me, pursuing a short-sighted policy. They do not have the habit of looking one step ahead. Our Western partners have lost this habit.

When the Soviet Union ceased to exist, Western politicians told us (it was not documented on paper but stated quite clearly) that NATO would not expand to the East. Some German politicians at the time even proposed creating a new security system in Europe that would involve the United States and, by the way, Russia.

If that had been done, we would not have the problems we have had in recent years, which is NATO’s expansion to the East up to our borders, the advance of military infrastructure to our borders. Perhaps the United States would not have unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This treaty was a cornerstone of current and future security. The missile defense facilities in Europe – in Poland and Romania – would not have been built, which, undoubtedly, creates a threat to our strategic nuclear forces and disrupts the strategic balance – an extremely dangerous development for international security. Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie.

We have to proceed from the current situation. In this respect, we need to think about what we want from the future. I think we all want security, peace, safety and cooperation. Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc. You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues.

What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating about the threat from Russia.

VP: Ask Europe. We are willing to cooperate, as I said a while ago at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, when I called on all countries to unite their efforts to fight terrorism. However, this is a very complex issue.

Look, after the Paris terrorist attack, a bloody and horrible event, President Hollande came to Russia and we agreed on cooperative actions. The Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier approached the Syrian coast. Then, Francois [Hollande] headed to Washington, while the Charles de Gaulle left for the Suez Canal. So real cooperation with France ended before it even started. France is involved in operations there, but it is acting within the US-led coalition. Go figure who gives the orders, and who is not, who has a say, and what the agenda is. Russia is open to cooperation.

It was also very difficult to agree on these issues with the US. Incidentally, we have been seeing some shifts lately; and there are actual results. I spoke to President Trump on the telephone, and he supported the idea, in general, of creating de-escalation zones.

We are now considering how the interests of all the countries to the south of Syria can be best served, with consideration for the concerns of all the countries that face issues in this region. I am referring to Jordan, Israel and Syria itself. Of course, Russia is ready to heed what the United States and our European partners have to say. However, what we need is for the dialogue to be specific and concise, instead of empty talk about mutual claims and threats. There is a need for a real effort.

LF: You are saying that they are the ones who need to decide and act, right?

VP: That is exactly the way it is.

LF: You have mentioned the United States. The allegations of Russia’s interference in the US presidential race raised a political storm in Washington. Similar allegations were also voiced in France. What is your response, especially against the backdrop of recent developments in the US?

I have already spoken to three US presidents. They come and go, but politics stays the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration.

Changing things is not easy, and I say this without any irony. It is not that someone does not want to, but because it is a hard thing to do. Take Obama, a forward-thinking man, a liberal, a democrat. Did he not pledge to shut down Guantanamo before his election? But did he do it? No, he did not. And may I ask why not? Did he not want to do it? He wanted to, I am sure he did, but it did not work out. He sincerely wanted to do it, but did not succeed, since it turned out to be very complicated. This is not the main issue, however, even though it is important, since it is hard to fathom that people have been walking there in chains for decades without trial or investigation. Can you imagine France or Russia acting this way? This would have been a disaster. But it is possible in the United States and continues to this day. This refers to the question on democracy, by the way.

I referred to this example just to show that it is not as simple as it may seem. That said, I am cautiously optimistic, and I think that we can and should be able to reach agreements on key issues.

LF: You are saying that right now, the political storm in Washington rests on absolutely unsubstantiated allegations.

VP: It is not based on allegations, but on the desire of those who lost the elections in the United States to at least improve their standing through anti-Russia attacks, by accusing Russia of interference. The people who lost the elections do not want to admit that they really lost, that the one who won was closer to the people and better understood what ordinary voters want. They are absolutely reluctant to admit this, and prefer deluding themselves and others into thinking it was not their fault, that their policy was correct, they did all the right things, but someone from the outside thwarted them. But it was not so. They just lost and they have to admit it.

When they do, I think it will be easier for us to work. However, the fact that this is being done using anti-Russia tools is not good, as it brings discord into international affairs. Let them argue among themselves, so they can prove who is stronger, who is better, who is smarter, who is more reliable and who sets a better policy for the country. Why involve third countries? This is very distressing. But it will pass, everything passes, and this will pass as well.

LF: Mr. President, we are close to the end of our interview. Most of all I would like to ask you a question about 2018. This is the year of elections in Russia – presidential elections, and elections to the Federal Assembly. Could you tell us if you intend to run, or perhaps the opposition would be able to nominate someone in a democratic procedure? How do you see the development of this situation? You do want next year’s campaign to unfold in a truly democratic environment, don’t you? I am talking about 2018.

VP: All the recent election campaigns in Russia have been in strict accordance with the Russian Constitution, in strict compliance. And I will make every effort to ensure that the 2018 election campaigns are conducted in the same way, I repeat, in strict accordance with the law and the Constitution. So anyone entitled to run, anyone who fulfils the relevant procedures prescribed by law, can and will participate, if they wish, in elections at all levels – to legislative assemblies, to parliament, and in presidential elections.

As for the candidates, it is still too early to talk about it.

LF: Thank you. I hope we will see you soon. Thank you very much for sharing your views with Le Figaro.

Every year on May 9th the peoples of our countries celebrate the Victory Day.

This holiday unites generations and our nations who 72 years ago overcame the ultimate evil of Nazism. That is a long time, but the peoples of our countries remember everything about that war: deprivation and hunger, bombing and destruction, and a fearful numbers of losses in human lives.

We have never set our victory apart from that of others, and we will always remember the help we received from our allies ‒ United States of America, United Kingdom, France, other states of anti-Hitler coalition and European anti-fascists.

Unfortunately, every year there are fewer Victory witnesses but we are happy that Soviet veterans, whom we should only thank and congratulate, can be found in America as well. On Elbe Day (i.e. April 25th) we compliment both – Soviet and American soldiers – whose comrades-in-arms met in Germany 72 years ago. This occasion has become one of the most significant landmarks in history of our peoples’ mutual relations.

History teaches that countries and peoples must try not to overlook how new lethal doctrines arise and how new threats emerge. War’s lessons admonish us that complicity in violence, apathy and waiting inevitably lead to dreadful tragedies on a global scale. For this reason, countries must forge relations that are not only held by our past lessons but that are also anchored in our common future.

We do not accept the purposeful attempts that have been made to rewrite history, to distort and revise the outcome of the Second World War. We consider inadmissible any attempts to glorify Nazism and militant nationalism. We believe that all countries should do everything within their power to counter manifestations of neo-fascism, chauvinism, hatred based on nationality or religion, and all forms of xenophobia.

We are glad that our new generations continue to keep the tradition and celebrate Victory Day.

Delighted we are as young people on a massive scale take part in the Immortal Regiments marching events carrying portraits of their relatives who participated in the War but not always came back. Such actions have also extended in the U.S. We are proud of our compatriots as well as those Americans who are engaged. Traditions are vivid and taking new forms.

Happy Victory Day! Happy Common Victory!

New Year Address to the Nation

Citizens of Russia, friends,

The year 2016 is coming to a close. It was a challenging year, but the difficulties we faced have brought us together and allowed us to reveal enormous resources for our movement forward.

The main thing is that we believe in ourselves, in our strengths and in our country. We are working, and working successfully, and we are achieving much. I would like to thank you for the victories and achievements, for your understanding and trust, and for your true, sincere care for Russia.

But not everyone is at the holiday table today. Many of our citizens are away from home, ensuring Russia’s security, working at enterprises, on duty in hospitals, at operating trains and aircraft. I would like to convey my very best wishes for the New Year to all those who are now fulfilling their labor and military duties.

Dear friends,

We are excitedly awaiting the sound of the chimes of the Moscow Kremlin, and we feel the march of time and the approaching future more clearly than ever before. We experience this only during these moments, during this wonderful and beloved holiday.

Meanwhile, New Year has its own secrets. For instance, each of us may become something of a magician on the night of the New Year. To do this we simply need to treat our parents with love and gratitude, take care of our children and families, respect our colleagues at work, nurture our friendships, defend truth and justice, be merciful and help those who are in need of support. This is the whole secret.

May our dreams, heavenly thoughts and good intentions come true. May joy and love reign in every home. May our beloved streets, cities and villages become even more beautiful.

Peace and prosperity to our common, great homeland, Russia. Happiness, health and wellbeing to each of you.

Happy New Year 2017!

President of Russia Vladimir Putin

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I was told that you wanted to see my dog, Yume. You can see that she is in great shape.

Question: Thank you very much. The dog is very cheerful indeed.

We would like to thank you again for finding time to grant an interview to Nippon TV and Yomiuri Shimbun. This dog is an Akita from Akita Prefecture, and we are glad to see Yume happy and cheerful. However, we were a bit surprised and afraid that the beginning of the meeting would be like this.

Vladimir Putin: You were right to take caution, Yume is a no-nonsense dog. There are many people here, with camcorders running, lights shining and cameras clicking. She is being a guard dog.

Question: Well, I believe the dog always defends you like this.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, she does.

Question: So, very soon you will visit Japan as President. I believe you are very busy.

Vladimir Putin: The last time I was in Japan as President of Russia was 11 years ago, if memory serves. I later visited in my capacity as Prime Minister. However, I am in regular contact with Prime Minister Abe. We have met several times this year.

Question: This time you will meet and talk with Prime Minister Abe in Yamaguchi Prefecture, the place he calls home. What do you expect from this meeting?

Vladimir Putin: I have a huge interest in Japan, which is well known, including its history and culture, and so it will be very interesting for me to see and learn more about Japan. I have been to Tokyo and several other cities, but I have never been to Yamaguchi Prefecture. I wonder what it is like, what interesting things it has to offer. I am sure that Prime Minister Abe will tell me all about it.

Question: There are also hot springs there. Do you like hot springs?

Vladimir Putin: This never occurred to me, but yes, it could be interesting.

Question: You are well known in Japan as a judoka. In the Kodokan Institute Hall in 2000 you demonstrated your throwing technique. Your image as an athlete has made a strong impression in Japan. Let me say a few words about judo. We asked famous and respected master Mr Yamashita to share his impressions of his meeting with you. We recorded this interview. Please watch it ‒ it is about a minute long.

(viewing a video)

(Yamashita): I met with the President not as an athlete before a fight. We discussed the issue of the four islands, and I was always stunned by his abilities. He is not at all like other presidents. A man holding such a high position is willing to talk to us. I recall different instances. Sometimes his words sounded chilly. But so what? After all, he is always defending Russia’s interests. So regardless of the fact that he likes judo, there is no reason to expect him to act in Japan’s interests.

Did you like it?

Vladimir Putin: It is a pleasure to hear that. Mr Yamashita is a respected judo master not only in Japan but across the world. To me, he is an example of an outstanding athlete and a very good man.

Judo has been part of Japanese culture for a long time. It makes sense to me that this sport, which is both athletic and philosophical, was created in Japan. It is based on respect for the partner and for our elders as our teachers, which is very important and makes a strong, positive contribution to human relationships, and not only in sports. I am happy that life brought me to this wonderful sport as a child. It is like my first love. I like other sports, too, including skiing and swimming, and I am learning to play ice hockey now. But judo is definitely part of my life, a very big part, and I am glad that judo was the first sport I took up and that I have practiced it regularly and seriously. I am also grateful to Japan for this.

Question: When you were in Japan in 2000, you visited Kodokan. Are you planning to visit it this time as well?

Vladimir Putin: Honestly, I do not even know whether this is on the visit itinerary, but if there is time, I would be pleased to go to Kodokan. For anyone interested in judo, who loves judo, Kodokan is a special place. Kodokan is, to a large degree, a trendsetter in the sport. This school trained outstanding masters and is a kind of Mecca for all judokas. Certainly, I would be pleased to visit, if time permits.

Question: We strongly hope that you will have that opportunity. Allow me to touch on the subject of Japanese-Russian relations.

On December 15, you will visit Yamaguchi prefecture, which is where Mr Abe is from. It will be your fourth top-level meeting this year. We all hope that this format has a profound significance.

What do you think of it?

Vladimir Putin: I believe that meetings at the top level in a relatively informal atmosphere are always useful, and there is reason to hope that we will make progress in resolving the matters we will be considering. I remember my very first encounter with Japan. At that time, I was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. Out of nowhere, Japan’s Consul General in St Petersburg came to my office and said Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs wanted to invite me to Japan. I was very surprised because I had nothing to do with Japan except being a judoka. This was an opportunity to visit Tokyo and a couple of other cities. And, you know, a capital is a capital everywhere: there is the official script and certain protocol. It is always easier to talk in the provinces, the conversation is more natural. Therefore, I hope that being in places from the Prime Minister’s past will motivate us to have a sincere, very practical and, I hope, productive conversation.

Question: This year it will be 60 years since Prime Minister Hatoyama and Prime Minister Bulganin signed the Joint Japanese-Soviet Declaration of 1956. The Japanese people are pinning high hopes on this historic landmark as well.

Do you think something special may be expected?

As for these 60 years, and in general more than a hundred years, we have had different periods in relations and there have been tragic pages in our history, but since 1956 when we restored diplomatic relations, regrettably, we have not had a foundation on which to build ties that would correspond to our wishes and that are currently required in bilateral cooperation. We are natural partners in the world and the Far East, but the absence of a peace treaty does not allow us to develop the full range of our relations. Therefore, we will naturally strive to sign this treaty. We want full-scale normalisation of relations.

The absence of a peace treaty is an anachronism we inherited from the past and it must be removed. However, how to do this is a complicated issue. You recalled the 1956 declaration, and this declaration established the rules that should be followed by both sides and that should be put into the foundation of a peace treaty. If you carefully read the text of this document, you will see that the declaration will take effect after we sign a peace treaty and the two islands are transferred to Japan. It does not say on what terms they should be transferred and what side will exercise sovereignty over them. Yet this document was signed and not only signed but also ratified by both the USSR Supreme Soviet, or the Soviet Parliament, and Japan’s Parliament.

However, after this was done, Japan announced that it would not comply with this declaration. Later on, the Soviet Union also declared that the declaration could not be fulfilled unilaterally, by the USSR alone.

In 2000 the then Prime Minister of Japan asked me to return to this process, this conversation, these talks, and to do so, incidentally, on the basis of the 1956 declaration. I agreed. Since then we have conducted dialogue in this regard but I cannot say that our Japanese partners and friends have remained within the limits of the 1956 declaration. I think it is too early to pre-empt our talks with the Prime Minister but, of course, we hope to make progress.

Question: You said that the 1956 joint declaration is a fundamental document. Mr President, you have repeatedly discussed this subject with many Japanese prime ministers since 2000. The current Prime Minister, Mr Abe, acts on the assumption that a peace treaty may be signed subject to a settlement on the status of the four islands. We understand that you and Mr Abe have been discussing this subject for over a year now. Last autumn in New York (true, for only 10 minutes), this year in Sochi, in Vladivostok and in Lima you discussed it one-on-one. We have calculated that conversations in this format have lasted a total of two hours and 15 minutes. Apparently, it was an in-depth discussion. What prospects, in your view, are there for a decision to sign a peace treaty to be made at the upcoming meeting?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we will work towards that end. Of course, we will work to achieve this result. However, you have just mentioned the 1956 agreement, and one may recall that these negotiations were later terminated, in effect, on Japan’s initiative. At the request of my Japanese colleagues, in 2000 we revisited the possibility of signing a peace treaty based on the 1956 agreement. However, the 1956 agreement refers to two islands while you have just said that the Prime Minister is talking about four islands. Therefore, we have already gone outside the bounds of the 1956 agreement. This is quite a different situation and quite a different approach.

I believe it is no secret that I like Japan very much – Japanese culture, sport, including judo, but it will not offend anyone if I say that I like Russia even more. Therefore, the Prime Minister and I will negotiate proceeding from our national interests: the interests of Russia and the interests of Japan. We should find a compromise. We should understand that the results of that terrible tragedy of the 20th century, namely World War II, are enshrined in corresponding international documents, and finding a way to settle all disputes without destroying the entire foundation of international law that evolved as a result of World War II is a highly delicate task. Therefore, I would like to reiterate that we cannot second-guess the course, let alone the outcome of our negotiations.

Everything that we are talking about has come to us as a result of the events of 70 years ago. In some way or other, during these 70 years we have been involved in some kind of dialogue on the issue, and that includes the conclusion of a peace treaty. However, I wish that in the course of my visit to places the Prime Minister calls home, all of a sudden, we would reach a clear understanding on how we can resolve the matters. We will be very glad if that happens. Are there any chances? Perhaps. There is always a chance, or else it makes no sense to talk. How great is it? Right now, it is difficult for me to say, because this will depend, among other things, on the flexibility of our partners.

Question: I am not a politician, not a diplomat and not a negotiator. However, as a Japanese citizen and a member of the media, I would like to note that a very favourable situation has developed: the 60th anniversary of the 1956 declaration. Mr President, you enjoy remarkably high political support in your country. It is over 80 percent. And the Abe Government also has the strongest position in Japan of all the previous Japanese governments. Polls show it has the support of 50 percent, or 52 percent.

Taking into account these factors, and the timing, and adding a third condition, specifically that previously, a majority held the view that the four islands should be returned while now, according to a poll, a far greater number of Japanese citizens believe two islands should be returned first, as a member of the media, I believe that all of the three necessary conditions are now in place.

And if so many conditions have come together, naturally, we would like to hope that this complicated situation, which, as I understood from your remarks, still exists, would be overcome.

Vladimir Putin: You have made a very good point: both the Prime Minister and I enjoy a fairly high level of trust among the citizens of our countries. However, personally, I see this as not having the right to abuse this trust, and any decision we reach should correspond to the national interests of the Russian Federation. Yet our interests, the interests of the Russian Federation, include the normalisation of relations with Japan, which is not at the bottom of the agenda. The whole range of what will be proposed for a solution, the entire range of matters related to the normalisation of our relations and what that would bring after normalisation, this is the whole range of issues to be discussed and decided, and those decisions should be of a practical nature.

Say, the Prime Minister and I have spoken a lot, and we said all the right things, in my opinion, about creating an atmosphere of trust and friendship between our nations and peoples. Our agreements on creating the conditions for preparing a peace treaty should be rooted in this trust. This may be achieved, for example, by large-scale economic activities that will also cover the Kuril Islands. It may be achieved by solving purely humanitarian issues, for instance, unhindered visa-free travel by former residents of the Southern Kuril Islands to where they used to live: visiting cemeteries, native places and so on.

Secondly, Japan has joined the sanctions against the Russian Federation. How are we going to further economic relations on a new and much higher basis, at a higher level under the sanctions regime? I will not offer my thoughts on what Japan could and should have done, this is none of my business, it is the business of the Japanese leadership. But we should understand how practicable all our agreements are as a whole given the allied obligations Japan has assumed, how much independence there is in making those decision, and what we can hope for, what we can ultimately arrive at.

These are not simple matters, and even despite the absolutely obvious and positive preconditions you have just mentioned, and they really do exist, can we say with full confidence that we will reach a final agreement right away? I do not know; this is a question that needs thorough discussing, even though, let me reiterate, we are sincerely committed to this result.

Question: Mr Abe keeps saying that it is essential to develop dialogue with Mr Putin. For example, you have just mentioned unimpeded travel so that former Japanese residents of the islands could visit them, and also businesspeople, tourists – to make those relations more free, and on this basis, probably, to develop joint economic activities. This will definitely be connected with progress towards a peace treaty, don’t you think?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. As regards humanitarian issues and how to handle them, that was the Prime Minister's initiative. He brought the matter up at our last meeting in Lima and asked me straightforwardly whether we would agree to let Japanese citizens travel on a visa-free basis, resolve the issue in such a way as to enable them to visit the South Kurils, visit their native areas. I said at once that it was quite possible. Our foreign ministries will simply need to sort out some purely technical matters. I see no political restraints here. The same applies to economic matters. We, on our part, are ready. However, let me repeat once again, given that Japan has joined the anti-Russian sanctions, how ready is Japan and how can it do that without breaching its commitments to its allies? We do not know the answer. Only Japan itself knows the answer. However, we need to understand it, to get a clear and precise picture, and to have some guarantees both now and in the future.

Here is an example from another region. We negotiated the construction of a gas pipeline system along the bottom of the Black Sea to Bulgaria. We signed certain treaties of a technical nature, contracts for laying the gas pipeline. And then Bulgaria created such conditions that the project's implementation became impossible, which was obviously against its own national interests. The former Bulgarian leadership was, in fact, aware of that and acknowledged it. But we trusted them when we were launching that project. Finally, when it became clear that Bulgaria would reject the project and that there was no opportunity for us to implement it, we were forced to scrap it too. We sustained losses amounting to millions, several million dollars. We would not want to get into such situations. I do not want to speak about our cooperation with Japan now. Thank God, we have had no such problems there. Nor would we want any to arise in the future. Therefore, everything needs to be pre-calculated, and we need to agree upon everything in advance. And not just agree, but shape our agreements into legally binding documents guaranteeing the implementation of our mutual commitments.

Question: You pointed out once that the judo spirit should be used to resolve the territorial problem. If we go back to that analogy, is the match still ongoing? That is, let us say, the Olympic regulations allow for competing only for five minutes. Are we still within the five minutes? How long is it before the match ends? Or are we already playing extra time?

Vladimir Putin: No, look, as I said earlier, we were in negotiations, but then the Japanese side suspended them unilaterally. Now, at the request of our Japanese partners, we have reopened these talks. What command is given in this case in judo? You probably know better than I do: Yoshi (continue). So we will continue.

Question: So it appears that this command reflects the coinciding will of both parties is to continue? In other words, there is another path that has not been trailed before the match is over, and we are unable to say how much of that path is still left. Is that how you see things?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I believe there are a lot of questions today that require expert analysis by various agencies: political agencies, foreign ministries, economic agencies and security agencies. We need to assess everything and understand what we can agree on and what the implications will be both for Japan and for Russia so that both the Russian people and the Japanese people come to the conclusion that these compromise solutions are acceptable and are in our countries’ interests.

Question: Does Russia believe it has no other issues with Japan except this one?

Vladimir Putin: Could you repeat that please?

Question: Does Russia have no other territorial disputes except this problem with Japan?

Vladimir Putin: We believe we have no territorial problems at all. It is only Japan that believes it has territorial problems with Russia. We are ready to talk about this.

Question: But, as we see it, the exchange continues at a high level, and a new approach is being sought. The Japanese Prime Minister speaks about a new approach, and there has been some progress in this respect. However, judging by what you have said, that is not how things stand and there has been no progress yet? That is the impression I am getting. Am I wrong?

Vladimir Putin: Yes and no. There is progress in the sense that the Prime Minister has proposed, outlined, as it were, directions for movement toward a peace treaty and the resolution of issues related to territorial problems. Now, what did he propose? He proposed promoting an environment of trust and cooperation. I believe it is even hard to imagine that it can be any different, that we can agree to sign the documents that we are talking about without trusting each other or without cooperation. That is simply impossible even to imagine.

Therefore, we agree with this and in this respect, certainly, there is progress. For example, the Prime Minister proposed advancing to a new level of economic engagement, putting forward eight lines of cooperation in the most important and interesting areas both for Russia and for Japan. The Prime Minister also highlighted the need to address general humanitarian issues. We already mentioned one of these issues: visa-free travel by Japanese citizens to the South Kuril Islands.

There are also other areas. For example, culture. This is extremely important. We keep revisiting sport, judo, because I practice it, but other than that, there is also culture. Every year events that are in some way or other related to Russia take place in Japan. Next year, we are going to hold a series of events there that we would like to call Russian Seasons. Over 40 different activities – and what is more, in different cities.

I assure you that interest in Japanese culture in Russia is just as strong as interest in Russian culture in Japan. It is simply that we treat Japanese history, the history of the Japanese people and its unique culture with greater respect and interest. This generates enormous interest in Russia!

All of this, if we do it, if we work to achieve all this, we can and should talk about joint efforts toward ensuring international security, and not only in the Far East. Are we not concerned, for example, by the growing danger related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology? All of this poses a clear threat to the world, to the region. However, we have obvious points of convergence that are related to our interests. If we act together along these lines, we will create conditions, the conditions for trust that Mr Abe speaks about, so as to take another step and conclude a peace treaty on certain terms. However, first, it is essential to cover this part of the way and then agree on the terms for signing a peace treaty. Both are challenging tasks but they are feasible.

Question: Mr President, you have just mentioned Mr Abe’s eight-point plan. You yourself said that this is indeed the only realistic way for such cooperation, a way towards solving the problems.

Do you think the implementation of this plan is one of the crucial conditions for reaching agreement on a peace treaty?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this is not a condition but the creation of a necessary atmosphere.

We conducted talks on border issues with our friends in the People’s Republic of China for 40 years. There were also issues related to specific territories. Now we characterise Russian-Chinese relations as a strategic partnership, even a special strategic partnership. We have never had such a level of trust with China before. China is our major trade and economic partner among foreign states. We implement joint multi-billion projects. We cooperate not only within the UN Security Council, which is logical, as both China and Russia are permanent members of the UN Security Council, but also within such regional organisations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS, etc. Now we are talking about concluding a free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Council, recently established in the post-Soviet space, and China. A similar agreement was concluded a short time ago with Vietnam. Then, we will coordinate, at least we are ready to do this, the Chinese concept of the Silk Road Economic Belt with our newly-created regional organisation. So, do you understand how diverse, multi-faceted and deep Russian-Chinese ties have become over the last couple of decades? And we resolved the border issue. This did not cause any major problems, if there were any in China and Russia in this connection, though we both made some compromises. But these were compromises between friendly countries. I think it is almost impossible to achieve such compromise in other ways. I think Mr Abe’s proposal may be the only way to achieving our goal.

Question: You speak about resolving border issues with China and a very high level of trust with China. However, the relations with Japan have not reached such a level. Is that what you mean?

Vladimir Putin: Look, I have just said we have the highest bilateral turnover and continue liberalising our trade ties, as you know. However, Japan imposed economic sanctions against us. Do you see the difference? Why? Due to the events in Ukraine or in Syria? However, Japan and Russian-Japanese relations are hardly related to the events in Syria or in Ukraine. Therefore, Japan has some alliance obligations. We treat them with respect, but we need to understand the degree of Japan’s freedom and what steps it is ready to take. We should look into this, as these are not minor issues. Our foundation for signing a peace agreement will depend on them. This is the difference between current Russian-Japanese and, for instance, Russian-Chinese relations. I do not want to argue; you asked me what the point is. The point is to create an atmosphere of trust.

READ MORE: Russia to Japan: US missile defense in Asia-Pacific poses security risks

Question: Mr President, you mentioned a package of measures that we need. One of the directions, as you have also mentioned already, could be economic activity. I share this view. Regarding this joint economic activity, how do you envision it? For example, as one option, and this could be done on all the four islands or on some of them, a special economic zone could be established where such interaction could unfold. How do you envision this economic cooperation as you speak about it?

Vladimir Putin: You know, first, I believe we should broadly expand our trade and economic ties. In the past two years, sadly, Russian-Japanese trade has declined significantly, and we should make every effort to restore the previous level (at least restore) and increase it and move on up. As I said, we are natural partners, because, truth be told, we are interested in Japan’s involvement in developing Russia’s Far East in general and in receiving technologies, for instance. And there are positive examples – for instance, in the automobile industry and other spheres, such as agriculture, where the Japanese are eager to work. By the way, we hope that Japan opens its markets to Russian-made eco-friendly meat products.

We have many interesting avenues in the energy industry. Nine percent of the natural gas and oil consumed by Japan comes from Russia. Another prospect for development comes from the Sakhalin-I and Sakhalin-II oil and gas projects, which are up and running, with some 75 percent of the products delivered to Japan under long-term contracts. There are plans for constructing the third plant. The work is underway to implement plans to involve Japanese partners in projects on the Yamal Peninsula in Russia’s north. We have plenty to work on that is promising and large-scale.

As regards the southern Kuril Islands, there are different possible options. We are ready to consider joint efforts on one, two, three, or four islands. The terms are important, but they have to be as liberal as possible. Prime Minister Abe has mentioned this, and I agree with him.

Question: What will be the legal framework of this activity? Will it be a Russian zone or a Japanese zone, or some kind of a joint zone? How can the legal framework for this be organised? There could be several ways and options. What do you think about it?

Vladimir Putin: I think the Japanese are a very creative and intelligent people. You have just shown a brilliant example of this approach to the discussion by raising the point that economic activity can develop on the islands that would be under Japan’s sovereignty. However, if this occurs from the outset, no second step is needed and the issue can be considered closed. That was not the agreement. We agreed to solve political issues first, fundamentally, and then the issues related to signing a peace treaty, or all of this together – but only if we are aware that we will not be able to solve the signing of a peace treaty and territorial disputes solely by drafting plans for our possible future cooperation. That is why this is a matter for detailed, reasonable and substantive professional talks.

Question: As a Japanese, I can say that, of course, joint activities have obvious advantages for Japan. And, if some progress is made on that track, it would be sound to achieve some advancement in solving the territorial dispute. I think many Japanese people harbour such hopes and expectations. Mr President, you yourself have said that the 1956 Declaration is the only legal document signed by our countries that indicates a way towards solving the problem. And the Declaration says that Shikotan and Habomai will subsequently be transferred to Japan.

You have just told us that there may be different interpretations, in particular, regarding under whose sovereignty this may be done. I think if joint activities do yield fruit, if it works, then to what extent could the transfer procedure issue be solved, for example, under whose sovereignty could the islands be handed over?

Question: Concerning the four islands. Mr Abe says our relations have recently improved in many ways. Regarding the peace treaty talks in the context of the four islands, as long as you both hold the offices of Prime Minister and President, will you be trying to lay the groundwork for resolving the matter? We have already said that both you and Mr Abe enjoy great public support. Are you committed to resolving this problem?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, we are working toward this. We are discussing this sincerely because we are interested in resolving all the problems of the past in our relations with Japan. Nothing should prevent us from moving forward. This is one of our national priorities. This is what we want, and it is in our interest. That said, I believe that fixing some deadline that is limited by my term in office or the Prime Minister’s would be unprofessional because we should talk not about our terms in power but about the quality of potential agreements. This is the first point. Secondly, as I have already mentioned, yes, trust in the President is quite high in Russia, as it is for the Prime Minister in Japan, but I believe, for one, as I have already said, that I have no right to abuse this trust. Needless to say, each of us would like to achieve major results in our work. If we achieve success… I know his position: he wants to complete this process during his term in office, and I would also like to achieve some meaningful, significant results and not only in relations with Japan but also in other areas, such as domestic policy, the economy, and international affairs. Naturally, I will be working toward this, but I still do not know if I will succeed.

Question: Thank you. I apologise but I would like you to give an earnest answer now. Do you perceive Mr Abe as a good partner and as your friend? What is your opinion of him?

Vladimir Putin: I believe that the Prime Minister is, first of all, a consummate professional. This is perfectly obvious. He clearly loves his country very much, is motivated to defend its interests and is very pragmatic in how he goes about it. In my view, he is a very reliable, honourable partner with whom it is possible to agree on highly serious, specific issues. As such, I intend to develop relations with the Prime Minister into the future, including with respect to the most urgent and important issues of our cooperation.

Question: Mr President, I would like to ask one more question about our relations. There is a famous saying in Russia – “slow and steady wins the race.” The part about winning the race is clear, it means strengthening our relations, their progress. But what does the first part – slow and steady – mean? How can we define it?

Vladimir Putin: If you want to understand the meaning of this proverb, it urges one not to rush in making important decisions. Acting carefully and slowly, it is possible to achieve a better result. This proverb does not call for sabotaging a goal, it does not call for pretending instead of taking real steps to reach a goal. No, this is a call for high-quality work without rushing about hastily.

Question: Thank you. Now I would like to digress from Russian-Japanese relations and ask different questions. Relations with the United States. Mr Trump is going to be the next President, and you already had a telephone conversation with him on November 14. What are your impressions of him? What do you think of him?

Vladimir Putin: I only had a telephone conversation with him, whereas Mr Abe met with him in person. So, you should ask the Japanese Prime Minister what impression he has about the newly elected US President. But it is well known, widely known that the US President-elect has publicly spoken in favour of normalising Russian-American relations. We cannot but support this. Of course, we understand that it will not be an easy job, taking into account the degree to which Russian-American relations have degraded. But we are ready to cover our part of the way.

Question: In your Address, you said that you are ready to establish relations and develop cooperation with the new US Administration. In which fields, in which directions are you ready to cooperate with the United States?

Vladimir Putin: In the area of international security, taking into account that the United States and Russia are the largest nuclear powers: We are ready to jointly work to strengthen the non-proliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We are ready to work together, and much closer than before, on the problem of fighting terrorism, international terrorism, and here we certainly have vast opportunities. If we had joined efforts some time ago, we could have avoided many problems the world is facing now, I believe. At any rate, those problems would not be so acute, with numerous terror attacks and victims of those attacks in many areas of the world – in Europe and in the United States. We also never would have had such an urgent problem with refugees, I have no doubt about it. Then there is another area of activity – economic interaction between Russia and the United States. Right now, for example, it has already been made public that we signed a large deal to privatise one of our biggest oil and gas companies, Rosneft, which sold 19.5 percent of its shares to a consortium of Qatar’s sovereign fund and Glencore, one of the world’s largest traders. We know for sure that US companies, as well as Japanese ones, by the way, are keenly interested in cooperation in Russia’s oil and gas sector, in joint work. This has immense significance for world energy markets and will directly affect the whole world economy.

We believe that we could do a great deal to neutralise regional conflicts. Also, for example, to continue joint activities in space, for peaceful civilian purposes. By the way, Japan is also known to be actively engaged in manned space flights as part of the International Space Station. There are many other areas. And I am confident that each of them is of interest to both the people of the United States of America and the Russian people.

All we need is good will, and we have to start working in a way that considers each other’s interests. In my view, this is a mandatory condition. As far as I understand, the president-elect of the United States is ready for such joint work. We do not know yet what it will be like in actual practice. We have to wait for him to take office and form his administration.

We have seen very clearly over these past years that there are quite a few people who are sceptical, or let us put it another way, are cautious about the development of Russian-American relations, but the underlying fundamental interests of the United States and Russia demand that our relations be normalised.

Question: Compared to President Obama, I feel you are strongly determined to develop relations with the new President. Do you plan to meet with him in the near future and discuss all these issues?

READ MORE: Fix ‘toxic’ relations: Ex-Trump adviser Carter Page in Moscow

Vladimir Putin: You know, we were also going to develop relations with the current administration, but somehow they did not work out well in key areas and, I believe, not through our fault. I will not list all the problems that emerged in the past few years. Here is an example: while resolving current issues, our American colleagues made a proposal on the Syrian settlement but then suddenly declared at the UN that they were not going to discuss anything with us. It is necessary to understand what people want in one department versus another department of the United States. Do they have a common position? And this happened many times on very many areas of our cooperation.

There are also fundamental issues related to what the current leader, President Obama, said. I am referring to his idea about American exceptionalism. I am skeptical about this idea. No doubt, the United States and the American people are a gear country and a great people. Nobody disputes this, but talking about exceptionalism is way too much, and this is creating certain problems in relations, and not only with Russia, as I see it.

As for the President-elect, he has his own views on things, and this is also fairly natural. I must admit that we have yet to understand how he will develop his idea, his pledge to make America great again, but I hope this will not hinder the development of our cooperation.

As for meetings, I think the President-elect should be given an opportunity to first form his administration and assume office. Meetings will come next. We are ready to meet at any time, this is no problem for us, but I believe we should be patient and wait for the complicated process of forming the new administration to be complete.

Question: You have mentioned the economic sanctions. Of course, this is a very important topic in the relations between Russia and the United States. Do you have any expectations due to the change of administration?

Vladimir Putin: This is not only a matter of relations between Russia and the United States. In my view, any restrictions in the economic sphere that are dictated by considerations of political expediency are extremely harmful for the world economy as a whole. This destroys unity and the rules of the game.

We spoke about this only recently in Lima, within the framework of APEC. Almost all the leaders represented at APEC (the Asia Pacific region), Pacific countries, spoke about the same thing, namely, that we are going through a very acute crisis in world trade, international trade, related, among other things, to restrictions on the markets of certain countries.

Take the creation of the Pacific partnership or the creation of the Atlantic partnership. We are somewhat concerned because this is being done bypassing the World Trade Organisation, since it has proved impossible to reach compromise solutions with developing economies within the framework of that organisation. Is that good? Not really, in my opinion. If the world economy is divided into isolated economic blocs of this kind, it will be rather difficult to achieve the same interpretation and application of international rules of economic activity and world trade. This is why we believe in the universality of these rules. And if regional associations are created, they should work on the basis of WTO norms, on the WTO basis.

This is our premise, but as to how this works out in the near future, when a new administration is formed, we are unable to tell at this point. Time will tell.

We need to bring this gradually to a close or we will keep talking until morning. Although I enjoy talking to you, I probably should not keep you here until morning.

Question: All right. You mentioned China. I would like to go back to this issue.

Vladimir Putin: Please.

Question: You say that your relations are on a very high level both economically and politically.

Vladimir Putin: That is correct.

Question: In your Address to the Federal Assembly, when you mentioned different countries, as far as I remember, China came first, then India, Japan and only after that came the United States. Do you believe that at present China is Russia’s most important partner? Did we understand you correctly?

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Question: Is that really the case?

Vladimir Putin: That is indeed the case. After all, China is our largest trading partner. As I said, country-wise, Russia trades the most with China. That is my first point.

Second, we have wide-ranging joint projects in the nuclear energy sphere, logistics, machine building and trade as a whole. We have good joint projects in the helicopter and aircraft manufacturing industry. We are considering cooperation and are actively cooperating in space. There are good prospects there. However, the level of our political trust is also very high. We have similar positions on major international issues or even, as diplomats say, our views are identical. We often have shared positions on key issues of the modern international agenda. We have very close humanitarian contacts, wide-ranging youth exchanges, educational and regional contacts, and all of them continue to develop. We are expanding and improving the infrastructure of our relations. You must have heard about China’s plans to participate in building a high-speed railway line between Moscow and Kazan in the Volga region, in central Russia. And then we plan to extend it to Kazakhstan and on to China.

Under our regional cooperation projects, we are building roads and bridges. The scope of regional cooperation is constantly growing. So, we have every reason to say, and I note this with great satisfaction, that a truly friendly relationship has evolved with China, and in many key areas these relations, without any exaggeration, have a strategic character. As we say, the strategic character of privileged partnership.

Question: I would like to go back to the international situation. There has been a lot of populism, something you have mentioned as well. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Vladimir Putin: What thoughts can there be? Political populism always poses a great danger because it disorients people, creates excessive expectations or, on the contrary, prioritises objectives that are clearly not priorities or are simply impossible to achieve. This work is either useless or harmful, because there is nothing good about populism. If you wanted to hear my opinion on this issue, that is what I think.

As a rule, this is done for the sake of political expediency by those who do not care about the consequences, who do not think even one step ahead, who do not want to think and do not intend to honour their commitments.

Question: I would like to ask another question regarding Russia’s domestic situation. Presidential elections are set to be held in 2018. You enjoy tremendous support among Russians. How do you think you have managed to secure such a high level of support? I would especially like to hear your analysis on why young people support you.

Vladimir Putin: Perhaps, you should ask the people who support me. I think that people are able to see that I am working hard, that I am striving openly, honestly and sincerely to achieve the results the results our country needs. I think that they are also able to see that not all goes well. Our people are smart and sharp-sighted. Yet, I believe that the main thing is to sincerely aspire to achieve the maximum, so that the country feels more secure and people live better. That's precisely how I am trying to go about my work. And I am very grateful to our people who appreciate my work and for their support, as without that support it would have been impossible to get anything done.

Question: Do you feel that there is someone among the Japanese who you truly respect and who has had a real influence on you?

Vladimir Putin: Jigoro Kano, of course.

Question: Do you have this person’s bust or a portrait?

Vladimir Putin: I have several portraits of Jigoro Kano and a bust too, a very beautiful one. Unfortunately, I do not have it here, or I would have shown it to you. I keep it at home, in my residence, where I live permanently. It's a very good, high-quality work by a Russian sculptor, depicting not just a strong-willed but also thoughtful and kind man.

Question: You have already said that judo is a philosophy as well. And judging by you that is indeed the case.

Vladimir Putin: (Laughing) It can be seen by judo and by those who love it.

Question: I see. If I may, I would like to ask the last question. On the eve of your visit to Japan, perhaps you have some message for the Japanese people. Do you have any words you would like to address to the Japanese before your visit?

Vladimir Putin: I would like to say, you know, that, unfortunately, we have many unresolved problems. But a great number of people in Russia know Japan and love Japan, and I am sure that eventually we will resolve all our problems. Irrespective of when this may happen, it would not be an exaggeration to say that today millions of people living in Russia and, I am sure, millions of people living in Japan have an urge to get to know each other, cooperate and exchange useful information, as well as a sincere desire that all problems that still remain unresolved be resolved.

Question: As a Japanese citizen, I truly wish that your visit will be a success. Thank you very much for finding the time for us in your very busy schedule. We hope that your visit will be very useful for the bilateral relations.

Thank you.

READ MORE: Hundreds gather in London as Russia’s Patriarch Kirill consecrates Orthodox cathedral (VIDEO)

Your eminences, your graces, your eminence Archbishop Elisey, your grace the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby. Your Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent, distinguished representatives of the Catholic Church and the Armenian Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church, fathers, and brothers and sisters,

I congratulate wholeheartedly all of you on the historic occasion that has happened today in the life of the Russian Orthodox church on the British Isles. We are celebrating the 300-year anniversary of the presence of Russian Orthodox believers in the British isles.

And we are also celebrating the 60th anniversary of our presence in this wonderful temple, which has been graciously given to us by the Anglican church and then purchased thanks to the donations of believers. This is a very great event. And based on my memories I can testify before you to the great way that this community has gone. The first time I visited this temple, it was in 1969. I do not know whether there is someone here today who visited the temple back then. I remember that this was a very small community united by the Orthodox faith under the guidance of the ever-memorable metropolitan Antony Bloom who has done a lot to strengthen this community. And today we are grateful to witness that the Russian Orthodox presence has strengthened. This can be explained by the very number of Russians, not just Russians, but also Ukrainians and Belarusians who live today in Great Britain. But the ever growing number of Russian-speaking people in the United Kingdom cannot be at all the only reason which explains the growth of the Orthodox community. The growing of this community is testimony to the fact that the Orthodox faith is growing stronger in the hearts of our people. And what we are seeing today in London, we are also seeing back in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.

For many years our people have suffered under the yoke of atheism and having overturned it they have felt with a very acute feeling the need for this spiritual guidance in their lives. And we know that in the last 25 years something happened which has never been seen before in history. Over these 25 years, tens of thousands of churches have been built. Tens of thousands of orthodox parishes have been built. Hundreds of monasteries. Tens of theological higher education institutions. Something happened which we could not have imagined. And these changes cannot be explained only by the missionary efforts of the church even though they have been quite significant. And this miracle of spiritual revival we are witnessing in these times, secular times, can only be explained by God’s intervention, by his grace. And this grace of our lord has also been related to the great deeds of holy martyrs and confessors, tens and thousands of them that have adorned the fabric of our faith. Thanks to their prayers and thanks to their intersession before God, Orthodox Russia has risen again. And today, when celebrating the 300th anniversary of the presence of the Russian Orthodox people in the United Kingdom, we thank God for everything, for our suffering and our joys. We thank him for the unique experience of our people’s spiritual life, which today gives us the force to address our God with conviction. We ask him to save and to forgive us. Help us God in our life. Today we are strong and there is much in our hands, we are educated and highly cultured. And despite the difficulties our economy is growing rapidly. But we all know that genuine success is only possible when human efforts are complemented by God’s grace. And thanks to God, our people understand that. So it is with hope that we look into the future. And we believe that our lord will not abandon us, thanks to God’s grace and the grace of the martyrs.

The Church has a special significance for the spiritual life of people. It brings people together regardless of national, social, material, cultural or political borders. By its nature the church cannot be together with the right or the left, or with the centrists. It cannot be together with the rich against the poor or together with the poor against the rich. It cannot be together with one nationality against another. The church is a community open to the whole world. And within this community all human differences are erased. Even a very rich person stands surrounded by poor people. And even high-ranking people stand side by side with ordinary people. This symbolizes the erasure of those differences within the church. The very same role has to be played by the church in international relations. The faith, the religion, the church is the mirror of the people’s soul. And at the deepest level the church represents its people outside, in the world. And I think that here, in Great Britain, many discover Russia and Orthodoxy through your community – just as we understand the people and the country better when we are in contact with the Anglican church. At a spiritual and cultural level the interaction between our countries and peoples is particularly strong. And that interaction is not subject to the short-term political interests of today. And the three-century-long history of the Russian Orthodox church’s presence in the United Kingdom is testimony to that.

There were times when the relations between our counties were developing wonderfully. There were times when we together fought against a common enemy. But there were also times when our relations deteriorated significantly. And sometimes even our diplomatic ties were severed. But over these three centuries, the Russian orthodox church has never ceased to exist in London. And despite all the short-term interests and political competition people still came here to pray together. And all these problems did not preclude our people from viewing their Anglican brothers and sisters as their true brothers and sisters united with them in God and in faith. I am deeply convinced that this peace-keeping mission of the church is as significant as ever today.

We, people of the faith, can see things that cannot be seen by those who doubt. We can distance ourselves from the short-term interests and problems and offer a different perspective, including on the current state of Russian-British relations. And our perspective is vastly different from that of the politicians, because our two nations are bound together by historical, religious and even monarchic ties. We know each other and respect each other greatly. I do hope that through developing this potential we will be able to improve relations between our countries and peoples in the future.

I'd like to once again go back to the history of this parish. Remarkable clergymen headed the Russian community at different times, Protopriest Yakov Smirnov, Protopriest Evgeny Popov and Protopriest Vasily Popov among them. Before the Revolution and right after it, they did a lot to strengthen the Russian Orthodox community here in London.

In the early 18th century the diplomatic ties between our countries were suspended, but the senior priest of our church here continued to carry out our diplomatic mission. The same thing happened every time our bilateral relations soured. The churches in Russia and the UK served as a bridge between our two countries. I would like to once again mention the name of the commendable Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom). He did so much to bring together the Russian Orthodox community here and explain Russian Orthodoxy to the British people, and contributed greatly to developing the relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of England. As we remember our forefathers and predecessors today, we thank God for their deeds and their efforts. I'd like to sincerely thank Archbishop Elisey, Archbishop Mark and the clergy who are working here. And I'd like to thank everyone who worked hard in order to restore this Dormition Cathedral. With your sacrifice and your efforts you've done a lot to support this church and this community. May God's blessing be upon all the Russian Orthodox parishes in the United Kingdom, and especially this one, the Dormition Cathedral.

To commemorate this joyous occasion I would like to present you with this icon of Our Blessed Mother of God. It's a centuries-old icon. Praying before it, please pray for our Church and for our country. And since there's a small plaque here that says it was a gift from your patriarch, please, pray for your patriarch as well.

I'd also like to thank Archbishop Elisey for his efforts. I would like to present you with the cross and panagia that were crafted on the occasion of the 1,000-year anniversary of the death of Saint Prince Vladimir.

And to everyone who is here today I would like to present this image, depicting all the British saints. The United Kingdom has been blessed with many saints. Many of them belonged to the undivided church of the old, and their names are venerated in Russia and other countries where the Russian Orthodox Church has been traditionally present as much as in Great Britain. It's these saints that tie us together with bonds stronger that any human ones. This is our shared heritage. This is our shared history. This is the embodiment of our shared values. And I'm convinced that it will also serve as the foundation for our bright future together.

God save the Queen! God save the United Kingdom! God save Russia! And praise be to God in our hearts and our bodies. I would like each and every one of you to have this icon, with my blessing.

Question: Russian-Indian relations can be qualified as privileged strategic partnership. As to the economy, a perfect example of this point is cooperation in atomic energy, I particular, the construction of the Kudankulam NPP. What other areas of Russian-Indian cooperation can speak to a similar success?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: India is Russia's especially privileged strategic partner. Cooperation between our countries is making good headway in all areas on the basis of strong traditions of friendship, trust and mutual respect.

Russia and India are allies in ensuring strategic security and stability, and building an equitable world order. We work closely within the leading multilateral organisations such as BRICS, the G20, and the UN.

This October marks 16 years of the signing of the key instrument for Russian-Indian relations, the Declaration on Strategic Partnership. We have done much to further the entire mechanism of bilateral ties during this period.

The two countries maintain active political dialogue, with summits taking place every year. The Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation is also working efficiently. Our foreign ministers, heads of staff of security councils and line ministries keep in touch on a regular basis. There is a gradual increase in inter-parliamentary, interregional, business and humanitarian exchanges. We have developed a strong legal framework featuring over 250 agreements.

The energy sector plays an important role in trade and economic cooperation between Russia and India. Construction of the Kudankulam NPP is the largest long-term project. In August 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and I took part in a ceremony dedicated to the handover of the first unit of the Kudankulam NPP to the Republic of India. The second unit will be put into operation in the near future. Operation of the first and second units at their rated capacity will significantly increase the energy supply in India and strengthen its energy security.

Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation and the Nuclear Power Corporation of India began preparations for the construction of units 3 and 4. Works are being carried out according to the agreed schedule. The project is implemented with funding from the Russian Federation: the government loan stands at $3.4 billion, or 85 percent of the total value of contracts concluded with the Russian organisations. We are now working on the localisation of component manufacturing in India. We began assessing the construction of nuclear power plants at other sites in India. Technological cooperation in the field of uranium enrichment is being established.

We are strengthening bilateral cooperation in the conventional energy sector. During the St Petersburg International Economic Forum held in June 2016, Rosneft and an Indian consortium signed a contract for the sale of 23.9 percent of shares in Vankorneft, which owns the Vankor field in the Krasnoyarsk Region. Besides, Rosneft sold a stake of shares in the Taas-Yuryakh Neftegazodobycha, a company developing a field in East Siberia, to Indian companies.

Improving the structure of goods turnover by increasing the deliveries of high technology products and developing industrial cooperation is a topical issue. Well-known Russian companies, such as Silovye Mashiny, Gazprom, Stroytransgaz, Novolipetsk Steel (NLMK), Uralmashzavod, SIBUR Holding, Mechel, KAMAZ and many others, are operating in the Indian market.

Our countries actively collaborate in the military technical field. Russia remains in the lead in terms of both direct supplies of most advanced weapons and military equipment and conducting joint researches with India, as well as producing goods for military purposes. The construction of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile and the development of a new, fifth generation fighter aircraft are mong the successful joint projects.

READ MORE: Russia, India expected to agree deals worth up to $150bn

Let me add that many of the Russian projects in India not only have commercial importance but also play a significant social and economic role for the economies of the two countries. They harmoniously fit in the new Indian industrialisation programme proposed by Mr Modi.

Question: The level of investment cooperation is one of the criteria of reliable bilateral relations and trust between countries. In this regard, what steps are planned to be taken in view of the upcoming Russian-Indian Summit? Will the plans to privatise Russian companies influence the development of the investment partnership between Russia and India?

Vladimir Putin: Naturally, during our visit to India we hope to give fresh momentum to the bilateral trade and economic ties, given that companies of both countries are interested in implementing new mutually beneficial projects. Russia's cumulative investments in India amount to about $4 billion, while Indian businesses have invested in the Russian economy twice as much – about $8 billion.

I am convinced that Russia and India can considerably boost bilateral investments. To stimulate mutual investments, we plan to discuss with our Indian partners the possibility of updating the bilateral Agreement for the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments. We encourage the development institutes – the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Vnesheconombank – to be more active in providing financial support for investment activities of the Russian companies.

A Working Group on Priority Investment Projects has been established and is now successfully operating within the framework of the Intergovernmental Commission. Line agencies of the two countries, jointly with the India–Russia Forum on Trade and Investment, are engaged in a rigorous selection of promising business initiatives and work on identifying and removing barriers to the free flow of goods, capital and services.

Question: BRICS summits have been already included on the global agenda, and are held regularly. Yet, the final declarations only slightly differ from summit to summit. What do you think is essential in order to make BRICS cooperation more substantial, effective and concrete?

Vladimir Putin: BRICS is one of the key elements of the emerging multipolar world. The five countries have consistently reaffirmed their commitment to the fundamental principles of international law and promote the central role of the United Nations. Our countries reject the policy of coercive pressure and infringement upon the sovereignty of other states. We take similar stances on urgent international issues, including the Syrian crisis and the Middle East settlement.

This is why the summits’ final declarations, and the Goa Summit will be no exception to this rule, reaffirm our shared commitment to the fundamental principles of inter-state communication, particularly, to the observance of international law with the central coordinating role of the UN. With some Western countries attempting to promote their unilateral approaches, this position becomes even more relevant.

Traditionally, the declarations of BRICS leaders outline fundamental consensus-based stances on a wide range of issues and identify short-term development goals for the five nations that would serve as a target for follow-up steps aimed at strengthening strategic partnerships among our countries in various spheres.

As for rendering practical interaction among the five countries more substantive, I would like to stress that today, there exist more than 30 formats for inter-agency cooperation in the political, economic, humanitarian, security and law enforcement areas.

Our countries actively cooperate within the Group of 20, including under the current Chinese chairmanship. Thus, the BRICS countries have undertaken a commitment to implement the Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. We seek to systematically converge our stances in the WTO with a view to improving the rules and spurring up multilateral negotiations within the organisation.

This is why I think the cooperation within BRICS has already begun to yield practical results. It is essential to continue work on consolidating these results and on identifying areas of common interest.

The participants in the BRICS Summit in Goa will look at the initial results of implementing the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership adopted in Ufa and finalise the draft of BRICS Roadmap for Trade, Economic and Investment Cooperation until 2020. We intend to establish new formats and mechanisms to cooperate with our partners, in which concerted measures aimed at developing our ties in various fields will be elaborated. At the same time we intend to focus on addressing issues related to strengthening international security and stability, enhancing the competitiveness of our economies and the promotion of international development.

We also support the initiatives put forward by the Indian chairmanship in such fields as BRICS collaboration in agriculture, railway transport, sports, tourism and building people-to-people contacts.

Question: What proposals are you going to make at the forthcoming BRICS Summit and what do you expect from this meeting? What do you think the participants in the association could claim as their achievements after this meeting? What other projects beside the New Development Bank, could serve as a proof that this cooperation format is valuable?

Vladimir Putin: First and foremost, I would like to express gratitude to Indian leadership who has, invariably throughout its chairmanship in BRICS, focused on strengthening and consolidating the strategic partnership within our association. I am convinced that the Summit in Goa that will be held under the slogan of continuity and innovation, will be very fruitful.

For our five countries’ leaders this meeting will be a good opportunity to harmonise our positions on key issues on the international agenda. We are determined to cooperate in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and corruption. We will also contribute to settling conflicts and ensuring international information security. All of us remain concerned over continued lack of stability in the global economy. Together with our partners we will reflect on what can be done to further unite our efforts in order to address these challenges.

We also expect that the BRICS Summit in Goa will open new opportunities for economic and humanitarian cooperation.

We will certainly discuss the issues of project funding through the New Development Bank and of a full-fledged launch of the BRICS Contingent Currency Reserve Pool. This implies an exchange of views on the ongoing work involving high representatives on security issues, relevant ministerial meetings, expert interaction formats, the BRICS Network University, and the Business Council. For instance, preparations have now been completed for the signing of memoranda of cooperation among the customs services and the diplomatic academies of our states, as well as of creating a platform for BRICS agricultural research.

As for the specific Russian proposals for the Goa Summit, let me remind you that, during our presidency, the Strategy for Economic Partnership was adopted, which covers the promising areas of cooperation among the five countries. An action plan for its implementation is currently being prepared. The Russian side has proposed more than 60 projects, a kind of a road map, which could be implemented in cooperation with its BRICS partners (with a single partner or with all of them). I believe that if we manage to jointly determine partners for the implementation of these projects, it will be an important step towards the modernisation of our countries’ economies.

Russia also supports enhanced cooperation in electronic commerce (including analysis of key barriers between the countries in this sphere, development of the best regulatory practices, etc.), in trade facilitation (with involvement of the Eurasian Economic Commission), supporting small and medium-sized businesses (launching a web portal for BRICS small and medium-sized businesses), and protection of intellectual property.

Question: You often mention the necessity to interlink integration processes, particularly those of the EAEU and the Silk Road Economic Belt. How could the current BRICS format be used to implement such initiatives?

Vladimir Putin: The global economic and financial situation remains difficult, with the consequences of the global financial crisis still persisting. It is therefore regrettable that certain countries seek to solve the problems that have built up by introducing protectionist measures and trying to engage in restricted non-transparent projects, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Russia, just like all its BRICS partners, remains committed to shaping open non-discriminatory economic areas based on the WTO principles.

Let me remind you that on July 9, 2015, Ufa hosted an outreach meeting with participation of heads of state of the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO, as well as the SCO observer states. Among other things, the participants discussed the issue of major regional and transregional infrastructure projects.

In this context, we also proposed that work on establishing the Eurasian Economic Union should be integrated with that on the Silk Road Economic Belt. This process could eventually provide a basis for the Big Eurasian Partnership that would involve a wide range of states of the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO, and ASEAN. We expect that such partnership will be open for accession by all countries concerned and will build on the principles of transparency and mutual respect. The BRICS cooperation potential may also be used to implement this initiative. We look forward to the support from India, which is earnestly interested in this proposal.

Question: When you think of the territory from India to the Russian border you realise that the situation there is rather complicated, with numerous problems and contradictions. What challenges and issues, in your opinion, will be the most important and acute for the countries of the region in the next ten years?

Vladimir Putin: The situation on the territory between India and Russia remains tense. In particular, the developments in Afghanistan still raise concern. Decisive actions are required to help that country in dealing with such challenges and threats as terrorism, extremism, and illicit drug trafficking. Russia and India share the need to support national reconciliation efforts under the international law and are interested in deepening constructive multilateral cooperation for the purposes of assisting Afghanistan in solving the issues of national security, building counter-narcotics capacity, ensuring social and economic development, and enhancing interconnectivity.

In more general terms, our country is willing to develop such formats of interaction in the above-mentioned region that would allow responding swiftly to emerging security challenges, jointly seeking for ways to address potential threats. In our opinion, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is to play the major role in it; it is constantly expanding its geography – for example, India and Pakistan are now joining the Organisation. The SCO is stepping up its efforts aimed at building trust, strengthening genuinely collective efforts in the area of crisis response, and developing multifaceted cooperation.

The fact that Russia, with support of its partners, is actively promoting the above-mentioned projects to create a common economic space in Eurasia also contributes to resolving the differences. Such ‘integration of integrations’ based on the principles of transparency and taking into account the interests of all national economies will allow integrating the region into common development, and will strengthen its stability.

Source: President of Russia – official website

President of Xinhua News Agency Cai Mingzhao: Mr. President,

I am greatly honored and pleased to have this opportunity to interview you in your hometown prior to your visit to the People's Republic of China.

First of all, I would like to express on behalf of the Xinhua Agency our sincere respect.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Cai Mingzhao: With your – and President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping's  active involvement and support Chinese-Russian relations have already reached an extremely high level.

I would like to ask you some questions, if I may.

Last year, you met with the Chinese President five times. With your engagement and assistance, as well as through the efforts made by you and Mr. Xi Jinping Chinese-Russian collaboration has been constantly deepening and enhancing.

In your opinion, what areas of cooperation between Beijing and Moscow would you describe as priority ones at the moment? What areas are to be developed in the future? And what do you think of the expectations related to your upcoming visit to China?

Vladimir Putin: In fact, you already defined our relations when you said they were at a very high level.

I would now draw the attention of our readers to two dates. 25 years ago, we announced the launch of new relations, those of strategic partnership, and 15 years ago, we signed a friendship and cooperation treaty. Since then, hard work has been done resulting in an unprecedented level of mutual trust on which our collaboration is built.

As we had never reached this level of relations before, our experts have had trouble defining today's general state of our common affairs. It turns out that to say we have strategic cooperation is not enough anymore. This is why we have started talking about a comprehensive partnership and strategic collaboration. "Comprehensive" means that we work virtually on all major avenues; "strategic" means that we attach enormous inter‑governmental importance to this work.

Mr. Xi Jinping devotes much of his personal attention to the development of Russia-China relations. He is a very good friend and a reliable partner.

Nonetheless, our efforts alone would have been insufficient for the successful development of ties between Russia and China. Naturally, this called for the establishment of a mechanism to ensure cooperation between the governments of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China. The heads of Governments of both states hold regular meetings. Over two dozen subcommittees – I believe there are 26 of them – and intergovernmental commissions have been created and are operating very effectively and intensely. It is not always possible to agree on complex matters from the outset, but we address all the issues, however complex they might be, with the common goal in mind of fostering our cooperation - and we always find solutions.

The existing problems in the world economy have also had an impact on our collaboration, leading to a certain drop in the total trade turnover, but we are convinced that it is a temporary phenomenon resulting from the current situation with certain goods and the exchange rate.

Nevertheless, we manage to settle the key issues. We manage to take major steps to improve our trade structure.

I am not sure about the exact figures, here we should consult the relevant reports, last year has seen a considerable increase, of 44 per cent, I believe, in our export of engineering products to the People's Republic of China. That is highly important for us. We have been discussing this issue with our Chinese partners for years. I would like to thank our friends for our success in establishing such collaboration in this essential area and achieving the set goals. Those were our common goals. We agreed upon them, and we are now moving in the right direction.

In this regard, one of the most important directions is of course the diversification of our ties, making them more sophisticated, paying more attention to the high-tech area of our collaboration.

We also work together on space programs, in the sphere of aviation, on the construction of a wide-body aircraft and a heavy helicopter. We collaborate on environmental issues, and carry on with large-scale energy projects, including in nuclear energy.

Cai Mingzhao: The Russian side has very good competitive advantages in this area.

Vladimir Putin: That is true. Our Rosatom has a large stock of orders. The two units of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant have been operating for 8 years now, and have proved reliable.

We are currently working on another two units, and I think more could be done. We should enhance our cooperation not only in terms of increasing the number of nuclear power plants in China but also by expanding our scientific and technical collaboration in this area.

Intensive work is underway on the famous Moscow-Kazan High-Speed Rail Line Project. Some railway sections will allow for a train speed of up to 400 kilometers per hour. We pay considerable attention to these prospects; this can be only the beginning of our large-scale infrastructure cooperation.

Our interaction in the humanitarian field is no less important. Thus, we have held cross‑years of China in Russia and Russia in China, the Year of Youth Exchange, the Year of the Russian Language and, accordingly, the Year of the Chinese Language, the Year of Tourist Exchange, etc. Some events were initiated by the Russian side, and others – by the Chinese side; but they all have been very successful and will undoubtedly contribute to building an atmosphere of confidence between our peoples. These projects are as important as, for example, those in the energy sphere, such as the huge Power of Siberia project to supply up to 38 billion cubic meters of Russian gas per annum via a newly established eastern route from Russia to China. Add to this diplomatic, military, and military-technical cooperation.

We usually discuss all these issues at our joint meetings. As you see, the agenda is extensive if not huge. Therefore, I am looking forward to substantive negotiations, intensive ones. They are always held in an atmosphere of amity and mutual trust.

Cai Mingzhao: You have just mentioned important projects in the economic area between Russia and China. We are greatly inspired by these big projects. Cooperation between Russia and China has an immense potential. You often stress the need to converge integration processes, in particular regarding the Eurasian Economic Union and China's Silk Road project. Our business circles also pay attention to this issue.

What concrete steps will be taken to develop this cooperation? And how will this cooperation help improve the Russian-Chinese trade and economic interaction?

Vladimir Putin: You have touched on a very interesting and complex subject. As we know, President Xi Jinping has launched an initiative to revitalize the very idea of the Great Silk Road. We believe it is a very timely, interesting and promising initiative aimed at increasing cooperation with all countries of the world, but primarily with neighbours, because wherever the road goes, it first runs through neighbouring territories.

We are engaged in negotiations on two tracks: China-Russia, bilaterally, and China-Eurasian Economic Union. A short while ago, at a meeting in Astana with my counterparts from the Eurasian Economic Union, which currently comprises five countries, we discussed this possibility and came out in favour of enhancing cooperation with China, drawing on President Xi Jinping's idea to develop the Silk Road Economic Belt.

Being realists, we understand that at the beginning there will inevitably be faults and exceptions. Still, we should outline the way forward. While progressing towards this goal, we will pave the way for what I have called today “cooperation in Eurasia”, since an increasing number of countries in the region show interest in such collaboration. At the same time, we will seek to avoid shaping exclusive trade and economic blocs.

Cai Mingzhao: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization will shortly hold its regular summit in Tashkent. Russia and China actively cooperate within various international organizations, primarily within the SCO, which was established 15 years ago. The SCO is an essential element in ensuring stability and security in the region.

What is your vision of the further development of this Organization? What role, in your opinion, will it play in the future, both regionally and globally?

Vladimir Putin: This Organization, when it was first created, set itself quite modest goals, which I would say were important but at the same time practical. These included the settlement of various issues of cross-border cooperation, complex as well as simple ones. As we know, such border issues may remain in limbo for decades if goodwill is lacking, and are promptly settled when there is enough goodwill. This most likely depends on the mood, on the philosophy adopted by a state in its international relations.

It is thanks to this very goodwill that Russia and China, as well as other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, have fulfilled the tasks they set themselves in this area. We came to understand that such a mechanism, along with its valuable outputs and the level achieved in relations between our countries, should not be wasted. Therefore, we actually began using the established mechanism to address other issues, first of all developing our cooperation in various areas, such as political cooperation and cooperation in infrastructure development. We also launched discussions on security, on combatting the drug threat and other issues.

I would not say that we have made astonishing progress or carried out any high-profile activities; yet the Organization has become highly demanded and attractive in the region, and many countries of the world have expressed their willingness to join it.

Indeed, as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization expands its areas of operation and its membership through the participation of the powerful countries I have just mentioned, it turns into a very powerful international association that commands respect and is relevant both in the region and worldwide.

The international environment is complicated and multifaceted, and issues are not resolved by the mere fact that countries with different approaches to and views on various international challenges join our Organization. However, as we expect, their accession does create conditions for the issues to be resolved.

Cai Mingzhao: Mr. President, I know that your schedule is tight and your time is of high value. I have a rare opportunity to interview you personally. May I ask you one more question?

Vladimir Putin: Fine.

Cai Mingzhao: Crises abound in the modern world. We face economic downturns, serious terrorism-related problems, and challenges caused by climate change. Russia and China are responsible major powers addressing international issues. What other efforts in your view could our countries make in order to safeguard peace and reform global governance?

Vladimir Putin: You know, today the very fact that China and Russia collaborate in international affairs contributes to the stability of world affairs.

Let me remind you of the statement made by the President of the People's Republic of China at the 70th anniversary of the United Nations. Think back and recall it. That statement called for resolving all contentious issues only by peaceful means on the basis of international law. Furthermore, the President was among the few who declared that they were ready to help those in need and even specified those proposals. It is such approaches that unite us in international affairs, not merely the geographic proximity of our countries.

READ MORE: Russian oil trading platform attracts Chinese interest

Apart from our joint work in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, we cooperate within BRICS, which in fact was jointly established by us, and we actively collaborate at the UN.

I would take the liberty to recall that it was this country, the Soviet Union at that time, which made every effort to give the People's Republic of China its deserved place among the permanent members of the Security Council. We have always believed that this is the place for the People's Republic of China. Today, we are particularly pleased that this has happened, since our views on international affairs, as diplomats say, are either very similar or coincide. At the same time, this similarity or coincidence is backed by concrete work, including efforts on the technical level. We are in constant contact and we consult on global and regional issues. Since we consider each other close allies, naturally, we always listen to our partners and take into account each other’s interests.

I am certain that our joint work during my visit to the People's Republic of China will proceed in the same way.

Cai Mingzhao: Mr President, thank you very much. We also look forward to your visit to China. We would like to wish you every success during your upcoming visit to the PRC.

I would also like to inform you that the Xinhua Chinese News Agency and the TASS News Agency are to sign a new agreement on cooperation during your visit to China.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your assistance in this area since media support is just as important as the substantive work done by diplomats in the modern world, as they say.

Thank you very much.

After decades of preparation, the historic Pan-Orthodox Council was scheduled for June 16-25 in Crete, but several churches have either refused to attend, or called for the event to be postponed, including the Antiochian, Bulgarian, Georgian and finally Russian.

“There are many problems among various Orthodox Churches… These disagreements might seem small but, for historical churches, these are important issues,” the chairman of the department of the external church relations and the permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchy, Hilarion, told RT’s Maria Finoshina.

Hilarion said he does not see current political tension in the world directly affecting the churches’ relations, which more often than not depend on ecclesial issues, although adding that it might affect some decision-making.

“I do not see the current situation as catastrophic. I believe it is one of the stages of preparation for the Pan-Orthodox Council. It’s not a fault that this preparation was as smooth as we wanted it to be. And we do not believe that the whole idea of the council should be abandoned. We simply believe that it should be better prepared,” Hilarion said.

In advance of the visit by Russia’s President to Greece, the newspaper Kathimerini published an article by Vladimir Putin titled Russia and Greece: Cooperation for Peace and Prosperity:

Ahead of my visit to Athens, I would like to share with the readers of Kathimerini, one of the most popular and respected Greek newspapers, some ideas regarding the further development of the partnership between Greece and Russia, as well as about the situation on the European continent in general.

We value the centuries-old traditions of friendship between our peoples. Our cooperation rests on a rock-solid base of common civilizational values, the Orthodox culture and a genuine mutual affection. A vivid example of how closely our people’s lives are intertwined is the story of Ioannis Kapodistrias, who was a Russian minister of foreign affairs in the 19th century and later became a head of the Greek state.

The celebrations of the Millennium of Russian Monasticism on the Holy Mount Athos will be a landmark event this year. Throughout completely different periods of history, their moral courage, faith and patriotism helped our peoples to overcome severe ordeals and preserve their identity.

Hundreds of thousands of Russian tourists visit your country every year. They relax on the beautiful beaches, get acquainted with the rich heritage of the ancient Hellas and its legendary architectural monuments. Tourism makes a significant contribution to the economic development of Greece, as well as to broader direct people-to-people contacts and greater trust and friendship between our citizens.

These days, Greece is Russia's important partner in Europe. We are conducting a dynamic political dialogue, including at the top level. During a meeting with President Prokopis Pavlopoulos in January, we announced the opening of the cross years of Greece and Russia. The programs cover activities in the scientific, educational, and humanitarian spheres, as well as tourism. I am confident that they will help our peoples to get even more closely acquainted with each other's history, traditions and customs.

Last year, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras made two visits to our country. We had informative and very useful discussions. Contacts between ministries and agencies, parliaments and civil society organizations are growing stronger.

Unfortunately, the decline in relations between Russia and the European Union stands in the way of a further strengthening of our cooperation, with an adverse effect on the dynamics of bilateral trade that fell by a third to $2.75 billion as compared to last year. Particularly affected were Greek agricultural producers.

Russia proceeds from the need to establish dialogue with the European Union in the spirit of equality and genuine partnership on a variety of issues ranging from visa liberalization to the formation of an energy alliance. However, we do not yet see our European colleagues' willingness to follow such a mutually beneficial and promising path.

Nevertheless, we believe that our relations with the EU do not face any problems that we cannot solve. To get back to a multifaceted partnership, the deficient approach of one-sided relationships should be abandoned. There should be true respect for each other’s opinions and interests.

Today, Russia and the European Union have come to a crossroads, where we need to answer the following question: how do we see the future of our relations and which way are we going to head? I am convinced that we should draw appropriate conclusions from the events in Ukraine and proceed to establishing, in the vast space stretching between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, a zone of economic and humanitarian cooperation based on the architecture of equal and indivisible security. Harmonizing European and Eurasian integration processes would be an important step in this direction.

Multidimensional contacts between Greece and Russia are an important element of this system. I would like to single out the energy sector. We have been consistently advocating the diversification of energy transportation modes that would improve the reliability of supplies and, therefore, European energy security as a whole.

Russia has ensured regular and reliable natural gas supplies to Greece for two decades. The existing contract with Greece was extended up to 2026 on favorable terms for your country. Being aware of the intention by the Greek leaders to make the country a powerful energy hub in the Balkans, we have always included Greece in our plans to enhance hydrocarbons supply to Central and Western Europe.

Since 2006, Gazprom has been actively promoting the South Stream project. However, at a certain point, its implementation became impossible due to the unconstructive stance adopted by the European Commission. Despite the fact that we had to suspend the project, issues relating to Southern routes of energy shipment to the European Union States are still on the agenda. In February, the heads of Gazprom, Edison (Italy) and DEPA (Greece) signed in Rome a Memorandum of Understanding on the supply of Russian natural gas to Greece and Italy along the Black Sea bottom through third countries.

Russia could also help streamlining the Greek transport infrastructure. We are referring to the participation of Russian business entities in the forthcoming Greek tenders for the purchase of assets of railway companies and the Thessaloniki port facilities. Also on the agenda are a number of other projects that can considerably enhance the potential of bilateral cooperation.

I am confident that friendly relations between Greece and Russia are our common heritage and a solid foundation for a promising and future-oriented partnership. I hope that we will further intensify our dialogue in various fields and jointly implement our plans.

RT: What do you consider were the main issues on the table this year and what outcome should taxpayers expect?

Mikhail Mishustin: The main issue is BEPS – Base Erosion of Profit Shifting - which is on the G20 schedule. And I think we do a big job to implement the BEPS plan which is on the schedule of all members of the G20. We also discuss a lot of the modern systems of information exchange. It is the standard for the exchange of information. We were also talking about the common transmission system which will be implemented very soon. It was raised enough money for the OECD Secretariat to do that. We were also talking about the common reporting standard which is the standard for the data exchange of the future. And of course there were a lot of talks about the future of tax administration, how we will build our tax administration, about a new digital approach to make sure that our customers, our tax payers receive the best services. And capacity building – how to make our administration better. So these were the main issues which were on the schedule during the Forum of Tax Administration in Beijing. It's the tenth such forum.

RT: And what is the role of the Federal Tax Service within the FTA?

MM: Good question. First of all, it's a very collaborative environment inside the FTA. And we see that a country that joins the Forum of Tax Administration tries to bring best practices, to exchange the best practices as well as to deliver something to the common platform. So the Russian Federal Tax Service is working hard to first of all share the developments which we had before. And it was our pleasure to receive the task to lead the project of the Digital Electronic Channels and to work with the countries to deliver the best practices.

Basically, I think it's important to see that Russian tax efficiency and approaches to tax administration models are quite up to date. And we did a lot of business process reengineering, made a lot of changes inside the Russian Federation to make sure that we established a transparent and very modern tax system. So I think this is part of the reason why other commissioners voted for us and why we are able to lead on such an important issue.

RT:  My third question is related. Does Russia have something to contribute in your view to the tax administration of other major countries like the US and Canada? And why is Russia leading such efforts?

MM: First of all, we all collaborate and we all take the best practices. Of course, Russia has a lot to deliver as do our partners in the countries you mentioned. If we talk about what Russia’s input is, first of all, I think it's the significant VAT compliance system which we implemented during the last five years. We are also talking about our interaction technologies - first of all, a private office for individuals. We have about 20 million individuals registered with our private office service, which allows us to see the tax bill and to make payments within 5-10 minutes if you have your data clean.

We are also talking about our approaches to building data processing centres with a lot of electronic services. We have more than 40 electronic services and have more than 8-9 million visitors, taxpayers per month on our sites. 

Similarly, we get best practices from other countries. We have a lot of good practices from other countries. This exchange helps us to build the right community among the taxpayers because I think that a voluntary compliance network, which should exist, is not a question of country or politics. It's a question of you following your legislation and making sure that you pay your taxes.

RT: How soon could taxpayers expect innovations such as blockchain, biometrics and mobile apps?

MM: It's already coming. So if you talk about biometrics, today on our panel were a lot of examples. First of all, Australia. It uses a biometric system of voice recognition, which - instead of using some electronic signature with the electronic processing of your data - recognises the tax payer by identifying them through their voice. And then it helps you to pay your taxes, to see your bills – voice recognition is a very friendly system.

New Zealand is doing the same. It was a great practice from Naomi Fergusson who is Commissioner of New Zealand. She has shown us the progress of such things.

Also Singapore's Commissioner Mr. Tan talked a lot about the artificial intelligence he’s using. Also, he is implementing the best concept, it's a no-service concept, where the user can very easily upload the data and receive all necessary information through the friendly interface.

So blockchain – yes, it's very interesting for tax administrations. First of all, we cannot change your documents, it's very secure. And I know that several administrations are working with it, as are we – actually, very soon, I’ve scheduled a meeting with one of the leaders in blockchain technology development, Vitaly Buterin, who will come to Moscow. He's a native born Russian, he has a Canadian passport and lives in Switzerland, and has a lot of investment in his technology with partners from other parts of the world. So I think the new technologies are coming, and the tax administrations are changing themselves to service taxpayers better. And I think that we will see all the new developments very soon in our tax environments, through mobile applications, through other channels, to be suitable for taxpayers.

RT: This is my personal question: Do you think that, because you are innovating right now, trying to bring new technologies to the tax payment system, this is somehow directed to bringing customers closer to the tax payment system and making it a more enjoyable experience for the user?

MM: Absolutely. This is what we are doing. It's important that the young generation, the future taxpayers of tomorrow, use a user-friendly interface which is suitable for their lives. For example, we know that the latest research shows that the younger generation now is not using PC computers – they have mobile phones, mobile applications, and they are in social networks. So, basically, we, the tax administrations, should come to such social networks and make sure that it's a friendly interface for them. Basically, this is maybe the main reason why we are collaborating with the other commissioners to make sure that we're servicing our taxpayers. Because, between servicing and the fiscal part of the tax administration, the servicing part is now ever more prominent.

RT: Apart from technological innovations, you also discussed the BEPS Plan and the implementation of automatic exchange of information. It seems that offshorization is an important topic not only for Russia, but for all other countries as well. Could you comment on that?

MM: First of all, BEPS, as I said, is one of the main topics on our Forum. And the implementation of the BEPS Plan, which is supported by Russia and other countries, is a very important task for any tax service. Of course, the offshore companies and the offshore compliance programme, which is working inside the FTA, is suitable for any of the countries. All countries want their taxpayers to pay taxes according to their legislation, and Russia also wants that. We are very transparent on this issue. First of all, I'd like to say that we are today signing a multilateral agreement on the exchange of information, which we are joining with the world. And inside Russia we also make sure that we can deliver the data exchange within our agencies to make sure that our tax payers are compliant, and to make sure that we exact taxation from all corporations and individuals. So, talking about offshore compliance, I think we did a lot of work. Our president, Mr. Putin, several times noted the importance of voluntary disclosure programmes, which are now working in Russia, as well as of compliance with the Controlled Foreign Companies Disclosure legislation, which is now pending. So we did a lot to make sure that if a Russian citizen or Russian corporation files his tax return and does so in compliance with our Russian legislation, it's absolutely transparent to other jurisdictions in the world. This is a voluntary compliance network which will be supported by other administrations, as well as the G20 plan on BEPS.

RT: And how do you think this plan and the automatic exchange of information will influence the development of the global tax system?

MM:  I think so. It's very important for us to have a platform which allows us to exchange information. So, I've mentioned before the Common Transmission System, which is now implemented by the OECD. We all supported this idea and raised enough funds from countries - members of the FTA - to make it happen very soon. We need for that also the mechanism of exchange. One of them is JITSIC. JITSIC is a common platform where we exchange information, where we also have the SPOC, a single person of contact, appointed by the countries – we can solve all matters of data exchange, or any issues, country by country, through this representative. I think these are very important issues which help us to make the right compliance with all of our countries in tax matters.

RT: One last question, about the agreement that was just signed. When are you going to start the actual exchanges, and how will these exchanged be carried out?

MM: You know, we are quite ready for such an exchange within the Russian Federation, and this agreement, which was signed today, allows us to exchange information in 2018. And now I want to say also that we are preparing our national system with the rules of the OECD. It's based on the Common Reporting Standards and very soon, data exchange will be started. And it's very important for the taxpayers: it doesn't make any difference, whether you’re from Russia or from other countries, it's very important that you understand that tomorrow, the world is becoming very transparent, and data exchange will allow tax authorities to access your data from the banks, from other agencies very easily. And it should be a very serious warning to everybody to make sure that they file tax returns according to the legislation of their countries. And I hope that, for example, Russian taxpayers will meet these obligations, to be fulfilled not only under the legislation which requires this, but also the good services, which allow you to do that easily and comfortably.

RT: Thank you for meeting with us, Mr Livanov. We know that nine Russian universities made it into the Round University Ranking top 200 in the teaching category. And most of them have improved their key performance indicators when compared with the previous year. What is the reason for the improvement?

RT: What do you think about these ranking systems? We are used to thinking that Russia has one of the best education systems in the world. But our universities are not ranked very highly on the international scale. Why do you think that is?

DL: The Soviet education system that we had up until the 1990s was one of the best in the world, that's true. But unfortunately after that – in the 1990s and 2000s – the quality went down due to budget cuts and other factors such as the wave of private schools that often didn't meet our standards. This situation is changing now. We have higher standards and requirements for our state and private universities. Unfortunately, not all the schools are able to meet those requirements. So there are now fewer universities, but our goal is to get back to the standards of higher education which we had during the Soviet era. Back then it was not easy to get into a university and only the best and most capable high school graduates were able to do so. Curricula were very challenging and efficient at preparing college graduates for their professional life. And also like I said already – our universities need to step up their research programs.

DL: I already mentioned it.Project 5-100 is our attempt at making our universities more competitive internationally. Fifteen universities were initially involved in the project, and recently we added six more. So there are 21 of them now. We think that the intermediate results are quite good. The universities have improved their overall performance and are ranked more highly.It is important to make sure that the trend continues and we see progress every year.

RT: Part of the project was helping international students adjust to Russian universities. What is the main challenge here?

DL: Very often foreign students don't know much about our culture and everyday life in Russia. There is also a language barrier – international students don't speak Russian. That presents a challenge, because in most schools all classes are taught in Russian, and of course they need to know the language to get around. So we have special adjustment programs for these students that include Russian-as-a-foreign-language courses. This is a prerequisite to their further education, classes that they will be taking together with native Russian speakers. Also many of our universities now offer courses in English. Of course, these programs only make sense if they are done professionally, taught by world-class faculty members with fluent English. But it is a trend that we have and plan to expand.

RT: What are the reasons why foreign students pick Russian universities?

DL: I think that many foreign students, especially those who come from the Russian communities abroad and the CIS countries, want to study in Russia because it offers good career prospects. Many of them see themselves applying their professional knowledge and skills in our country. Currently a new trend has emerged: we see an increase in the number of students from countries outside the CIS – from Asia, Europe and the US. Our universities' growing appeal and the quality of education they provide naturally results in a growing number of foreign students.

RT: Have the sanctions and the information war against Russia somehow affected the interest that foreign students display in coming to Russia to study? Have their numbers decreased?

RT: How would you assess Russia's progress in terms of children of migrants adapting to their new life when it comes to education? Do you think Russia can share its experience with other countries, particularly the EU in light of the refugee crisis it is facing?

DL: It's true that our country had to deal with the migrant issue long before many European countries, so we have good, effective social and pedagogical methods that help the children of migrants to adapt. We guarantee equal rights to education for every child on the Russian territory, regardless of their citizenship. Of course, that also means that those children need certain preparation so that they can study in Russian schools, because in many cases Russian is not their native language and they don't know it. There are special courses that teach Russian to the children of migrants. In a short period of time – from a couple of weeks to a couple of months, depending on how well they know Russian when they start out – children get the preparation they need to attend the same schools and take the same classes as their Russian peers.

RT: Please tell us more about the university mergers in Russia  –  is this process going to continue?

DL: We don't have any particular numbers in mind for university mergers, but due to demographic reasons the number of students is decreasing. A couple of years ago about 1.2 million children graduated high school annually, these days it's only half as many, about 650,000. Many universities that don't attract a lot of students run the risk of getting no enrollments at all. This prompts the universities to merge. As a rule, the universities that are not very prestigious want to become a part of a more prestigious and successful school. We support these projects, but only if the universities in question decide to merge of their own free will and if the merger is in the interests of both students and faculty.

RT: Nowadays we see so-called core universities appearing in Russia. Could you please elaborate on what role they play and what their purpose is?

DL: We started implementing a program aimed at supporting the core universities, that is, the consolidated universities that appear after the merger of several universities of a regional level. Mergers make sense in areas where no university holds strong positions, for example, there isn't a university of a federal level or a national research university, and the high school graduates leave the region to go to college somewhere else. It impoverishes such places, cities and towns, and we find it very important that every big city should provide the opportunity of getting high-quality tertiary education. In a number of cases merging the universities that already exist in the area is a sensible course of action. It helps to consolidate both material and intellectual assets, and offers the students a better, more interesting curriculum. Such a university would hold a greater appeal for high school graduates living in the area.

RT: Mr Livanov, thank you very much.

RT: Mr. Komarov, thank you for your time. So, we have some ambitious space expeditions to look forward to in the next 55 years? 

Igor Komarov: Hello. Yes, I think we are looking at a lot of progress to be made in the next 55 years, and a lot of exciting developments. That’s a lot of time. I think we will see a mission to Mars, and I think that Russia together with its partners in other countries will set up an orbital station on Mars. I’m sure there will also be a lot of research activity on the Moon, including the creation of a lunar base and a lunar orbital station. By the way, we are already discussing such plans with our partners in NASA and the European Space Agency. The concept of a low-orbit space station, which today is the International Space Station, will also change significantly, assuming an entirely different set of functions, such as the servicing of spacecraft and space tugs, particularly for purposes of traveling to the Moon and to Mars. It will also serve other purposes, hopefully including space tourism. 

IK: Indeed, Russia is presently the only space power that flies cosmonauts and astronauts to the ISS. Things will stay this way for quite some time. NASA plans to resume its launches in 2019 with spacecraft produced by SpaceX and with Lockheed Martin’s Orion intended for flights to the ISS. 

RT: The US also plans to end its dependency on Russian-made space engines. Is there an alternative to Russian hardware? 

IK: Well, let’s be honest: they don’t buy our engines out of charity. There is a simple and clear reason, and that is the fact that Russian-made engines are currently the best there are with regards to quality and price. And we are confident that things will stay this way for a few more years. We are open for cooperation: we’ve been supplying our engines to the United States, and we are looking at a number of opportunities this year for signing major contracts with other clients. As for competition, we are seeing serious activity in the United States aimed at upgrading their existing engines, but also developing new designs. For us, this is really an incentive to keep improving our performance and design new engines, rather than rest on our laurels. 

RT: Who would you name as Russia’s real competitors in the area of space exploration, if any? 

IK: There certainly are. There are areas where Russia is an undisputed leader, particularly launch vehicles and launch services. This is where we are number one by a large margin, administering about 40 percent of all space launches worldwide. We are also number one in the engine market, which you have already mentioned, and in the area of manned space programs. But in other areas, we’ve got room for improvement, and we could certainly learn a thing or two from our competitors in areas such as spacecraft quality, communications, or earth remote sensing systems.

IK: A successful start, I’d say. In fact, Roscosmos and Russian companies were the ones in charge of some of this project’s most critical phases, namely the launch and orbit insertion for heading to Mars. And we did well. Our Proton-M launch vehicle and booster managed to deliver the orbiter precisely according to its planned flight path. In contrast to some of the earlier setbacks, this one went trouble-free. We find that pretty encouraging. Next, we’re expecting a mid-course maneuver to adjust trajectory in July, and we’re confident that around October 16th our joint mission with the European Space Agency will be able to reach Mars, orbit it, and go operational. The scientists from many nations who have spent the last 10 or 12 years working on this project are certainly looking forward to that, hoping for some profound results.

RT: Let’s talk a little bit about the United States. Moscow and Washington may have their political disputes, but Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts seem to get along just fine onboard the ISS from what we see on social media. Do you think their friendship will endure these troubled times? 

IK: I believe it already has. Last year was the 40th anniversary of the Soyuz-Apollo Project, and we had a big celebration for this milestone event. And there I saw Tom Stafford and Alexei Leonov address the audience and share their memories. The level of cooperation and the spirit of collaboration this mission managed to achieve against the background of the Cold War and the highly strained relations between the then-Soviet Union and the United States is truly remarkable. 

We also had NASA Administrator Charles Bolden visit Russia for an evaluation of the recently completed ISS year-long mission, and I saw him talk to the cosmonauts and to Sergey Krikalev, with whom he had spent so much time onboard the space station, as well as training and preparing for the mission. And I’ve seen the relations between Mikhail Korniyenko and Scott Kelly after they’d spent a year together at the ISS. And I’m sure this spirit and this relationship will live on. This is a sentiment I’ve seen from cosmonauts who have participated in joint missions, as well as from those who have trained together. And I would say that both space agencies, namely Roscosmos and NASA, also share this attitude. You see, looking from outer space, you don’t see any borders on Earth, and there is an understanding that all our political differences and rivalries are something we should leave down here, rather than drag with us into outer space. Space is a realm we can only explore through joint effort. Therefore we must preserve the relationship we now have.

IK: We are seeing that many governments are showing a lot of interest in encouraging private entrepreneurship in space. And we are also supportive of that. We believe private companies have an important role to play in a number of areas related to the production and operation of spacecraft, communications, and ERS services, etc. It’s already a reality, and we should certainly support that. We are seeing some impressive initiatives in the area of launch vehicle production, new companies emerging and giving the market a serious shakeup, and giving it a new impetus to improve performance and efficiency.However, in areas such as deep-space exploration or fundamental scientific research, we probably shouldn’t expect a serious breakthrough from a private investor. That kind of exploration requires the investment of enormous resources, while benefitting science and humanity, as such, rather than any private stakeholder. I don’t expect this kind of research to become profitable in our lifetime, or any time soon. Therefore, government support and government programs for space exploration will remain essential. And we see Russia and other nations continue to provide that. 

RT: Presently, all Russian missions are launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome that Kazakhstan leases to Russia. But at the same time the Vostochny launching facility has been under construction in Russia. When can we expect the first launch from there, and what about the first manned flight? 

IK: Indeed, one of the key and most important projects not only for the Russian space industry, but for Russia in general, is the construction of the Vostochny Cosmodrome. We are actively working on preparing the first launch from this facility, sending to space our legendary Soyuz launch vehicle. We plan for it to happen by the end of April. We have ambitious plans to develop this cosmodrome and I think with it lies our future. 

READ MORE: Russian-ESA ExoMars mission to pave way for future teamwork on Moon & Mercury – Roscosmos head

RT: Let’s get back to Mars, which is truly the topic of interest. The flight to Mars will take approximately six months. Will it be possible to get there faster by introducing new engines or new technologies? 

IK: You are right. Reducing the flight time is one of the tasks we are trying to tackle. Unfortunately, with existing technologies and engines, the journey to Mars takes about six months. There is another reason to develop and improve technologies to make the journey shorter: the space environment is pretty aggressive, it contains high levels of radiation. So reducing the travel time is also important in terms of ensuring that the human body functions properly. If we want to explore faraway planets, engine construction should be given a new boost to make engines perform more efficiently and cut down the time it takes for spacecraft to travel between different orbits. 

RT: The first flight to space 55 years ago was of huge importance for everybody on our planet. But since then, space missions have turned into something kind of routine, a commonplace occurrence. Has the space exploration lost its initial romantic air? 

READ MORE: No drama in space! ISS crew members open up about life in orbit (VIDEO)

IK: I think that all the cosmonauts and astronauts who have been to space, those who’ve recently returned or plan to go to orbit, and everybody involved in preparation of space flights, would definitely answer no to your question. It can never become routine, and it has not become routine to this day. As the head of Roscosmos, I am personally involved with all the launches of manned missions to the ISS, and I can tell you that it is a huge responsibility and an extremely complex process, requiring an enormous amount of preparation and training and a great deal of dedication from the crew about to go to space, as well as the people instrumental in making it happen. So I do not see it turning into something routine; maybe in the distant future. 

IK: Yes, they do. In my line of work, I’ve learned that many children are happy about the progress we achieve and want to become cosmonauts. It’s kind of like setting a challenge for yourself and paving your way to the future. 

RT: Let’s go back to the ISS for a bit. It really is an example of many countries cooperating successfully. How do you envisage the future of the ISS in, say, ten-fifteen years? 

IK: I think that in 10 - 15 years the ISS will have undergone significant changes. New goals are being set, so a new set of functions will be needed to accomplish them. Of course, many modules will remain, and we will keep conducting certain experiments, for example, the experiments to determine the effects of zero gravity on the human body. But I believe many things will change due to technological advancements and the new functions the ISS will have to fulfil, which I hope will include the servicing of spacecraft in orbit, servicing and assembly of inter-orbit spacecraft from the modules delivered from the ground, and maybe repairing space tugs, which I think will be developed in the future. If there’s demand, then maybe new segments will be introduced specifically for space tourists. 

READ MORE: Russia's Federation spacecraft 3.5 times cheaper than NASA’s SpaceX Dragon

RT: There are high hopes for the heavy-lift Angara space launch vehicle and, as I understand, this will be the rocket to deliver spacecraft to the Moon and to Mars. What stage of development is it at currently? 

IK: By the end of February, we drew up the preliminary design of a heavy-lift rocket, the Angara A5V, which looks really promising. It is now being reviewed by all of the relevant research institutes and key organizations in our industry. In the near future – within the next two weeks – Roscosmos’ board will look at the results, and then we’ll start working hard on it to fulfill our promise: that is to launch the Angara A5 rocket from the new cosmodrome by the end of 2021, and a manned mission launch by the end of 2023. We have to complete preparations for lunar missions and A5V by 2025.

IK: A fair bit. People who work in the space industry and space programs can naturally find plenty of flaws and gaps in research, but I think we shouldn’t be so nitpicky, because the main thing about those films are the feelings, the ideas, the philosophy and the plot. I believe the most important thing is that a great number of people find them interesting. Sci-fi films certainly differ a lot from what experts deal with in real life, but I’d say that if we compare [them to] the films made 20 or 30 years ago, there’s as much of a difference there as with the technological progress, that is to say, an enormous one. This genre will be developing along with technology, and we can only support that. 

RT: What would you like to say to our viewers on this big day? 

IK: I would say that they should remember our achievements and proudly look to the future, because the future holds a lot of exciting projects and new achievements when it comes to exploring the Moon and Mars, building new space stations and conducting new experiments. I think new achievements just as great as those recorded in our history and that of Yuri Gagarin lie ahead, and I believe that this is only the beginning.

READFULLTEXT

RT: Mr. Romodanovsky, a “migration tsunami" swept over Europe last year, as hundreds of thousands of refugees flooded the EU. How is the refugee issue being addressed globally? 

Konstantin Romodanovsky: In light of the latest developments in the world, most countries in Eurasia today are focused on the issue of providing international protection for refugees.

Due to the increasing incidence of crises the UN has designated the protection of the rights of all refugees as one of its main short-term objectives.

International experts state that the current migration crisis is the biggest since the Second World War.

All the international activities (UN General Assembly Plenary sessions, IOM sessions, UNHCR, meetings of the Global Forum on Migration and Development) deal with this issue.

Issues related to refugees and asylum seekers are those that are the most "sensitive" and complicated within the migration management system.

First of all - this is an effort aimed at protecting the rights and interests of foreign nationals who were forced to leave the territories of their states of origin due to military conflicts, natural disasters, oppression for religious or ethnic reasons, etc. The states which had assumed international obligations in this field have to strictly comply with them.

Secondly - it is dealing with desperate people who have experienced stressful situations and are often in difficult financial situation, and we must understand that many lives depend on the decision of a migration authority officer.

It is necessary to filter out the economic migrants - those who seek to take advantage of the difficult situation in pursuit of benefits and a better life, and, of course, those who intend to engage in illegal activities.

Also, the complexity of the work lies in the fact that it is impossible to predict all the negative developments in the world, and it is quite expensive to stay always fully prepared for emergencies.

RT: According to media reports, European countries often do not know the exact number of migrants who came to their country. How is that possible?

KR: The situation around the massive influx of refugees into the European Union from the Middle East and North Africa can be described as a mass exodus from that region. There are a number of factors that may have contributed to it: the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, with extremely high mortality rates; the intervention of the "Islamic State" in Syria, Iraq and Libya, the reduced UN funding of the Syrian refugee camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan; Turkey's war against Syrian Kurdistan and the beginning of a color revolution in Lebanon. The situation in the Middle East and North Africa related to fighting is undoubtedly the main factor, though.

According to the IOM, over 1 million migrants got across the Mediterranean to Europe in 2015. Moreover, according to the forecasts published in the media and based on the IOM data, Europe will face another wave of migrants and refugees of at least one million people in 2016.

RT: It seems that the EU was simply not ready for such a large-scale migration crisis.

KR: Our analysis of the situation in the EU suggests that so far the European Union has been struggling to cope with the influx of migrants.

Firstly, the EU does not have a common position on this issue. Some nations are quite liberal and say migrants are welcome there, while others, on the contrary, don’t want any migrants and are building walls on their borders.

Another part of the problem is that the European Commission left it up to individual nations to decide how they want to treat asylum seekers — despite the fact that, as I said earlier, the policies and the capabilities of the member states are very different. The EU does not have an effective system for registering incoming migrants or effective mechanisms for deporting illegal immigrants.

The “transit nations” that migrants pass through on their way to more appealing countries with generous welfare packages for refugees (higher benefits, higher admission quotas, housing, etc.) were not prepared for such an influx of foreigners.

Offering refugees generous benefits without integrating them into the labor market and practicing family reunification, the EU did not expect that such a great number of people will claim these rights. This was clearly a mistake. The policy of multiculturalism failed.

As a result, people in Europe are getting restless. The economic situation is difficult as it is, unemployment is high, and yet their governments have to support immigrants from Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, southern Africa, and provide them with housing and jobs.

Add to that the defiant behavior of refugees and their growing claims and demands. What happened in Germany on the New Year's Eve is a striking example of this. (You can’t ignore the difference in culture, religious traditions and customs).

RT: Britain plans to hold a referendum on EU membership. Some countries have already closed their borders. May this signal the end of united Europe?

KR: Today, one of the key achievements of European integration - the freedom of movement in the Schengen area - is in question.

The European Commission estimates that the collapse of the Schengen area could cost up to € 18 billion, plus there will be a knock-on effect on transport, logistics industry and the labor market. The tourist industry alone will lose an additional 10-20 billion euros a year if the visa regime is reinstated.

In a sense, the EU is already divided. The Visegrad Four (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia) have essentially agreed to stop the migrants at the border of Macedonia (and Bulgaria) with Greece and thus cut off the so-called "Balkan route." This is the route that over 600,000 migrants (out of 1 million) took last year, going from Turkey to Greece, and then via Macedonia and Serbia towards Austria and Germany.

Sweden, which took the lion's share of refugees along with Austria and Germany last year, closed its borders this year. Traditionally, France has been one of Germany’s closest allies and partners, but now their prime minister says France will only be able to take 30,000 refugees.

RT: Europeans pay billions to Turkey for managing the flow of migrants from the Middle East and close their borders. Maybe we should engage in some prevention as well?

KR: Unlike most of developed countries the Russian Federation has not limited visas for Syrian citizens – there are about 8,000 Syrians in Russia at the moment.

Their presence in Russia is governed by a special law regulating rights of foreigners living in our country. About 2,000 of them have temporary residence permits, and over 2000 Syrians have permanent residency.

Russia also went through a surge of migrant arrivals when the situation in southeastern Ukraine got very tense. 

Over 1 million Ukrainians from the southeast have been registered as temporary asylum seekers in the Russian Federation since April 1, 2014.

The number of requests for asylum in Russia has grown almost 60 times.

And we dealt with this issue successfully. Nobody died, nobody starved, everybody was heard.

Russia already has experience in tackling such issues from its recent history – in 2008, after the conflict in the North Caucasus we accommodated 35,000 refugees, and then in 2014 during the Ukrainian crisis we proved our efficiency in dealing with such matters when various government agencies worked together well.

Our first line of work is protection of the Russian state border as we coordinate with border and customs agencies of different CIS countries. The protocol that we have in place allows us to defend our internal and external borders. We also have clear guidelines for accepting and accommodating displaced persons.

If we take the 2014 situation – we set up 338 temporary accommodation centers in 69 Russian regions. Also about half a million Ukrainians were housed in private homes using government support. 

RT: Refugees in Europe live on government aid and don’t want to adjust to the new culture. How does Russia solve such problems?

KR: In 2014-2015, the Russian government allocated almost 18 billion rubles for accommodation programs for Ukrainian citizens.

Ukrainians who came to our country didn’t really experience serious problems integrating into Russian society. There are no language barriers, we share history, culture and traditions. 

Nevertheless we used all available instruments to help refugees adapt quickly.

These instruments include additional residence quotas in the regions that could handle it, the opportunity to file all necessary paperwork within 3 days, the right to participate in the State Program for assisting compatriots in their resettlement and getting jobs without obtaining special work permits.

We also helped these people with employment and health care.

Numbers speak for themselves – over 600,000 people decided to stay in Russia and filed their long-term residence papers.

Those with permanent residency have the right to pension and social benefits.

We don’t have aid payments that would allow refugees to do nothing and stay independent from their host culture. We try to incorporate them into regular Russian life – work, school, and language.

KR: In October 2015, Sochi hosted the first conference of BRICS migration ministers, where we discussed important cooperation strategies in this area.

Among other things we discussed new challenges and solutions in a world where migration has become a transnational issue.

For example, looking at the refugee crisis in Europe, conference delegates agreed that refugee quotas for European countries could be based on the number of jobs available in each country.

It is common notion that providing skilled migrants with jobs helps reduce immigrant unemployment and enables a more successful integration of migrants in the host country, while at the same time benefitting the local economy.

We regularly discuss these issues with the chiefs of migration services of other CIS nations. Representatives of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the IOM are often present at our meeting. It is a forum where CIS member states share their best practices regarding migration. Also, the CSTO Coordination Council on Illegal Migration has a permanent working group for refugees and asylum seekers.

Recognizing the severity of the problem, a forthcoming meeting of the EU-Russia Migration Dialogue will look into matters of providing international protection for refugees.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that the only way we can effectively address the task of regulating transnational and cross-border migration flows is through cooperation and collaboration by all countries concerned.

We need to develop a common understanding and common practices for responding to the modern-day challenges and threats with regard to migration.

International relations have entered a very difficult period, and Russia once again finds itself at the crossroads of key trends that determine the vector of future global development.

Many different opinions have been expressed in this connection including the fear that we have a distorted view of the international situation and Russia’s international standing. I perceive this as an echo of the eternal dispute between pro-Western liberals and the advocates of Russia’s unique path. There are also those, both in Russia and outside of it, who believe that Russia is doomed to drag behind, trying to catch up with the West and forced to bend to other players’ rules, and hence will be unable to claim its rightful place in international affairs. I’d like to use this opportunity to express some of my views and to back them with examples from history and historical parallels.

It is an established fact that a substantiated policy is impossible without reliance on history. This reference to history is absolutely justified, especially considering recent celebrations. In 2015, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Victory in WWII, and in 2014, we marked a century since the start of WWI. In 2012, we marked 200 years of the Battle of Borodino and 400 years of Moscow’s liberation from the Polish invaders. If we look at these events carefully, we’ll see that they clearly point to Russia’s special role in European and global history.

History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France. Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.

Numerous scientific investigations bear witness to the high cultural and spiritual level of Rus of those days, a level that was frequently higher than in western European states. Many prominent Western thinkers recognized that Rus was part of the European context. At the same time, Russian people possessed a cultural matrix of their own and an original type of spirituality and never merged with the West. It is instructive to recall in this connection what was for my people a tragic and in many respects critical epoch of the Mongolian invasion. The great Russian poet and writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The barbarians did not dare to leave an enslaved Rus in their rear and returned to their Eastern steppes. Christian enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and dying Russia.” We also know an alternative view offered by prominent historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov, who believed that the Mongolian invasion had prompted the emergence of a new Russian ethnos and that the Great Steppe had given us an additional impetus for development.

However that may be, it is clear that the said period was extremely important for the assertion of the Russian State’s independent role in Eurasia. Let us recall in this connection the policy pursued by Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit to Golden Horde rulers, who were tolerant of Christianity, in order to uphold the Russians’ right to have a faith of their own and to decide their fate, despite the European West’s attempts to put Russian lands under full control and to deprive Russians of their identity. I am confident that this wise and forward-looking policy is in our genes.

Rus bent under but was not broken by the heavy Mongolian yoke, and managed to emerge from this dire trial as a single state, which was later regarded by both the West and the East as the successor to the Byzantine Empire that ceased to exist in 1453. An imposing country stretching along what was practically the entire eastern perimeter of Europe, Russia began a natural expansion towards the Urals and Siberia, absorbing their huge territories. Already then it was a powerful balancing factor in European political combinations, including the well-known Thirty Years’ War that gave birth to the Westphalian system of international relations, whose principles, primarily respect for state sovereignty, are of importance even today.    

At this point we are approaching a dilemma that has been evident for several centuries. While the rapidly developing Moscow state naturally played an increasing role in European affairs, the European countries had apprehensions about the nascent giant in the East and tried to isolate it whenever possible and prevent it from taking part in Europe’s most important affairs.

The seeming contradiction between the traditional social order and a striving for modernisation based on the most advanced experience also dates back centuries. In reality, a rapidly developing state is bound to try and make a leap forward, relying on modern technology, which does not necessarily imply the renunciation of its “cultural code.” There are many examples of Eastern societies modernising without the radical breakdown of their traditions. This is all the more typical of Russia that is essentially a branch of European civilisation. 

Incidentally, the need for modernisation based on European achievements was clearly manifest in Russian society under Tsar Alexis, while talented and ambitious Peter the Great gave it a strong boost. Relying on tough domestic measures and resolute, and successful, foreign policy, Peter the Great managed to put Russia into the category of Europe’s leading countries in a little over two decades. Since that time Russia’s position could no longer be ignored. Not a single European issue can be resolved without Russia’s opinion.

It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that everyone was happy about this state of affairs. Repeated attempts to return this country into the pre-Peter times were made over subsequent centuries but failed. In the middle 18th century Russia played a key role in a pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’ War. At that time, Russian troops made a triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital of Prussia under Frederick II who had a reputation for invincibility. Prussia was saved from an inevitable rout only because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden death and was succeeded by Peter III who sympathised with Frederick II. This turn in German history is still referred to as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and influence grew substantially under Catherine the Great when, as then Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it, “Not a single cannon in Europe could be fired without our consent.”

I’d like to quote the opinion of a reputable researcher of Russian history, Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, the permanent secretary of the French Academy. She said the Russian Empire was the greatest empire of all times in the totality of all parameters – its size, an ability to administer its territories and the longevity of its existence. Following Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyayev, she insists that history has imbued Russia with the mission of being a link between the East and the West.

During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country. I’m referring, in part, to the Napoleonic wars upon the completion of which Russia rescued the system of international relations that was based on the balance of forces and mutual consideration for national interests and ruled out the total dominance of one state in Europe. We remember that Emperor Alexander I took an active role in the drafting of decisions of the 1815 Vienna Congress that ensured the development of Europe without serious armed clashes during the subsequent 40 years.

Incidentally, to a certain extent the ideas of Alexander I could be described as a prototype of the concept on subordinating national interests to common goals, primarily, the maintenance of peace and order in Europe. As the Russian emperor said, “there can be no more English, French, Russian or Austrian policy. There can be only one policy – a common policy that must be accepted by both peoples and sovereigns for common happiness.”

By the same token, the Vienna system was destroyed in the wake of the desire to marginalise Russia in European affairs. Paris was obsessed with this idea during the reign of Emperor Napoleon III. In his attempt to forge an anti-Russian alliance, the French monarch was willing, as a hapless chess grandmaster, to sacrifice all the other figures. How did it play out? Indeed, Russia was defeated in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, the consequences of which it managed to overcome soon due to a consistent and far-sighted policy pursued by Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov. As for Napoleon III, he ended his rule in German captivity, and the nightmare of the Franco-German confrontation loomed over Western Europe for decades.

Here is another Crimean War-related episode. As we know, the Austrian Emperor refused to help Russia, which, a few years earlier, in 1849, had come to his help during the Hungarian revolt. Then Austrian Foreign Minister Felix Schwarzenberg famously said: “Europe would be astonished by the extent of Austria’s ingratitude.” In general, the imbalance of pan-European mechanisms triggered a chain of events that led to the First World War.

Notably, back then Russian diplomacy also advanced ideas that were ahead of their time. The Hague Peace conferences of 1899 and 1907, convened at the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II, were the first attempts to agree on curbing the arms race and stopping preparations for a devastating war. But not many people know about it.

The First World War claimed lives and caused the suffering of countless millions of people and led to the collapse of four empires. In this connection, it is appropriate to recall yet another anniversary, which will be marked next year – the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Today we are faced with the need to develop a balanced and objective assessment of those events, especially in an environment where, particularly in the West, many are willing to use this date to mount even more information attacks on Russia, and to portray the 1917 Revolution as a barbaric coup that dragged down all of European history. Even worse, they want to equate the Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially blame it for starting WWII.

Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Civil War were a terrible tragedy for our nation. However, all other revolutions were tragic as well. This does not prevent our French colleagues from extolling their upheaval, which, in addition to the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, also involved the use of the guillotine, and rivers of blood.

Undoubtedly, the Russian Revolution was a major event which impacted world history in many controversial ways. It has become regarded as a kind of experiment in implementing socialist ideas, which were then widely spread across Europe. The people supported them, because wide masses gravitated towards social organisation with reliance on the collective and community principles.

Serious researchers clearly see the impact of reforms in the Soviet Union on the formation of the so-called welfare state in Western Europe in the post-WWII period. European governments decided to introduce unprecedented measures of social protection under the influence of the example of the Soviet Union in an effort to cut the ground from under the feet of the left-wing political forces.

One can say that the 40 years following World War II were a surprisingly good time for Western Europe, which was spared the need to make its own major decisions under the umbrella of the US-Soviet confrontation and enjoyed unique opportunities for steady development.

In these circumstances, Western European countries have implemented several ideas regarding ​​conversion of the capitalist and socialist models, which, as a preferred form of socioeconomic progress, were promoted by Pitirim Sorokin and other outstanding thinkers of the 20th century. Over the past 20 years, we have been witnessing the reverse process in Europe and the United States: the reduction of the middle class, increased social inequality, and the dismantling of controls over big business.

The role which the Soviet Union played in decolonisation, and promoting international relations principles, such as the independent development of nations and their right to self-determination, is undeniable.

I will not dwell on the points related to Europe slipping into WWII. Clearly, the anti-Russian aspirations of the European elites, and their desire to unleash Hitler's war machine on the Soviet Union played their fatal part here. Redressing the situation after this terrible disaster involved the participation of our country as a key partner in determining the parameters of the European and the world order.

In this context, the notion of the “clash of two totalitarianisms,” which is now actively inculcated in European minds, including at schools, is groundless and immoral. The Soviet Union, for all its evils, never aimed to destroy entire nations. Winston Churchill, who all his life was a principled opponent of the Soviet Union and played a major role in going from the WWII alliance to a new confrontation with the Soviet Union, said that graciousness, i.e. life in accordance with conscience, is the Russian way of doing things.

If you take an unbiased look at the smaller European countries, which previously were part of the Warsaw Treaty, and are now members of the EU or NATO, it is clear that the issue was not about going from subjugation to freedom, which Western masterminds like to talk about, but rather a change of leadership.Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about it not long ago. The representatives of these countries concede behind closed doors that they can’t take any significant decision without the green light from Washington or Brussels.

It seems that in the context of the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it is important for us to understand the continuity of Russian history, which should include all of its periods without exception, and the importance of the synthesis of all the positive traditions and historical experience as the basis for making dynamic advances and upholding the rightful role of our country as a leading centre of the modern world, and a provider of the values of sustainable development, security and stability.

The post-war world order relied on confrontation between two world systems and was far from ideal, yet it was sufficient to preserve international peace and to avoid the worst possible temptation – the use of weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear weapons. There is no substance behind the popular belief that the Soviet Union’s dissolution signified Western victory in the Cold War. It was the result of our people’s will for change plus an unlucky chain of events.

These developments resulted in a truly tectonic shift in the international landscape. In fact, they changed global politics altogether, considering that the end of the Cold War and related ideological confrontation offered a unique opportunity to change the European architecture on the principles of indivisible and equal security and broad cooperation without dividing lines.

We had a practical chance to mend Europe’s divide and implement the dream of a common European home, which many European thinkers and politicians, including President Charles de Gaulle of France, wholeheartedly embraced. Russia was fully open to this option and advanced many proposals and initiatives in this connection. Logically, we should have created a new foundation for European security by strengthening the military and political components of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Vladimir Putin said in a recent interview with the German newspaper Bild that German politician Egon Bahr proposed similar approaches.

Unfortunately, our Western partners chose differently. They opted to expand NATO eastward and to advance the geopolitical space they controlled closer to the Russian border. This is the essence of the systemic problems that have soured Russia’s relations with the United States and the European Union. It is notable that George Kennan, the architect of the US policy of containment of the Soviet Union, said in his winter years that the ratification of NATO expansion was “a tragic mistake.”

The underlying problem of this Western policy is that it disregarded the global context. The current globalised world is based on an unprecedented interconnection between countries, and so it’s impossible to develop relations between Russia and the EU as if they remained at the core of global politics as during the Cold War. We must take note of the powerful processes that are underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

Rapid changes in all areas of international life is the primary sign of the current stage. Indicatively, they often take an unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of “the end of history” developed by well-known US sociologist and political researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was popular in the 1990s, has become clearly inconsistent today. According to this concept, rapid globalisation signals the ultimate victory of the liberal capitalist model, whereas all other models should adapt to it under the guidance of the wise Western teachers.

In reality, the second wave of globalisation (the first occurred before World War I) led to the dispersal of global economic might and, hence, of political influence, and to the emergence of new and large centres of power, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region. China’s rapid upsurge is the clearest example. Owing to unprecedented economic growth rates, in just three decades it became the second and, calculated as per purchasing power parity, the first economy in the world. This example illustrates an axiomatic fact – there are many development models– which rules out the monotony of existence within the uniform, Western frame of reference.

Consequently, there has been a relative reduction in the influence of the so-called “historical West” that was used to seeing itself as the master of the human race’s destinies for almost five centuries. The competition on the shaping of the world order in the 21st century has toughened. The transition from the Cold War to a new international system proved to be much longer and more painful than it seemed 20-25 years ago.

Against this backdrop, one of the basic issues in international affairs is the form that is being acquired by this generally natural competition between the world’s leading powers. We see how the United States and the US-led Western alliance are trying to preserve their dominant positions by any available method or, to use the American lexicon, ensure their “global leadership”. Many diverse ways of exerting pressure, economic sanctions and even direct armed intervention are being used. Large-scale information wars are being waged. Technology of unconstitutional change of governments by launching “colour” revolutions has been tried and tested. Importantly, democratic revolutions appear to be destructive for the nations targeted by such actions. Our country that went through a historical period of encouraging artificial transformations abroad, firmly proceeds from the preference of evolutionary changes that should be carried out in the forms and at a speed that conform to the traditions of a society and its level of development.

Western propaganda habitually accuses Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged desire to destroy the established international system, as if it was us who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia that ignored international law by invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN Security Council resolutions by overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by force in Libya in 2011. There are many examples.

This discourse about “revisionism” does not hold water. It is based on the simple and even primitive logic that only Washington can set the tune in world affairs. In line with this logic, the principle once formulated by George Orwell and moved to the international level, sounds like the following: all states are equal but some states are more equal than others. However, today international relations are too sophisticated a mechanism to be controlled from one centre. This is obvious given the results of US interference: There is virtually no state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the brink of disintegration, and so on and so forth.

A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges. Such an interaction should include all the colours of the modern world, and be based on its cultural and civilisational diversity, as well as reflect the interests of the international community’s key components.

We know from experience that when these principles are applied in practice, it is possible to achieve specific and tangible results, such as the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme, the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons, the agreement on stopping hostilities in Syria, and the development of the basic parameters of the global climate agreement. This shows the need to restore the culture of compromise, the reliance on the diplomatic work, which can be difficult, even exhausting, but which remains, in essence, the only way to ensure a mutually acceptable solution to problems by peaceful means.

Our approaches are shared by most countries of the world, including our Chinese partners, other BRICSand SCO nations, and our friends in the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words, we can say that Russia is fighting not against someone, but for the resolution of all the issues on an equal and mutually respectful basis, which alone can serve as a reliable foundation for a long-term improvement of international relations.

Our most important task is to join our efforts against not some far-fetched, but very real challenges, among which the terrorist aggression is the most pressing one. The extremists from ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for the first time to establish control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. They are trying to extend their influence to other countries and regions, and are committing acts of terrorism around the world. Underestimating this risk is nothing short of criminal shortsightedness.

The Russian President called for forming a broad-based front in order to defeat the terrorists militarily. The Russian Aerospace Forces make an important contribution to this effort. At the same time, we are working hard to establish collective actions regarding the political settlement of the conflicts in this crisis-ridden region.

Importantly, the long-term success can only be achieved on the basis of movement to the partnership of civilisations based on respectful interaction of diverse cultures and religions. We believe that human solidarity must have a moral basis formed by traditional values ​​that are largely shared by the world's leading religions. In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the joint statement by Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis, in which, among other things, they have expressed support for the family as a natural centre of life of individuals and society.

I repeat, we are not seeking confrontation with the United States, or the European Union, or NATO. On the contrary, Russia is open to the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners. We continue to believe that the best way to ensure the interests of the peoples living in Europe is to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific. We strive to do our best to overcome obstacles on that way, including the settlement of the Ukraine crisis caused by the coup in Kiev in February 2014, on the basis of the Minsk Agreements.

I’d like to quote wise and politically experienced Henry Kissinger, who, speaking recently in Moscow, said that “Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States... I am here to argue for the possibility of a dialogue that seeks to merge our futures rather than elaborate our conflicts. This requires respect by both sides of the vital values and interest of the other.”  We share such an approach. And we will continue to defend the principles of law and justice in international affairs.

Speaking about Russia's role in the world as a great power, Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin said that the greatness of a country is not determined by the size of its territory or the number of its inhabitants, but by the capacity of its people and its government to take on the burden of great world problems and to deal with these problems in a creative manner. A great power is the one which, asserting its existence and its interest ... introduces a creative and meaningful legal idea to ​​the entire assembly of the nations, the entire “concert” of the peoples and states. It is difficult to disagree with these words.

The statement was first published on the Kremlin’s official website on Monday. This is the full text:

Friends,

I just had a telephone conversation with President of the United States of America Barack Obama. The phone call was initiated by the Russian side, but the interest was certainly mutual.

During our conversation, we approved joint statements of Russia and the US, as co-chairs of the ISSG, on the cessation of hostilities in Syria. Adoption of the statement was preceded by intensive work by Russian and American experts. We also made use of the positive experience we accumulated over the course of cooperation in eliminating chemical weapons in Syria.

The essence of these conditions is as follows: by 12:00 pm on February 26, 2016, all parties warring in Syria must indicate to the Russian Federation or our American partners their commitment to the cessation of hostilities. Russian and American troops will jointly delineate the territories where these groups are active. No military action will be taken against them by the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic, Russian Armed Forces and the US-led coalition. In turn, the opposition will cease all military action against the Armed Forces of the Syrian Arab Republic and other groups supporting them.

ISIS, Jabhat Al-Nursa, and other terrorist organisations designated by the United Nations Security Council, are excluded from the cessation of hostilities. Strikes against them will continue.

It is fundamentally important that Russia and the US, as co-chairs of the ISSG, are prepared to launch effective mechanisms to promote and monitor compliance with the ceasefire by both the Syrian Government and the armed opposition groups.

To achieve this goal, we will establish a communication hotline and, if necessary, a working group to exchange relevant information. Russia will conduct the necessary work with Damascus and the legitimate Syrian leadership. We expect that the United States will do the same with regard to their allies and the groups they support.

Most important is the creation of conditions for launching a long-term political process through a broad inter-Syrian dialogue in Geneva, under the auspices of the UN.

Unfortunately, recent history has many examples where one-sided actions not sanctioned by the UN, which favour short-term political or opportunistic interests, have led to dramatic results. These examples are on everyone’s lips: Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Yemen.

Against this background, Russian-American agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Syria, and their joint implementation in coordination with all nations participating in the International Syria Support Group, can become an example of responsible actions the global community takes against the threat of terrorism, which are based on international law and UN principles.

I would like to hope that the Syrian leadership and all our partners in the region and beyond will support the set of actions chosen by representatives of Russia and the US.

RT: Madame Minister, your just spent a lot of time meeting with WHO Director General Margaret Chan. Could you tell what that was about?

Veronika Skvortsova: We discussed ways for Russia to get more actively involved in combating the Ebola virus disease (EVD). There was an important meeting in October 2014, when Ms Chan met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Together, they decided on the elaboration of a comprehensive plan for Russia to join the fight against the EVD. We did a lot of work in 2015, setting up a laboratory in the Republic of Guinea, developing special airlift capabilities to transport infected patients, establishing a hospital in Guinea, supplying the country with humanitarian aid, etc. In parallel to that, we started developing a whole range of vaccine candidates against the Ebola virus in October 2015. We deliberately included among them vaccines based on different biological mechanisms. Starting from mid-2015, we already knew for sure which of the vaccine candidates were the most efficient ones, so we could focus on developing those vaccines specifically. At the end of the day, two of the vaccine candidates were selected for actual use. One of them is truly groundbreaking, with its structure based on two virus vectors, and on the so-called "booster effect," where one of the virus vectors activates the other one, so we get a stronger and more lasting impact.

We completed a full sequence of pre-clinical tests using apes, and then carried our first – and second-phase clinical studies using 160 human volunteers. The vaccine I was just referring to, the one named Combi, was tested on 84 volunteers. The results tell us the vaccine is safe, it is very well-tolerated, it has almost zero side effects, and it has an incredible immunity-boosting effect, affecting both humoral and cell-mediated immunity. Suffice it to say that 100 percent of the inoculated volunteers showed very high anti-Ebola titers even at a very low dilution. We have been observing those volunteers for some 4.5-5 months by now, and we see that those titers have remained high. Besides, when we take the inoculated volunteers' serum and use it against a wild-type Ebola virus in laboratory conditions, the serum completely neutralizes the virus. That is absolute proof that the vaccine is efficient, as well as safe.

Both vaccines have been registered, and by now they will have also been patented in Russia. Shortly before New Year, we received a letter from the Pasteur Institute in Guinea inviting Russia to apply those vaccines in the country. A delegation of the Russian Healthcare Ministry visited Guinea in January. We had meetings with medical experts including the heads of various research units within the Pasteur Institute, as well as with representatives of the Guinean Healthcare Ministry and the Ministry of Education, and the Guinean president.

We will be able to provide the necessary quantities of the vaccine within the next two months, with a view to field-testing it on at least 4,000 trial patients in the Republic of Guinea. We have drawn up a plan for those field tests. It is specially designed to allow us to compare the efficacy of the Russian vaccine against its foreign-made analogues.

RT: That's phase three of your studies, am I correct?

VS: In fact, this is phase four of the post-authorization studies. At the moment (and this was confirmed today during my meeting with Ms Chan), the Russian vaccine is the only vaccine that has been registered and authorized by national law. The other vaccines are all currently in phase three of their clinical studies, for various reasons.

In order to demonstrate our transparency, we are prepared to join the research done by foreign companies, and, more than that, we can help in shaping their research design and propose additional immunity tests to get a deeper insight into the effect of these vaccines. What we agreed on today was that WHO observers will be fully briefed on the research and given the opportunity to take part in any aspect of it. Hopefully, most of the work will be done during 2016 so that together with the WHO we can agree on the future application of the vaccine.

VS: We are providing vaccines for free for the first group of 4,000 patients. The cost price is not really high but I would rather not give out any figures. A market is a market, we all understand this but we are also aware of the fact this vaccine is aimed to prevent what could become fatal epidemics. So in my opinion any attempts to extract too much revenue from it would be simply immoral. So the selling price will be just above the cost price limiting the margin to a level sufficient to support ongoing production.

RT: Moving on to the Zika virus. It’s extensively covered in the media, causing a public scare. Is Russia planning to develop a vaccine or maybe research is already under way?

VS: Indeed, the first Russian case of the Zika virus was reported just recently – I am referring to a resident of Moscow who returned from a family vacation in the Dominican Republic. She didn’t have any symptoms at first but we know that the incubation period lasts two weeks. So a couple of days later she found symptoms of what she judged to be ordinary flu. The symptoms were, however, followed by a rapid rash which was what prompted her to consult a doctor. Otherwise, she might have not been alarmed at all. She was immediately taken to hospital and placed in a special isolated ward at an infectious diseases division. After a week of treatment her condition was classified as ‘satisfactory’. It’s also important that neither her son’s nor her husband’s tests prove positive. If a second round of tests finds no Zika virus present in her blood, it means the woman has been cured and can be safely released.

We are indeed working on the Zika virus and other tropical diseases. By now we can offer several options for tests. Actually, we used one of these tests to confirm the diagnosis of the first Russian case, identifying the same strains that are found today in Latin America.

So the two major issues the world scientific community is facing is, first, understanding the nature of the mechanisms allowing this virus to have such an impact on nerve tissue and, second, finding a way to identify symptoms at an early stage of pregnancy, rather than at a much later time when we see an already developed microcephaly during an ultrasound scan.

We believe it is quite realistic to come up with biomolecular markers that could be applied for preventive purposes provided that we get deeper knowledge of the mechanism causing these malign changes. So we expect to join these research groups in the near term.

RT: Ms Skvortsova, thank you so much for finding the time in your busy schedule here in Geneva and sitting down with RT.

VS: Thank you so much.

RT: Good luck in all your endeavors.

VS: Thank you.

READ MORE: Moscow shared MH17 radar images, Dutch probe ignored evidence, Russia tells victims’ relatives

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express to you once more my sincere condolences over the terrible tragedy that claimed the lives of your loved ones.

As you know, Russia’s Federal Air Transport Agency represented the Russian Federation in its contribution to the technical investigation into the crash of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine. In light of this, we would like to use this opportunity to respond to your recent request urging President Putin to clarify whether Russia has provided primary radar data for the inquiry.

To begin with, I would like to emphasize that Russia is strongly committed to establishing the actual cause of the crash, and has consistently done everything in its power to help find out the truth, both throughout the course of the technical investigation and following its official completion.

As for primary radar data, we hereby officially maintain that Russia provided the Dutch Safety Board with all available primary radar data tracing Flight MH17 as early as August 2014, which was right after the tragedy. We did not impose any conditions or restrictions regarding further use and disclosure of radar data, records of phone conversations and other data we submitted to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) at its request. Moreover, Russia has stored all that data to this day, and is willing to provide it once again to the relevant authorities.

For the sake of clarity, I must specify that Russia submitted primary radar data to the DSB in the form of a video recording capturing a Russian air traffic controller’s display. It should be explained that primary radar data can be stored in the form of videos, which is consistent with ICAO standards. It should be explained that Russian air traffic authorities store primary radar data exclusively in the form of videos, which is consistent with ICAO standards. That said, the Dutch Safety Board’s final report does not suggest that this fact might have somehow affected the findings of the technical inquiry into the circumstances and the cause of the crash.

We would also like to point out that the tragedy took place outside Russian airspace, where the airliner was not being directed by Russian air traffic controllers. Russia’s radar data became a point of interest due to the fact that Russian radar control facilities located near Rostov-on-Don were able to track MH17’s flight path. Furthermore, it was later established that the Russian primary radar data were, in fact, the only ones available, since Ukrainian air traffic control services, for some unclear reasons, had not been running primary radar surveillance, despite the fact that there were no other means available for ensuring air safety over the war zone in Eastern Ukraine.

As far as satellite imagery is concerned, I would like to stress that Russia disclosed all of its available satellite data in the days immediately following the crash. Those data confirm, among other things, that there was movement and increased activity by Ukrainian Buk surface-to-air missile systems observed within the conflict area in Eastern Ukraine one day ahead of the tragedy. Russia shared that information with the Dutch Safety Board, but once its final report was released, it turned out the DSB had chosen not to consider Russian satellite data or even include them in the report.

Russia is as determined as you are to ensure that this horrible tragedy is investigated as promptly, diligently and impartially as possible. We fully support your recent queries to the governments of the United States and Ukraine, demanding that they provide the investigators with all relevant data. The United States must disclose the satellite images that Secretary Kerry claims it has kept since the moment of the crash, which are supposedly capable of shedding light on the circumstances of the tragedy.

Meanwhile, Russia has consistently contributed its best efforts and committed all kinds of resources to finding out the truth about the crash. In order to provide efficient and reliable expert counsel for the investigation, we decided to engage Almaz-Antey, the Russian defense company that designed the Buk missile systems. The company administered a series of highly sophisticated and accurate studies, and conducted two full-scale experiments. In an unprecedented move, Almaz-Antey also disclosed the technical characteristics for the missiles carried by the Buk and the Buk-M1 missile systems. All of the estimates and other data obtained in the course of the studies and the experiments were submitted to the Dutch Safety Board. Russia repeatedly invited Dutch investigators to take part in those efforts, but the DSB, just as the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), have shown no interest in such collaboration. We believe the data in question to be much more useful for investigating the crash than radar data and satellite imagery. Yet the authorities in charge of the technical investigation have chosen to discard that data, too.

As far as the quality of the technical inquiry is concerned, I must point out that, in a totally inexplicable fashion, its final report leaves the most important question unanswered: How far is Ukraine responsible for failing to close its airspace? The report is extremely vague regarding the responsibility of the government in Kiev.

In view of the recurrent critique of Russia in relation to the tragedy of Flight MH17, we are forced to remind the world that, unlike the DSB and the JIT, Russia has never protracted the investigations it administered, or those in which it participated in as a full-fledged member. Russia performed all its work in a transparent manner, regularly publishing the results of our examinations and all the other steps we took. This was the case with the investigations into the crash of the Russian Airbus A321 over Egypt, where numerous provocative claims were made about the cause of the crash, but Russia did not endorse any of the theories until evidence was obtained with traces of foreign explosives found on the debris, confirming that this was a terrorist attack. And when this evidence was found, we immediately informed the international community and our partners in the investigation. This was also the case with the investigation into the crash of the Russian military Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft over Syria. Russia investigated the accident with unprecedented transparency, inviting a number of international experts and journalists to witness the opening of the flight recorders. Many foreign specialists (British, for example) expressed their admiration for both the high quality of the investigation and its transparency.

All this demonstrates that Russia has always been consistent with its conclusions and never makes accusations before the investigation is over and final accurate results are obtained.

At the same time, Russia has repeatedly pointed out that the Dutch technical investigation was performed in an extremely nontransparent and biased manner. We support you in your efforts to get answers to the numerous questions that remain unanswered. The Dutch Safety Board should explain to you and to the whole world why the technical investigation took such a long time and why it resulted in some very abstract and vague statements. The Dutch authorities should explain why they distorted facts and concealed data, and why they ignored important data provided by Russia. The DSB should explain why its final report distorted data about missile fragments and places where they were found, why it failed to thoroughly examine penetration holes on the aircraft, why it misrepresented the probable location from which the missile was launched, and many other discrepancies in the final report.

Unfortunately, we observe now a very similar situation with the Joint Investigation Team in charge of the criminal investigation. Once again, the process is taking too long, and the Dutch authorities are very biased in choosing partners for the criminal investigation. All this invites many unpleasant questions and gives us reasons to worry that the criminal investigation may repeat the fate of the technical one and fail to establish the truth.

This is why Russia encourages the families and friends of the victims to demand answers to all these questions, as well as maximum transparency, objectivity, thoroughness and promptness, from the Dutch authorities and their partners in the investigation.

In conclusion, I reaffirm that Russia is more than willing to assist in any way we can with a thorough and swift investigation into this terrible tragedy.

Once again, I would like to express my deepest condolences.

Sincerely,

Oleg Storchevoy
Deputy Head
Federal Air Transport Agency

Citizens of Russia, friends,

In a few moments, we will see in the New Year of 2016. The sensation of this wonderful moment between the past and the future is familiar since childhood. We look forward to it with joy, hope and excitement, believing in the best.

Traditionally, we celebrate it with our families, with all our nearest and dearest ones. Of course, not all manage to see the New Year in with their families.

People have to work at hospitals and production facilities, perform their service and combat duty, defend our borders, and be on regular duty, ensuring our security on land, at sea and in the skies.

We are grateful to all those who are always at their post, day and night, over weekdays and holidays. Today, I would like to extend special greetings to those of our service members who are fighting international terrorism, defending Russia’s national interests on distant frontiers, showing their willpower, determination and staunchness. Although these are the qualities we need all the time, whatever we are doing.

The success of the entire nation depends on the efficient work and achievements of each one of us. We are united by the same goals, by our common desire to benefit our Motherland and by our sense of responsibility for its future.

In the outgoing year of 2015, we marked the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Our history, the experience of our parents and grandparents, their unity in times of trouble and their willpower, shall always serve as an example for us. They have helped and will help us to meet all our current challenges with dignity.

Friends,

On this New Year’s night, we feel especially strongly just how much our nearest and dearest ones mean to us. It is so important for all to be healthy and everything to be fine. For our parents to be surrounded by love and care, so that all the good things they have ever taught us come back to them.

Let our children grow smart and active, while love and responsiveness, kind-heartedness and compassion, support us in our everyday chores.

There are a few seconds left before the New Year. Let us wish each other success and happiness.

Let us thank each other for understanding and support, for sympathy and responsiveness we give each other.

And let us raise a toast to the prosperity and well-being of Russia!

Happy New Year to you! Happy 2016!

READ MORE:Putin: Free Syrian Army shares intel on ISIS targets, US reluctant to cooperate

Question: During the 2008-2009 global financial crisis the G20 became a popular format, a platform for solving global problems. Do you think that it still plays the same role? What problems that could really be solved in this format rather than in statements or declarations do you think are the most pressing today?

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: The role of the G20 in global economic and financial governance is becoming increasingly important. Thanks to the decisions made by the G20, we have managed to create conditions not only for coping with the consequences of the 2008‑2009 crisis, but also for enhancing sustainability and transparency of the global financial markets.

However, nowadays, the global economy is still unstable and cannot get on a path towards sustainable and balanced development. In this context, the work the G20 does is especially needed.

First and foremost, it is necessary to continue improving the international monetary and financial system, as follows: to impartially and equally redistribute quotas and voting shares among IMF members in favor of those developing economies that have gained greater weight, and to improve the efficiency and legitimacy of the Fund’s activities. Besides, we see more often how politically motivated restrictions are imposed on the entry of sovereign borrowers and companies in global financial markets. We consider G20 to be the main platform for dialogue on all of these issues.

The reform of international tax rules launched at the G20 Summit in St. Petersburg is another important issue. The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan should be finally adopted in Antalya. The next step is to introduce in practice new rules in G20 countries and beyond.

I would like to highlight an important achievement made this year by the G20 as the development by our countries of investment strategies, which include specific commitments to encourage domestic demand through investment. Thus, the initiatives launched by Russia during its G20 Presidency have translated into practice.

Vladimir Putin: Let me stress that Russia pursues a multidimensional foreign policy. We seek to have as many equal partners as possible both in the West and the East.

Russia's geography and history determines the Asia-Pacific dimension as one of our foreign policy priorities. Therefore, cooperation between Russia and the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic and long-term one. It is worth mentioning that this region is the linchpin of the global economy and politics. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for about 60 percent of global GDP, fifty percent of international trade and direct cross-border investment. Obviously, the role of this region in global affairs will grow and we do take it into account.

As for the restrictive measures imposed against Russia in March 2014, they have, indeed, complicated the process of attracting investments from certain Western markets. Nevertheless, our domestic banking sector proved its resilience to external shocks. We managed to keep the Russian stock market attractive. CEOs of the major multinational companies admit that investing in Russia’s economy is promising.

Obviously, cooperation with Asian partners in attracting funds gains special relevance in the current situation. In 2015, approximately 90 percent of investments in the Russian market came from Asia. Several large Russian enterprises are financed by China and we analyse the prospects of public borrowings from China. International investment mechanisms have been developed – the New Development Bank BRICS and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, each with an authorised capital of $100 billion. Pooled funds and investment platforms have been created with China, India, South Korea and the Gulf States to channel foreign investments into the real sector of Russia’s economy.

In order to strengthen our cooperation, we are streamlining taxation of profits from project financing in Russia and also propose new promising initiatives. Many opportunities for cooperation are now available under our programmes for developing Siberia and the Far East, which were presented, among other things, in September 2015 at the first Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, including the creation of Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and a free port in Vladivostok that would enjoy preferential tax and administrative regimes, modernisation of the Trans-Siberian and the Baikal-Amur mainline railways, the revival of the Northern Sea Route, and building the Power of Siberia pipeline.

Question: Did you expect such unanimous negative reaction in the West, in particular, the NATO countries, some of which are major Russian partners, to the start of the Russian Air Force operation in Syria, and is it possible that Western partners’ negative reaction could affect the time frame of Russia’s military operation in Syria? Is there any risk that Russia could be dragged into a long-term conflict in Syria and how much will the costs of carrying out this operation affect the Russian Federation budget, which has been already cut?

Vladimir Putin: We officially informed the US and NATO leadership of the start of military actions in a reasonable time.

We hoped at least for the natural close military and expert coordination with the US‑led Global Coalition to Counter Islamic State in such cases, even taking into account all the fundamental differences between the Russian and US approaches to the Syrian crisis.

However, the reaction of the United States and Western partners was quite restrained, although it would seem obvious that Islamic State and other similar extremist groups operating in Syria represent a clear common threat to our countries.

We still have not managed to go beyond the joint approval of the Memorandum of Understanding on Prevention of Flight Safety Incidents in the Course of Operations in Syria, and even then with a reservation by the US that by no means such interaction should be regarded as the normalisation of military contacts, which were frozen on the US initiative.

The United States has been also reluctant to respond positively to our proposal to sign a special agreement for the rescue of military aircraft crews, notwithstanding the fact that at the time when the US operation in Afghanistan started, we immediately responded to their similar request.

Neither have we received any response to our request to provide Russia with relevant US intelligence data for planning operations of our Air Force in Syria, although we have repeatedly asked the United States for such information.

However, in the course of our activities, we are ready to take into account any reliable information on the location of terrorist groups. We have even worked together with the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Russian aviation has conducted several strikes on targets identified by the FSA. We excluded areas, which had been indicated by FSA commanders as being under their control. By the way, this fact proves once again that we are not bombing the so‑called moderate opposition or the civilian population.

We are ready to cooperate with Washington despite the fact that the US operations in Syria are in violation of international law – without the resolution of the UN Security Council, or a request from the official Syrian government.

As for the time frame of the operation in Syria, a clear objective is set before the Russian forces – they should provide air support for the Syrian army’s offensive against the terrorists, and that is why the duration of the stay of our servicemen will be determined solely depending on the time this objective is achieved.

And the last thing: our activities in Syria as well as potential risks and consequences have been carefully calculated many times, and all the resources needed for the operation, both financial and technological, have been allocated in advance.

Question: At the G20 meetings with Western leaders the settlement of the situation in southeastern Ukraine might be touched upon along with other issues. Taking into account the decision of the DPR (Donetsk People’s Republic) and LPR (Lugansk People’s Republic) to put off local elections until 2016, does it mean that the implementation of other items of the Minsk Agreements would be automatically prolonged as well? Are you concerned that procrastination in implementing the Minsk Agreements could bring about another frozen conflict close to Russian borders similar to the Transnistrian issue?

You have repeatedly mentioned that Kiev isn’t complying with the Minsk Agreements, including its economic part. Does it mean that Russia is now actually responsible for supporting Donbass?

Vladimir Putin: The decision of Donetsk and Lugansk to put off local elections until next year is a last-choice measure. They could have been held this year, had Kiev fulfilled strictly the Minsk Agreements of February 12 and agreed with the DPR and LPR on organizing the elections, and also enacted the Law on the special status of Donbass in its original form.

Now, when a ceasefire in the region has finally been established, it is important that the parties to the conflict start looking for points of contact together, so that they can move on towards their common goal. They need to learn to listen to each other and actually hear each other. Compromise solutions depend on this.

Given the fact that the hostilities have ceased and cases of shelling are rare, it is unclear why the US Congress would adopt resolutions making it possible to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. The question arises as to whether there is a desire to spark a war or provoke hostilities.

However, the threat of Donbass turning into another frozen conflict is still there. It stems from Kiev's policy, which continues to strengthen the blockade of the Southeast and has stopped the supply of food and money there. Kiev has eliminated the region’s banking system and is blocking exports.

I would like to say that, during the talks as far back as in September 2014, the parties to the conflict agreed not only on a ceasefire, but also on steps to restore livelihoods in the region. It was fixed that a programme for economic revival of Donbass should be adopted. This issue was discussed last February in Minsk, where our partners from the Normandy Four group – Germany and France – agreed to provide technical assistance in the recovery of the banking and financial infrastructure in the conflict-affected areas.

It is fair to say that there is certain progress. The parties restored railway communication, making it possible to deliver Donbass coal to other regions of Ukraine. Works are underway to restore energy supplies. Ways to restore water are also being analyzed.

Russia, for its part, continues to support Donbass, which is in a difficult humanitarian situation. Since August 2014, more than 50,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid has been delivered there. First of all, we think about the people that were abandoned by the Kiev authorities and put on the brink of survival. It is our duty to provide them with the necessary assistance.

Question: The US and the EU have imposed sanctions against Russia. But despite Western countries' criticism, Turkey continues to maintain its economic and political ties with Moscow. In this context, what future do you see for Russian-Turkish relations? To what extent do the differences on the Syrian issue affect the bilateral relations?

Vladimir Putin: While the US and the European Union unilaterally introduced sanctions, Turkey took an independent stand. Such an independent policy pursued by Ankara to meet its national foreign policy interests deserves great respect.

Such a pragmatic approach opens up new horizons for the development of Russian-Turkish relations – first of all, their business dimension. Turkey is our major partner in foreign economic collaboration. Last year, our bilateral trade exceeded $31 billion. We have been building up industrial cooperation by implementing major projects in construction, light industry, metallurgy and agriculture. We focus primarily on such knowledge-intensive and hi-tech industries as energy – including nuclear power – and telecommunications. Tourism is another important field of collaboration. Last year over 3.3 million Russian citizens visited Turkish resorts. But generally, the potential for our trade and economic interaction is far from being fully unlocked.

It is true that the two countries have different views on the ways to resolve the crisis in Syria. But the important thing is that Russia and Turkey share the same priorities – we both stand for settling the situation in the region and effectively combating terrorism. With this in mind, the existing differences should not hamper our bilateral relations. On the contrary, in looking for the common ground, we draw upon vast experience of constructive cooperation between our countries.

Question: Last December, you made a state visit to Turkey during which, among other things, the launch of the TurkStream project was announced. Since then, no progress in its implementation has been observed, and there has also been certain information that the pipeline capacity would be halved and only two instead of four strings would be built. What are the reasons behind the project's downsizing? Does it have anything to do with some serious political discords between Russia and Turkey, or is it for economic reasons alone?

Vladimir Putin: I cannot agree with your opinion that the TurkStream is slowing down. Such a large-scale project cannot be developed and agreed overnight. There are many legal, technical and economic, technological and organizational issues – including the number of the pipeline strings taking into account the actual need in gas acquisition and pumping volumes – which we have to decide together with our Turkish colleagues. The better we resolve these issues, the faster and with fewer risks and resources we will be able to implement our plans, and ensure an uninterrupted delivery of Russian gas directly to Turkish consumers. The main thing is that this project is fully in the interests of both Russia and Turkey. My Turkish colleague Recep Tayyip Erdogan and I are in complete agreement on this.

We passed our ideas on the bilateral intergovernmental agreement, which should provide a legal basis for project implementation, to the Turkish side last July. We expect that the new Turkish government should be able to organize work on the key aspects of the above-mentioned agreement in a short period of time.

The pace of the negotiation process has been definitely affected by the political situation on the eve of the elections in Turkey. We understood that and did not force the events.

It is known that the EU and Bulgaria torpedoed the implementation of the South Stream and did not let us implement this project, though it was clearly in the interests of Bulgaria and the whole of Southern Europe. The TurkStream would make it possible to deliver Russian natural gas to the border between Turkey and Greece, virtually to the border of the EU. European consumers would be able to buy it there. But the countries that refused to take part in constructing the new pipeline would have to count lost profits.

I would like to note that we will continue to be a strategic and reliable energy supplier to Turkey and Europe, and that we have everything necessary for this.

Question: On Syria Russia maintains that only the Syrian people can determine the future of Syria and Bashar Assad. Which road map does Russia propose to settle the Syrian crisis? How do you see the future of that country? Was the resignation of Bashar Assad from the post of president discussed at the meeting in Moscow? Did you make an arrangement with the United States to launch the operation in Syria?

Besides, Western countries have repeatedly accused Russia that its Air Force is bombing not only Islamic State and Jabhat al‑Nusra but also other groups in Syria. Do you think that all armed groups currently fighting in Syria against Assad's army are terrorists?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, from the very outset we have insisted, and we still insist today, that it is the Syrian people who should determine its future. It is good to know that at the Vienna talks on Syria on October 30, foreign ministers of seventeen states and representatives of the United Nations and the European Union supported this approach and expressed it in their final statement as their collective opinion.

As for the elaboration of a detailed road map to settle the conflict in Syria, that is not our task. The map should be developed and adopted by the Syrians themselves. Yet, we have a few ideas about how external forces could help the Syrians to defeat the terrorists and resolve the crisis. At present, Russian diplomacy is actively advancing these proposals. They are not a dogma; rather they encourage the partners to continue a serious dialogue. Its constructive nature would to a large extent determine how successful we would be in translating the proposals into decisive joint actions which would help defeat Islamic State and restore Syria as a unified, sovereign and secular state, create safe living conditions for everyone regardless of their ethnicity or faith, and open prospects for social and economic revival of the country. Let me repeat it once again – only the Syrians themselves should choose their future and their government leaders.

We were guided by this very logic – the logic of international law – when receiving Syrian President Bashar Assad in Moscow. Let’s think how legitimate or ethical would it be if we invited the leader of a friendly state to Moscow and demanded him/her to resign? Syria is a sovereign country and Bashar Assad is its president elected by the people. So do we have any right to discuss such issues with him? Of course, we do not. Only those who believe in their exceptionality allow themselves to act in such a shameless manner and impose their will on others.

The fact that Russia is carrying out a military operation involving its Air Force in Syria is based on an official request from the Syrian government. Let me repeat once again that the main purpose of this operation is not to support President Assad but to fight international terrorism. They are constantly trying to accuse us of bombing the so-called ‘moderate’ opposition but no evidence has been provided so far. Moreover, we are already cooperating with that ‘moderate’ opposition, including the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Russian aviation has attacked several targets indicated by the FSA.

To make the fight against terrorism more effective, the global community needs to develop a common framework as to whom to consider terrorists. It is not about the name of an organization, which can seem quite ‘innocent,’ it is about whether it uses terrorist methods. So we need to compile a single list of extremist organizations. And Russia has already submitted its suggestions on this account – this was done during the Vienna meeting of the Syrian Support Group.

Question: It is expected that there will be a discussion on combating international terrorism at the G20 Summit under the Turkish presidency. What do you think of the Turkish presidency in the G20? What are you planning to put on the Antalya Summit agenda? Has the schedule of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the G20 Summit been set?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, at the proposal of the Turkish presidency, the fight against terrorism and the problem of refugees will be discussed at the G20 Summit. This is not surprising. In our opinion, there is a direct relationship between these issues and the Summit’s agenda. Sustainable development, economic growth, global trade expansion, investments, and employment greatly depend on how successful the international community is in responding to today’s most urgent challenge – terrorism, and the problem of refugees that stems from chaos and violence. Hundreds of thousands of refugees are already in Europe and other countries. The refugees who are trying to save their lives and the lives of their close ones, and still more are on their way.

As for the work of the Summit itself, we propose focusing the G20 on tackling major financial and economic problems, for example, measures for sustainable and balanced economic growth, and strengthening the stability of the financial system.

At the Summit, we will discuss the implementation of what our countries endorsed last year – the Growth Strategies and Country Employment Plans, the reform of international tax rules and promoting investments and decisions on financial regulation.

I expect that in Antalya we will manage to substantively discuss the future of world trade and existing mechanisms of multilateral trade and economic cooperation. We will exchange our views on the prospects of creating closed integration associations in the Asia-Pacific region and in the Atlantic (I mean the Trans‑Pacific Partnership – on October 5, 2015, it was announced that agreement had been reached. Twelve countries participate in the Partnership – Australia, Brunei, Vietnam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States – and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership that is a proposed agreement between the European Union and the United States). We are concerned that the process of their creation is not transparent for business circles and for the public both in the member states and their economic partners. It is in our common interests to make sure that these associations indeed supplement the multilateral trade system, work for the development of all economies in the world and do not produce new barriers and risks.

We have high expectations for the WTO Ministerial Conference that will take place in Nairobi in December. We hope that it will contribute to the strengthening of the multilateral trade system and propose concrete steps to finalize the Doha Round of trade negotiations.

We will focus our attention on sustainable development, as well as climate change. The UN summit for the adoption of the post‑2015 development agenda has recently finished in New York. Now, the world is looking forward to the UN Climate Change Conference that will be held in Paris in December 2015, and hopefully a new agreement on climate will be adopted.

On the whole, we are satisfied with the Turkish G20 presidency, which managed to preserve the succession in complying with the decisions taken at the G20 summits in Saint-Petersburg and Brisbane, add new ideas to the current agenda, including establishing the Women‑20 and launching the World SME Forum.

The first G20 Energy Ministers Meeting in the history of the G20 has become an important Turkish initiative. At the meeting, the ministers discussed access to modern energy in Sub-Saharan Africa, improved energy efficiency and development of renewable energy sources, and most importantly, promotion of investments into energy infrastructure development and introduction of clean technology.

As for the schedule of bilateral meetings, it is now being formed. I intend to meet with the president of the People's Republic of China, presidents of Turkey, the Republic of South Africa and Argentina, the prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan. Before the start of the G20 Antalya Summit, we will traditionally hold an informal meeting of the BRICS leaders where Russia currently holds chair. We will compare notes on the key issues of the G20 agenda and important international and regional problems.

RT: This was the first meeting of its kind. What key issues were you able to tackle this time?

Nikolay Nikiforov: I fully agree. This is quite unique just because the BRICS platform was used by many, many industries – agriculture, health care, finance ministers; they had their own meeting – but, you know, never ever ICT ministers – those who are responsible for communications, for implementing IT, well, managing internet infrastructure – they never ever met. So this is a historic event. It happened for the first time. That was the proposal of the Russian Federation and was supported by the heads of state, our leaders at the summit in Ufa.

So now we had our meeting. First, we had some kind of an IT forum: ministers from BRICS countries, they came not alone, not only with formal delegations. They also brought with them their leading IT companies. The Russian Federation also showed those solutions – those outstanding, outperforming companies that we have here in Russia. We showed Yandex; we showed our Russian microprocessors – many, many other solutions that we do have here today.

But for every small company, every national leader, it’s still impossible to fight for the global market. And the key issue here is monopolization. And we really require some kind of diversification of the IT solutions that we have today. That’s why we need joint efforts by all BRICS nations, because we represent just about half of the population of the planet and we realize that every citizen will be finally connected online with this or that smartphone or tablet. That’s why it’s potentially half of the world global market of these devices and software ecosystem. 

And we really want it to be balanced, not to depend on one country or several companies. We really want fair competition and, actually, this is probably the major discussion topic on our agenda. But also we’re concerned, for example, with such issues as the management, the governance of the critical internet infrastructure. It’s also, by the way, an issue of monopolization. As you know, today it’s still under a particular government contract between the government of the US and a legal entity also located in the US, which is called ICANN. It’s the internet corporation which is assigning domain names, internet addresses. But, still, it’s a legal entity under the US law. 

That’s why the whole global society is really widely discussing some kind of a transition time frame for it to be transferred to some kind of a real multistate holder approach, where it’ll be managed by all interested parties, including national governments, because they’re finally responsible for security and for national law on their territories, as well as different NGOs, academic organizations. So, we really are expecting this process.

Unfortunately, it was promised that it would be finished by the end of September this year, but it didn’t happen, and, still, the critical infrastructure is just under the management of one country in the world and one particular legal entity in this country. So, this was also a kind of a topic.

RT: How does internet monopoly or IT monopoly affect the security of BRICS countries?         

NN: Well, I think that, probably, Snowden’s disclosures showed exactly the harmfulness of the monopoly, because it would not be possible if the world IT market should be structured in a more balanced way – where no country and no particular company controls like 90-95% percent of  this or that market – it would be impossible just to come to several companies and to force them, from the position of this or that security agency, to actually provide absolutely illegal access to hundreds of millions records of private data of users globally. This is the harmful factor of monopolization.

The other harmful factor is the economic issue. When you have monopolization, the monopolist could dictate you a certain price level. And we realize that the ICT market is about… well, it’s not about millions – it’s about already billions of dollars. Each country in the world is actually sending out billions of dollars outside its national economies as license fees for this or that payment for these key technologies. And we really want it to be balanced. We want every citizen; we want every company to have a fair approach to different alternative solutions.

We don’t want to prohibit anything. We don’t want to use any sanctions approach that is becoming, unfortunately, so popular in the Western world. We’re just talking about supporting our national developers, taking the strongest companies that we have in our national economies.  I think, well in India and Russia, we do have some strong competence in software. In China, we really see how Chinese companies are, you know, reshaping the whole world. The same strength we see in Brazil, in South Africa. By the way, we don’t actually limit our efforts just to the BRICS ecosystem. We are ready to [work] with any countries in the world, but we should join our efforts, finally, to create a more balanced solution. And I believe it could be possible to be done in just maybe three to five years from now.     

RT: How does geopolitics influence the World Wide Web these days? And how does it affect the decision by BRICS nations?

NN: Definitely, everybody sees this or that sanctions decision. Sanctions mean, also, blocking sanctions to this or that technology that companies or individuals were using for many years. We had it in many cases. We had the example recently in Iran. We’ve just got our own Russian example with Crimea when, well, it’s kind of almost impossible to use this or that popular internet service there from a legal framework. We think it’s not a kind of a fair approach when our customers don’t have adequate alternative solutions. And we are ready to provide it.

It could be done in the area of mobile operating systems. It should be done in the field of search engines, and we see the unfair competition in these areas. It should be done in the area of microprocessors, which is also a very much controlled and monopolized market, and so on and so forth. So, for every market niche there could be a separate action plan for BRICS countries to support this or that company, including some kind of strategic investors, including some kind of special regulation from the national governments, and so on and so forth, finally to create a balanced ecosystem. We believe not only BRICS countries would win. Actually, it’ll be the whole of mankind, the whole IT ecosystem of the global world will finally benefit from that.

RT: Have the ministers discussed the potential of the new BRICS bank in the development of the global network? 

NN: Exactly, the BRICS Bank was mentioned a couple of times. Probably, it was first mentioned when we’ve been discussing the direct undersea cable connection between BRICS countries. Why [do] we need that? The answer is also simple. We just need stable and reliable basic internet infrastructure that’s not dependent on this or that existing internet hub, and somehow could be influenced by this or that geopolitical decision. So, probably this undersea cable with a direct and high-speed connection between BRICS nations could be one of the first infrastructure projects funded by the BRICS Bank. We definitely need to prepare all the business case descriptions, all the calculations. We need to bring in private business here as well. But, probably, yes – that’s the type of the project that could be invested [in].

We also think that we have to invest a lot in our joint efforts to diversify, de-monopolize the existing microelectronics because, still, even though China and India are trying to fight back the market for these tablets and smartphones, still, they highly depend on the actual microchips – the very, very fundamental bricks of which these devices are made. And it’s really some kind of state-of-the-art technology, and we really need to have a joint effort of our engineers, as well special microchip fabs, to actually produce that. It’s also a kind of intensively invested industry that could probably require BRICS Bank’s support.

RT: How far away are we from actually balancing the global IT market?   

NN: Our dream is about, you know, that every market niche is not controlled by more than 50 percent by this or that country or company. Today unfortunately, usually, it’s about 90-95 percent. Let’s be realistic. Even though that software sounds simple, these are really state-of-the-art technology solutions. We require thousands of engineers. We require the joint efforts of governments in order to do that. But if we work hard, I believe that in three, maybe five, maybe seven years from now, this market structure could be reshaped. And the major power here is, actually, our own internal market. BRICS is probably the largest politically consolidated market. If we do our best, take joint decisions; if we have a special work group or task force of our experts working together, as well as from ministries and from industries as well – that could be a solution to doing that. We see that our IT companies are willing to do that. They do have this ambition, which is very good. And we have this human capital and technology potential to do that.  But they could do nothing without this government support because of unfair competition in this area. And we’ll do our best to provide them with some kind of a foundation in order to succeed.

RT: President Putin has met President Obama. It was a much-anticipated meeting. Do you know if they agreed to work as part of one coalition?

Sergey Lavrov: Well they did not discuss coalitions in the classical sense of the word. What they did discuss was the possibility for the United States and Russia to cooperate closely on the most burning issues of the day – Syria first of all. And there we all agreed that our common goal is to defeat ISIL, not to allow ISIL to establish a Caliphate, which they are planning across a huge territory. They have already established themselves in large parts of Syria and Iraq, where they have introduced their inhumane rules and laws. And both Russia and the US are absolutely determined not to allow them to succeed.

We presented our view. And President Putin explained that we believe that we have to be pragmatic, and reasonable, and rational. And if this is the case than all those who detest ISIL, who fight ISIL must coordinate.

We understand fully that there is an American led coalition of some sixty countries, which was established and organized not exactly in line with international law, because the coalition announced its right to strike ISIL on the territories of Iraq and Syria.

They received the consent of the Iraqi government, they never talked to the government of Syria and they never came to the Security Council. We believe that had they done so, had they come to the Security Council, had they engaged not only Iraqi government but also the Syrian leadership, we could have a much more efficient group of countries, much more efficient basis for promoting our common goal and not allowing terrorists to succeed in this key region of the world.

At the same time we have a strong relationship with both governments of Iraq and Syria. We have been supplying them for some time with necessary weapons and equipment to increase their ability to fight terrorists. Both the governments of Iraq and Syria receive this assistance from us. We send our military specialists to help use this equipment.

And we believe that all those who fight on the ground against the terrorist groups, ISIL and others, must be coordinated. Not necessarily under a single command. This is not realistic, and President Putin made this very clear to President Obama when they met; but coordinating the actual action on the ground and the actual action from the air, because the coalition only engages in air strikes. And those who are functional and active on the ground against ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra and alike, they are the armies of Syria and Iraq, the Kurdish groups in Syria and Iraq. And we would welcome the patriotic Syrian opposition who is on the ground to join this coordinated effort.

As a first step, we cooperated with the Iraqis, Syrians, and Iranians and we established what we call an 'Information Center' in Baghdad, which will be used to exchange information available to the countries – to the Syrians, Iraqis, Iranians and Russians which might, and I think must, help to be more efficient in fighting terrorists on the ground. And we suggested the United States and the coalition led by the United States to calibrate their efforts and to make sure that whatever air strikes they contemplate against terrorist targets on the ground will be coordinated with the efforts of the ground forces.

And I believe that President Obama heard what President Putin had to say. It was a very constructive discussion. We did not agree on any specific steps. But what they did agree was to continue our cooperation, discussions between the foreign ministries, between the ministries of defense, in order to identify specific ways and means, which will make our common goal more achievable.

RT: When we hear US officials’ statements, it sounds like they are okay with Russia doing the fighting, but not Russia helping Assad do the fighting. Do you think it is possible to effectively fight ISIS without helping the Assad government?

SL: Actually this was one of the key topics of the discussion. The Americans are very concerned that Russia helping Assad fight ISIL would mean strengthening the regime, which they believe does not have any future. And we explained our position. We don't have any attachments to anyone in the region. But we do have a very strong feeling that we cannot allow the state of Syria to fail. Because the alternative, if we look at this now, is an ISIL caliphate and we would say goodbye to the Syria we know now. Syria which has been home for Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, home for Christians, for Jews, for Armenians; Syria which has always been a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional cradle of this dialogue of civilizations, a cradle of coexistence of civilizations.

So our position is that priority number one at this stage is not allowing the terrorists to ruin the Middle East as we know it, to ruin an area, which gave birth to three great religions. And at the same time to make sure that whatever political reforms are necessary must be promoted. But promoted in a way which would not repeat the mistakes of Iraq, the mistakes of Libya, when outside intervention with the purpose of 'democratization' of these countries turned out to be an invitation for chaos, an invitation of huge dangers risking the disappearance of these countries, and splitting these countries into three, four, and five smaller enclaves.

The Americans confirmed that it was absolutely their position that the territorial integrity, unity, and sovereignty of Syria, Iraq and all other countries in the region, is their priority. And on this basis we can cooperate.

In other words, fighting terrorism at the same time as promoting political reform, not imposing from the outside but encouraging the Syrians themselves – the government and all the groups of the opposition – to start the political process, to start discussing what the future of their country should be. And when they reach mutual consent, as required by the Geneva Communique of three years ago – in June 2012 we adopted the Geneva Communique which called for a political process in Syria, a political transition to be based on mutual consent between the government and the opposition – then I believe we will achieve the goal and will make sure that the people themselves determine their future.

RT: A good part of President Putin's speech was about how it was a mistake to try to undermine the credibility of the UN. Who do you think undermines that credibility and why?

SL: Whenever people act bypassing the United Nations, whenever they try to use force, not asking the Security Council to consider a special situation and to issue a necessary mandate, people undermine the UN authority. And this is something which happened in Iraq, happened in Libya, it happened in Yugoslavia before, and in all these cases, these countries did not benefit. Yugoslavia collapsed. Iraq is in crisis and there is a danger that Iraq might also split.

And we do everything to support the current Iraqi government – the efforts to promote national dialogue, to rectify the mistakes made during the American invasion 12 years ago when they just dismantled all the structures of the state based on the Sunnis, based on the Baath party.

Now the Americans themselves try to play this situation back. They are trying now to bring back the Sunnis into government structures, whom they themselves 12 years ago ejected from state institutions. And we also believe that these mistakes must not be forgotten. We don't want just to remind every day that ‘you were wrong on that occasion’. But we want our partners to draw lessons from past mistakes, for these mistakes not to be repeated.

In Syria, we are convinced it is only a dialogue led by the Syrians themselves; dialogue based on all Syrian groups, the government and all opposition structures, which can help resolve this situation, which can make sure that all those who live in Syria – Sunnis, Alowites, Druzes, Armenians, Christians of course, that they must reach a deal on how their state should continue to exist. A deal that would guarantee security for all these ethnic and religious groups. And as soon as this deal is reached, then the issue of who is going to be in the government, who is going to be president, how the elections should be organized – this would be secondary. The main thing is to guarantee for all those who live in Syria that they are treated as equals and that they are safe and secure.

READ MORE: US-led coalition against ISIS in Iraq, Syria 'mistake' - FM Lavrov

Q: He is Vladimir Putin's right hand man for foreign policy, and he is at the helm of Russia's diplomatic arm at a time, when relations with the West are at a post-Cold War low. Sergey Lavrov, thank you very much for joining. I want to start by asking you about your recent meeting with the US Secretary of State John Kerry. You met with him for several hours in Sochi. The two of you sat down together with the Russian president. What is this? Is this the beginning of a thaw in relations between Russia and the United States?

A: I believe this is the realistic approach, getting the upper hand. I was a bit surprised that people paid so much attention to the fact that John Kerry spent several hours with the Russian leader and with his counterpart. Because if you take 2014, the year of the crisis in Ukraine, which was used by some people to try to derail the relations between Russia and the West, last year John Kerry and myself, we met 17 times. More than any of my counterparts, I saw John Kerry. And every time it was several hours. And it was a businesslike discussion on Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine of course. And the fact that another round of talks took place on the Russian soil, it's a welcome sign, but more symbolic, rather than substantive.

Q: That's what I want to ask you about, because I guess the issue here isn't the quantity of time you spend together, but the quality of the time, right? In 2009, we had the so called "reset" in Russian-American relations, which as you know didn't go very far at all. I know you said that what we are seeing now with Russian-American relations isn't a reset. Why not?

A: Well, if you take the original reset, it was not our invention, it was the invention of Hillary Clinton and Obama administration's, because with their predecessors - George Bush, Jr. - Vladimir Putin had very good personal relations. I was on good terms with Condoleezza Rice. But somehow this good personal chemistry didn't go down to the practical political level. And the American administration, when Barack Obama became president, they re-assessed the state of bi-lateral relations with Russia. And they decided that it is much better to have more forthcoming approach. It was a reset of the American policy vis-a-vis Russia. Then the Presidential Commission was created, 21, I think, working groups, covering each and every imaginable area of human activity. And then all this was abruptly stopped, because we could not and did not accept the coup which was strongly supported and welcomed by the United States, the coup in Ukraine.

Now I believe we are quite realistic. President Putin from time to time talks to President Obama over the phone. They are very pragmatic, they discuss specific areas of cooperation, where both countries could benefit. And we do the same with John Kerry on a much more detailed level. I wouldn't call it a new reset, I would call it the realization of the need for normalcy.

Q: So if we get into the necessity or the need for normalcy in relations, in real politic, working on issues where you can find common ground... You mentioned one of the issues you've been discussing is Syria. Last week you said... Effectively called on the US to work with Assad in Syria to combat Islamic State. Nice idea, immediately rejected by the United States. Is there anything, peace talks aside, that rhetoric aside, that you can point to, where Russia is actually working right now with the US to counter Islamic State?

A: We would prefer to do this on a collective basis, on the basis of international law, through the Security Council. Unfortunately, the Americans, when they announced this crusade against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, they never came to the Security Council. They just announced the coalition. And they announced that the Iraqi government gave its consent to the air-strikes on its territory against the positions held by ISIL. They also announced that they would do the same in Syria without asking the Syrian government and without going to the Security Council. I believe it was a mistake. I think that just obsession with the personality of President Assad is not making any good to the common cause of fighting terrorism. And when our American colleagues say that he cannot be considered as a legitimate partner, we always remind them that he was perfectly legitimate when we went to the Security Council to adopt a resolution on Syrian chemical weapons disarmament. The resolution of the Security Council, supported by the United States and joint consensus in the United Nations, was welcoming the decision of the Syrian government to join the Convention on Chemical Weapons and the cooperation the Syrian government provided. So they were perfectly legitimate.

Q: Have you gotten any indication... One of the things you've long demanded is that the US drop this idea of regime change in Syria. Have you gotten any indications whatsoever from the US that they are prepared to leave President Assad in power?

A: It's not for the United States to decide. It's not that we want them to change their mind, and if this happens, everything will fall into place.

Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, if we return to Sochi though, you spent several hours in a room with the Russian president, with John Kerry, the issue obviously would've come up. Did you get any sense, because certainly the rest of the world is aware...

A: I cannot get into nitty-gritty of what we discussed...

Q: Because?

A: For obvious reasons, but we certainly believe that there is only political settlement, which is possible for Syria. And we also believe that the Geneva Communiqué of three years ago is the basis. Especially since it was endorsed by the Security Council resolution, which was also adopted by consensus. And this resolution and the Geneva philosophy provides for creation of transitional governing organ on the basis of the consent, mutual consent among the Syrians.

The efforts we are now taking – and I understand that the United States is ready to go along with the efforts of the special envoy of the United Nations Staffan de Mistura – these efforts are exactly intended to build ground for all the Syrians, for all parts of the Syrian society to be able to participate in the political process. Some countries are categorically against starting this process while President Assad is still in power. I believe that this would have to be resolved by the Syrian people. And those of outside players who can influence the Syrian groups, they must make a choice: what is a bigger threat, the personality of the Syrian president, or ISIL and the like?

Q: Ok. Islamic State – now that we’re discussing it here in Moscow, meanwhile, in Paris, as you know, there is that anti-Islamic State coalition meeting. Why aren’t you there?

A: As I said, we would prefer to have a coalition which is firmly based on international law.

Q: Yeah, but this is a coalition that exists of Arab nations and Western countries that are interested in resolving the conflict there. I guess the question is: is this a rhetorical conversation or can Russia provide a partnership with other countries to resolve this issue?

A: We are not against what this coalition is going, of course, because they are trying to weaken a very bad group of terrorists.

Q: So why not join them?

A: But we have been contributing to the fight against this group long before this coalition has been created. We have been providing the necessary weapons to Iraqi government when the Americans were reluctant to do this, because they wanted some, you know, conditions to be fulfilled by the Iraqi authorities. And the conditions were related to the need to rectify the mistakes made twelve years ago, when the American governor general – or whatever he was called – Paul Bremer dismantled all the Sunni structures in Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled under the pretext of WMD, you know the rest. And we have been providing weapons to Syrian government to increase both Syrian and Iraqi ability to fight terrorists on the ground. Everyone understands and publicly admits that just airstrikes are not going to do the trick.

Q: So give us your forecast! If the current strategy for dealing with Islamic State doesn’t work, how far do you see Islamic State getting?

A: Very far. They already make a lot of progress in Iraq, in Syria…

READ MORE: ISIS rise provoked by outside interference into Middle East, North Africa – Putin

Q: Do you see Islamic State taking Syria? Is that possible?

A: They just took the Idlib province. And they already have their emissaries seen in Libya and even in northern Afghanistan, which is very close to Central Asia – which is next door to Russia. You know, we want to cut the financing of ISIL, and not only ISIL, but Jabhat an-Nusra and the like. And it was the Russian Federation who proposed the resolution, recently adopted by the Security Council, on the need to cut any oil purchases from the territories controlled by the terrorists. And I believe we need to make another step in the Security Council and to create some mechanism to attribute who is buying this oil. We have to fight not the symptoms, but the root causes. And we proposed last September to have collective effort under the umbrella of the Security Council to analyze, to have a comprehensive analysis of the terrorist threat in this region, and to make sure we address these terrorists in the same way, irrespective of where they appear; not to repeat the situation when many countries publicly routed the Security Council arms embargo on Libya, and they were bragging publicly that they were supplying arms to the rebels who wanted to topple Qaddafi and they were arming these rebels. And then, a few weeks later, a few months later, they were facing the same rebels armed by Europeans in Mali! So we have, you know, if it walks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Q: Yeah, but if we could return to how bad you think things could get, my question to you was: could Islamic State take Syria? The answer is…

A: If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on, and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process…

‘2,300 Humvees in Mosul alone’: Iraq reveals number of US arms falling into #ISIS hands http://t.co/e6CdiRl3Qdpic.twitter.com/BfdjC1PXCs

— RT America (@RT_America) 1 июня 2015

Q: Then?

A: …until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region, because these people put the fate of one person whom they hate on top of the fight against terrorism. We have been through this repeatedly. Saddam Hussein was the one person after whom the United States went – and they ruined the country.

Q: So you say…

A: Qaddafi is the same.

Q: You say that airstrikes aren’t working. Then what would be effective, amongst other things, are ground operations. This is a hypothetical question, and I know you don’t like hypothetical questions.

A: The answer is yes.

Q: But would you support American troops back on the ground in the Middle East to bring peace to the region? It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question. Airstrikes aren’t working.

A: Do you believe that the American troops are the only troops who can do the trick?

Q: Is Russia going to provide troops?

A: No, no, look: they’ve been to Afghanistan, they’ve been to Iraq, and look where Iraq and Afghanistan are now. I said that it is absolutely clear to me it was a mistake – and still is – not to coordinate the airstrikes with the activities of the Syrian army. That’s what we believe must be done. And that’s what unfortunately our American colleagues cannot accept from ideological considerations.

Q: I’ll take that as a ‘no’. Let’s move to Iran. The deadlines…

A: No, no, look: if the Syrian government…

Q: …welcomes US troops in Syria?

A: …invites the coalition to come, then the volunteers would certainly have to be found.

Q: Let’s talk about Iran. The deadline is getting close. Russia is a party to the talks. How certain are you that come the deadline, we’re going to have the deal?

A: If each of the participants, including the Six, of course, and Iranians, stick to the political framework agreed a couple of months ago, then we are perfectly within the timeframe announced as a target by the end of June, we can do this. If people would try at the eleventh hour to get a bit more than the political framework provides, then of course it might not be possible to finish by the end of June.

Q: You sound much less certain than you have in the past.

A: No, I said – if everyone sticks to what has been agreed by way of political framework endorsed in Lausanne, then it is perfectly possible to do this by the end of June.

Q: Right. What if there is no deal? What’s the danger of no deal?

A: We have always been putting the quality of the deal and the substance of the deal on top of some deadlines. And when the ministers decided that the end of June should be a target date, it was made absolutely clear that this is not an ultimatum for ourselves.

Q: The sticking point appears to be the US and the European Union demanding that there is a verification process before they lift the sanctions that they have imposed on Iran. Do you support a verification process before the sanctions are lifted?

A: Absolutely. We support the verification process which should be….

Q: So you don’t agree with the Iranians – that the sanctions should be lifted immediately?

A: Look, there are two different things. One relates to the verification process. Iran says you can inspect, IAEA can inspect any site related to its nuclear program. Some participants from the Western group insist that not only nuclear sites must be open for inspections, but also the military sites. And this is something that they have to discuss between themselves. We are ready to help, but we don’t believe that all military sites should be opened for inspection, because this relates to the security of Iran, and the experts know what are the sites which IAEA needs to inspect on a permanent basis.

The second block of problems is how you lift sanctions: all in one go or step by step. We think that by the time the Security Council endorses the overall deal, there must be lifting of all sanctions which have been introduced by the United Nations, not related to the proliferation risks. And the sanctions which relate to the proliferation risks, this bunch of sanctions could be lifted in the second stage, when IAEA provides its first report after two or three months. But this is subject to professional discussion, how this deal is going to work.

READ MORE: US sees need to build bridges with Russia – Lavrov

Q: Economic sanctions against Russia:the prevailing view is that the European Union will extend them when they meet to decide on that. Do you see any chance of this not happening?

A: We are not thinking about this. We are concentrating on how we must use this circumstance to diversify our economy. And we are basically thinking of working in this regime for a very long period of time, knowing how the American sanctions work - remember Jackson-Vanik? They were introduced for one reason and they were kept for three decades I believe after this reason disappeared. So we..

Q: So define "very long time” for me- how long do you think these sanctions will be around?

A: We are not thinking about this. We are concentrating..

Q: But you are, because you just compared it to Jackson-Vanik.

A: No, no, no, I said we learn from Jackson-Vanik that this could be for decades, so we just concentrate on restructuring our economy and living in the circumstance when we have more partners from Latin America, from Asia than we have from Europe and from the West.

Q: So far all the talks when it comes to Ukraine that the Russian president has participated in have involved the German chancellor and the president of France. Do you think that - what we haven't seen is president Obama at the table - do you think that that would help the peace process in Ukraine?

A: You mean the Americans at the negotiating table?

Q: Correct. Well, we discussed this with John Kerry. I believe John Kerry and his team understand that the process is very fragile. The contact group, the subgroups in the four areas, Normandy format - look, if each and every participant of the contact group and the Normandy format is in favour of changing this we would not object. But I believe the Americans understand that it is so fragile that any newcomer could..

Q: ...derail the process?

A: ...unbalance this process, and we agreed, since the Americans no doubt have huge influence on the authorities in Kiev and on their behaviour, we agreed to keep a bilateral channel on a regular basis between Moscow and Washington to exchange our views and to see how we both can influence the parties on the ground in the direction of full and comprehensive implementation of the Minsk agreements.

READ MORE: FIFA’s corruption scandal: Behind the scenes

Q: Let me ask you about FIFA. The Russian president has said that the accusations that we've heard against FIFA are really aimed at taking down Sepp Blatter as president of FIFA and derailing Russia's hosting of the World Cup in 2018. Is that what you think this is about? Is this about targeting Russia?

A: He said a slightly different thing. He said that he cannot speak on the substance of the accusations.

Q: Yeah.

A: Things might happen. But the timing of the action undertaken in Switzerland - this was...

Q: You mean the things in terms of bribery and corruption?

A: Yes. He said - he couldn't know, you know, about these accusations, and whether they are true or not it's up for the investigation and the court to decide. But what he did say was the timing of this show…

Putin: FIFA-linked arrests are US attempt to thwart Blatter re-election http://t.co/aTqbAFuH2q pic.twitter.com/YIgaGucAH0

— RT (@RT_com) 29 мая 2015

Q: Sure.

A: ... was certainly scheduled the way to derail the electoral process in FIFA, and I don't think that anyone thinks of targeting the World Cup in Russia, no.

Q: You don't think that?

A: No.

Q: A lot of people talk about Qatar. Do you think that that's what it is about? My question is - do you think that this is spilt milk because...

A: Well, I wouldn't...I don't know. I'm thinking about the World Cup in Russia, not in Qatar.

Q: Right.

A: It's not my business what happens in Qatar.

Q: Right. I guess Russia has more of a chance of hosting the World Cup than winning the World Cup? I guess that's a fair thing to say?

A: Yes. I have to agree with you. But unless you try you never know.

Q: Will Russia continue to support the president of FIFA Sepp Blatter even if he is indicted? We understand there's going to be more arrests from the United States.

A: We cannot be in the guessing business, and we supported Sepp Blatter during this election.

Q: Sure.

A: We didn't hide this fact as did the majority of the Executive Committee of FIFA.

Q: And your sports minister is a person of interest in the Swiss probe, is he going to cooperate?

A: I don't think he was interested.

Q: Wait... I.. Swiss authorities, if they asked to speak with Russian sports minister, will he...

A: If they want to speak with him, they have to address...

#FIFAarrests: Defiant #Blatter blasts US probe http://t.co/jvou5YikXx pic.twitter.com/U78D3SSZf8

— RT (@RT_com) 30 мая 2015

Q: ..officially, yes

A: officially.

Q: And if they do, will Russia cooperate with that?

A: This is up to the office of the prosecutor general because it is through the prosecutor general that any probe request must be channeled.

Q: Suggestions that Russia may have done something towardly to win the World Cup - what do you make of that? And are we going to learn as a part of this investigation that Russia did give bribes..?

A: I don't take not of any of this stuff because we never saw any reasonable proof or anything resembling the truth.

Q: Everybody right now is talking about Greece in Western Europe.

A: Why?

READ MORE: Tsipras: Greece will seek to mend ties between Russia & EU through European institutions

Q: Is it an issue for Russia, what's happening in Greece right now?

A: Well, Greeks are a very long-standing spiritual, cultural, historical friend of Russia. We got our religion, the Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire and a thousand years later, by the way, we recognized the modern Greek state, so we have a very long common history, and of course we wish the Greek people all the best, and...

Q: And your advice to the Greek people today would be to stay in the European Union or not?

A: You're contaminated by the American philosophy. You always want to tell people what to do.

Q: No, no, no. You don't see it as Russia's role?

A: What might...

Q: Do you think that Greece would be better served exiting the EU?

A: What might be your advice to the Ukrainian people - to get to the European Union and to NATO or to stay out?

Q: Well, there's a lot less talk about that presumably..

A: No, no, no.

Q: There's a lot less talk about Ukraine joining the European Union and joining NATO - presumably - you see that is one of your successes...

A: No, no, no. I mean this American way of telling people what they have to do - that's what I had in mind.

Q: Russia has no advice to Greece?

A: It's up to the Greeks to decide, and I wish them all the best in their negotiations with the IMF and the European Central Bank and of course with Germany and France.

Q: Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you very much for your time.

A: Thank you.

Q: It's been a pleasure, as usual.

RT: Sergey Ivanov, Head of the Russian Presidential Administration, thank you for taking the time to be with RT International, we really appreciate it.

SI: My pleasure.

RT: Well, in the run-up to the big Victory Day celebrations, the 70th year of course, the first question is how are those preparations progressing, bearing in mind, of course, the economic issues at the moment in Russia and ерic cost-cutting that's obviously having to happen as well. Is it going to affect the Victory Day celebrations?

SI: Well, the V-Day celebrations are well underway. I'm the chairman of the organizing committee, so I may just assure you that everything is fine. There are thousands of events, I can't name them all – it will take maybe one day to name them all. But basically, you mentioned not a very bright economic situation in Russia, and that is true, but we deliberately decided not to make any cuts for the preparations. The total budget is 28.5 billion roubles, it's a huge sum, but I would like to stress one very important point: this money is mainly allocated not for the festivities itself, it’s allocated for the veterans. To be exact, 12.5 billion roubles are for housing for the veterans. We have still in Russia 2.5 million veterans, so it's for their housing. And the next sum, 12.3 billion rubles, is allocated for social benefits for the veterans. So the minor part of the whole budget is allocated for different events. There will be thousands of them, as I have already mentioned.

RT: What about the highlights? What highlights are planned for this year? Because of course it is such a big event this year, it being the 70th year. What can the public look forward to?

SI: Well, I remember when I was Minister of Defence 10 years ago it was also a big occasion, 60 years at the time. And this year it will be even bigger. There will be military parades in 150 cities, and not only Russian cities, but abroad. I mean Russian troops will take part in military parades in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan; Minsk, Belarus; Yerevan, Armenia; and Tskhinval in South Ossetia, which is an independent state, as far as we're concerned. There will be five separate naval parades in Russian ports and five airshows. But the pinnacle will be in Moscow, of course.

RT: Can you let us into any secrets or anything that the public can in particular look forward to? Any snapshots?

SI: Not all, but maybe some. Well, of course the parade in Moscow will be the pinnacle. It will start at 10 o’clock on the 9th of May, because in Russia we celebrate it on May 9. The number of troops… more than 15,000 troops. There will be a modern parade and a sort of a retrospective parade.

RT: So there’ll be a historical side to it as well?

SI: I mean some soldiers will wear the uniforms which were part of the Soviet army 70 years ago. There will be special insignia. I think in Britain you call it ‘trooping the colors.’ It will be something like that. And of course there will be old tanks, the famous T-34, some other trucks, military trucks which were used 70 years ago. So that will be the historical part of the parade.

RT: But also modern technology as well …

SI: Yes. As for the modern technology, there will be on display for the first time state-of-the-art, brand new weapons systems like, for example, the intercontinental ballistic missile called Yars. There will be armoured personnel carriers, high-precision artillery systems – they will be shown for the first time. There will also be the famous Sukhoi Su-30 and Sukhoi Su-35. They are also state-of-the-art, very modern.

RT: What about foreign dignitaries there to see it? What do you think about the number of foreign dignitaries this year who’ve said they’d come along? Are you pleased with that number or do you wish that maybe more people could be there, especially dignitaries from Europe maybe?

SI: First of all, it’s Russian celebrations. The V-Day is very important for Russian people. They are proud of it. They want to stress that the Soviet Union was the main party which managed to conquer Nazism, to defeat Nazism. That’s why we are happy and ready to see foreign dignitaries. But still, for Russians, most important – it’s our, if you want it, internal celebrations. It’s an internal holiday, internal day of remembrance.

But if you ask about the participation of foreign countries – of course the present international situation is such that we don’t have very warm relations with some West European or North American countries. The number of foreign leaders will be smaller than it was, for example, 10 years ago. I remember 10 years ago President Bush attended, many other leaders, including the British Prime Minister… But it’s not very important for us. This time it will be twenty-six state leaders – it is already confirmed, that’s an official number – plus several heads of international organizations, like the UN, for example: we are expecting Ban Ki-moon to attend. They will come from most of the CIS countries, many Asian countries, BRICS countries, by the way, and some European leaders: from the Czech Republic, from Slovakia, from the Balkan states, the president of Cyprus. And the chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel will come on May 10, one day after the parade.

RT: As time goes on, this event is a huge event, and especially so this year in Russia – the way it’s observed, people of all ages are really involved in it. In Western Europe, it’s much less so, it has to be said. And equally, Russia’s portrayal of it is sometimes displayed differently in other countries in the West, especially as time goes on as well, it sort of whittles down. Do you think that – it’s known as the Great Victory, 70 years of the Great Victory in Russia – but do you think the way other states and countries maybe embellished their role in it over the years is wrong? And do you think it’s portraying Russia in the wrong way? Do you think Russia should do more to say: no, these were the facts, this is how it was, and it should be remembered and respected as it was?

SI: I agree with you. I think we can’t change or revise history. There are a huge number of documents, historical proof that the Soviet Union played a crucial role in winning this most dreadful war in world history. And now, you are right, I am also concerned that politicians in some countries, particularly in Western Europe, in the United States, purposely try to rewrite history, to twist history, to put, for example, Communism and Nazism on one level. And this is not true. It’s simply not true. And our veterans and most of the Russian public simply would never buy it, would never agree with that. The more it goes, the more purposely, I think, Western countries want to use this not very moral method to isolate Russia, to put to oblivion millions of Russians, as well as British, American victims of the Anglo-Saxon world who gave their lives to defeat Hitler.

RT: Would it be going too far to say that some countries use the terrible events of the Great War as a form of propaganda?

SI: Yes, I think it’s propaganda. We are often accused of propaganda, I know, by the Western media, but in this case it’s obviously Western propaganda.

RT: In the run-up to the Victory Day celebration there is a worry that in some countries in Eastern Europe particularly, but also Greece, Germany, Britain as well, to some extent, there is a growing neo-Nazi movement. How big a danger do you think that is? Is it a danger to Russia? And if so, what could Russia do about it? Can it do anything about it?

SI: Obviously it’s a danger, definitely it’s a danger.

RT: Is it overblown, do you think?

SI: Well, it’s different in different countries. Let’s put it this way. In Baltic states, in Ukraine now you can see openly Nazi marches. With torches, with Nazi symbols, they are open. And we are very much concerned that respective national governments do nothing to prevent it. There is also some rise of neo-Nazism in European countries, which you have already mentioned. And I have to be objective, there is some neo-Nazi movement – it’s not very popular, but it exists – in Russia. And we are very strict in both legal forms of fighting it, and also moral forms. Because if the bulk of Russians knew what Nazism was, what an inhuman ideology it was, it’s like a medical shot, if I may put it that way, to prevent the Nazi ideas or Nazi ideology from spreading. So it’s very important from the point of view of true history and from the point of view of everyone knowing what happened 70 years ago.

RT: Why do you think some people have so easily forgotten what happened in a relatively short space of time – within a generation or generation and a half now? Is there anything that Russia can do to spread the message that those things that happened in the war were absolutely terrible?

SI: Partly because the young generation is not interested in history, partly because society as a whole doesn’t pay much attention to those facts and events. For example, I read some recent public polls in European countries. Around 60 percent of the people, ordinary people, they think that the basic role in fighting Nazism, I mean the military effort, was delivered by the United States and Britain. Ten years ago, it was not 60-70 percent, but 40 percent. And around 60 percent were saying it was the Soviet Union. So in 10 years the picture changed drastically. It’s a pity, and it’s a shame, if I may add.

RT: Talking about things that maybe could be improved, you’re talking about relations between Russia and Europe, Russia and America right now, but of course Russia is Europe’s geographical partner, if nothing else. Europe’s facing a lot of problems right now, still, with the economy, and we’re all facing problems from terrorism. Is there anything that Russia can do to help Europe combat these problems that are common problems for Russia as well? Is that day going to come any time again soon, are we going to see greater cooperation soon?

SI: Well, I’ll start with a point concerning V-day and World War II. The UN was organized after the war, and it’s still the main international body responsible for security. And the UN as such was devised to prevent repeating something like Nazism and world wars generally. Since then, a lot of water has passed under the bridge, but the new challenges and new threats like terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts – they are still on the agenda. And Russia is definitely an active part of trying to solve those problems, but solving together with the United States, with Western Europe. And we would never change our principal approach to those problems. We will continue, if the other partner wants to join efforts, to work together.

RT: And do you think it moves that way any time soon?

SI: Iran is a good example, quite recently, the Lausanne agreement about the Iranian nuclear programme is a huge breakthrough, in my view. As for the Middle East, you must remember what happened in Libya, for example. There was no UN resolution allowing to bomb Libya. And now, we face hypocritical efforts to stop illegal immigration from the coast of Libya to Italy, for example. What was the principle cause, which started this illegal immigration? The bombing of Libya. Now, European countries face the results of their own policy.

RT: It’s causing a revolt in Italy.

SI: It’s dreadful of course, dreadful to see those TV pictures of hundreds of people drowned, but the principle reason of this illegal immigration was because Libya was bombed, and Gaddafi was killed. Because when Gaddafi was alive there was no illegal immigration.

RT: And, finally, if you have a message for the Russian public and those watching us around the world, what would it be on this 70th anniversary?

SI: Well, first of all, I would congratulate all Russians, all former Soviet citizens who are still alive, and our allies in the US, in the UK and other countries like Australia and New Zealand, who fought Nazi Germany and I would wish that people would never forget what happened in reality.

RT: Sergey Ivanov, Head of the Russian Presidential Administration, thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to talk to RT International. Thank you.

SI: You are welcome. Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.

Sergey Ivanov, who chairs the V-Day events organizing committee, has told RT in an exclusive interview, that despite current economic troubles, a decision was taken not to cut back on the events’ funding.

Interview with Sergey Ivanov, Head of Presidential Administration, in the run up to Victory Day, watch later on RT pic.twitter.com/BYsbykUd5s

— Anna Ivanchenko (@Anna_Iva_RT) April 29, 2015

“The total budget is 28.5 billion roubles,” Ivanov said. However, he added, most of the money will go towards helping surviving WWII veterans enjoy the festivities: “To be exact, 12.5 billion roubles are for housing for the veterans. 12.3 billion rubles is allocated for social benefits for the veterans.”

As far as what exactly is planned, Ivanov said there were too many events to list: “There are thousands of events, I can't name them all – it will take maybe a whole day to name them all.” He did, however, let slip some details about what to expect - which you can hear in the full interview to be aired on Saturday.

Among other topics discussed was that of other countries’ attitudes towards Victory Day and the USSR's role in the victory over Nazi Germany. Sergey Ivanov said he thought the West was trying to rewrite history, almost putting the Soviets on a par with Hitler:

“Particularly in Western Europe and the United States, politicians deliberately try to rewrite, to twist history, to put, for example, Communism and Nazism on the same board, on the same level. And our veterans and most of the Russian public simply would never buy it, would never agree with that.”

He said the Soviet Union’s achievements against the Nazis cannot be denied: “There are a huge number of documents, historical proof that the Soviet Union played a crucial role in winning this most dreadful war in world history.”

Sergey Ivanov has been the head of the Russian presidential administration since December 2011. Before that, he held the posts of First Deputy Prime Minister (November 2005 - May 2008), Deputy Prime Minister (May 2008 - December 2011) and Defense Minister (March 2001 - February 2007).

The full interview will air Saturday, May 2.

RT: Thank you for sitting down with RT, we know you have a very busy schedule. This year Russia and Argentina mark 130 years of bilateral diplomatic relations. Tell us about your feelings after your meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Christina Fernandez de Kirchner: I think it’s more about confidence than feelings as such: feelings are just feelings after all, and confidence is the most important thing. I’m talking about the confidence in the strengthening ties between Russia and Argentina, which are in no way inferior now to what they have been in the course of the previous 130 years. We have continuity, and it transcends brotherly relations or cultural exchange, moving on to more serious projects. Today we signed 11 agreements, including the one on constructing the Chihuido 1 dam. Russia and Argentina have a longstanding cooperation when it comes to construction and supply of hydropower turbines. More than 4,300 megawatts of Argentina’s energy capacity comes from Russia, including the hydropower turbines of the Salto Grande power plant located between Uruguay and Argentina. In other words, signing the contract on theChihuido1 today is an important milestone for our hydropower industry.

But today we made a big leap because we signed two agreements on building the sixth nuclear reactor [at the Atucha power plant] in Argentina. As you know, in Latin America Argentina is the country with the biggest knowledge and experience when it comes to nuclear energy projects. We design, build and sell nuclear reactors. We built nuclear reactors for Egypt, Algeria and Australia, where we had to compete with other countries, including France, which is a major player in the nuclear energy sphere. Nevertheless, we won that tender a couple of years ago.

Moreover,the National Atomic Energy Commission and our Russian counterparts signed key agreements aimed at strengthening cooperation in the sphere of research and provision of uranium metal from Russia to Argentina. We signed agreements concerning cultural ties as well as an agreement between Gazprom and YPF, our main energy company that was privatized but now has been renationalized. This agreement with Gazprom, which is the biggest natural gas producer in the world, includes cooperation in exploring the second biggest shale gas reservoir in the world, as well as the fourth biggest shale oil reservoir, which are both located in our country.

We also signed important agreements on agriculture and economy. We signed 11 economic agreementsand also a joint statement with President Putin that established an all-encompassing strategic partnership between our countries, including cooperation in the political sphere. It has to do not only with our bilateral relations, but also with the way we should approach global issues and also with our stance on the role of the UN, non-interference in domestic affairs of other countries and Russia’s unwavering and much valued support in the Malvinas Islands issue. We also expressed our support for the Resolution 2202 adopted on February 17, 2015, that calls for the implementation of the Minsk agreements. I believe this visit to Russia was very fruitful. Of course, I should also mention Russia continuously supporting our fight against the vulture funds.

RT: Madam President, closer ties with Argentina is not a unique development on the regional level, as Russia has strengthened relations with other Latin American countries as well.

CK: You are absolutely right.

RT: That creates a certain pushback, which is obvious to anyone who follows the news. You talked about it at the Summit of the Americas in Panama, pointing out that Venezuela cannot possibly pose a threat to the US and noting Britain’s intention to boost its military presence under the pretext of the strengthening ties between Russia and Argentina and raise the question of Argentina posing a threat to the Malvinas. Was it just a coincidence or the result of Russia establishing closer relations with the Latin American countries?

CK: There are no coincidences in politics. In politics, there’s strategy, geopolitics and interests, which together result in this or that country making this or that step. In this case, we’re talking about Britain. Out of the 17 colonies that remained in the world after the decolonization process that took place in Latin America and other countries in the 19thand 20thcenturies, ten still belong to Britain, which carries on with its colonial practice. I think that first of all it’s part of Cameron’s election campaign on a global level, as the elections are coming up. So he decided to use intimidation, like with little children: eat your soup or the communists will come get you. That’s the approach of the previous century.

I think that many people, despite saying that the Cold War is over and the standoffs are all in the past, that we live in a more global world now, still apply moral dualism, i.e. they need an enemy to oppose. I believe this enemy-friend dualism has to stop, because it results in simply unbearable situations, among other things. That’s why today Mr. Putin and I signed a joint statement that touches upon dialogue, politics, diplomacy, multilateral cooperation and the role of the UN as the only possible means to stop and resolve conflicts.

So Ithink this was just an intimidation attempt, because like I said at the Summit of the Americas, no one in their right mind would consider a Latin American country a threat to a key global power in a military or scientific or any other respect. We have to acknowledge the new players in the established multipolar world. There is still a belief that modern world history ended with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall. But history never ends, it continues and it changes all the time, and that’s good. New players, new history and new circumstances appear. I believe Russia is a global player and its participation in the world affairs is a given, so I don’t see a reason why we shouldn’t have bilateral relations between our countries. By the way, the second largest investor in Argentina is the US. Out of the 500 biggest American companies, 100 operate in Argentina. So seriously considering Russia a threat is just absurd. It would make sense to stress over the American presence in Argentina then, especially considering the latest developments in the world.

RT: Madam President, what’s your take on the domestic opposition?

CK: It will always be there. However, it often comes to the forefront during election campaigns. And in case of Argentina, there’s an issue that people are stuck in the old mentality, as I call it.

They still live in a world where everyone looked to the north. But those days are gone. Indeed, we cannot completely ignore the US and the role it plays in global governance. But let’s face it – apart from the US, you also have China, Russia, South-East Asia, India, and we need to sustain trade and political ties with these countries. We live in a new world where no-one can have monopoly on friendship and relationship. It might be the case with personal relations, but when we talk about state level, I think we must maintain ties with all these countries.

RT: During your visit to Moscow, you unveiled an exhibition dedicated to Eva Peron, a major figure in the history of Argentina.

CK: Indeed, she’s one of the greatest personalities.

RТ: Eva was one of the female leaders in the history of Argentina. Recently, your government has been widely criticized. Do you think it’s because you are the first elected president of the country or it is because of the policies that run counter to someone’s interests?

CK: It’s a mix. You know, if I as a woman would do everything they want me to do, they would certainly praise my actions and call me a smart and talented woman. But if I do something wrong, the fact that I am a woman is perceived as an aggravating circumstance, so it’s like a double sin.

Apparently, gender discrimination is still part of politics. Anyway, the criticism that you refer to is most likely linked to policies in domestic affairs, social, economic and cultural sectors. Look at Margaret Thatcher, she was a woman but was welcomed by all major states. So women in politics don’t always invite constant criticism from the powers that be. Eva Peron was under fire back in my country because she protected the poor. You can come to the museum dedicated to her life and listen to her speeches to better understand her agenda. She died at 33, still a young woman.

Here’s a simple analogy for you. Imagine you are the head of Disneyland – naturally, people would love you because everyone loves Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck. There are no conflicts in the Disney world. What you are going to do there? Walk around the forest and orchards, giving away candies.

Butif you are at the helm of a country like Argentina, like Nеstor Kirchner in 2003, you have to deal with a 25 percent unemployment rate and a debt worth 160 percent of GDP, a host of social issues, poverty as high as 54 percent, and so on. So when you are trying to improve things, for example by re-distributing wealth to spur growth, you are bound to have people who disagree.

You know, people say hatred is the flip side of love. It’s difficult to make people hate you. It’s much easier to leave people indifferent if you are mediocre.

RT: Do you take it too close to heart? You were criticized a lot when you tried to continue working on some of the projects…

CK: I just gulp it down with water. Simple water. I don’t drink alcohol. I love water, that’s the only thing I drink. I might have some cider at festivals, I do like it but only if there is an occasion.

…Anyway, I take it as a statesman. My political career started long before I was elected president.

RT: Do you are not offended at all?

CK: Certainly, it would be better if they would say how beautiful I am. But in politics that’s impossible. When we took the decision to bring back control over pension savings, private corporations who made billions on managing those savings were against it. People were not able to get into the pay-as-you-go pension system, and it was the government who still had to pay pensions. So when corporations lose a business that brought them 75 billion peso in revenues, they are highly likely to hate you. You might even end up in a car collision or something if they want to. But if you stick to your political views, you have to take this risk. The same happens when you say no to powerful financial institutions. Argentina needed a new approach to its foreign debt, and said: ‘Look, this is what we can pay, but we can’t pay more than that’. We think that the debt must be shared by Argentina and those you invested in the country, I mean the funds that wanted a 15 percent annual rate of return in dollar terms while everyone around the world only gets 2 percent, which is considered enough.

Like when you come to bank that promises you a 20 percent interest rate on your deposit while most other banks offer 2 percent, you must think twice – it may so happen that the bank won’t return your money. We then said: ‘Okay, capitalism is about risk, let’s share the risk’. Anyway, we paid more than Enron, the notorious US corporation. It only paid out 10 cents for every dollar that shareholders put into it.

RT: Madam President! Your second presidential term is coming to its end and the election campaign is already on in Argentina. What do you think of it?

CK: First of all, I am proud that I am the author of the new electoral system. I had my share of failures as an MP, and after that I worked hard to make our political parties more democratic, to make primaries open and mandatory, so that it’s the people, not political parties, who would pick candidates for the election. This new approach has made Argentina’s politics more democratic, and I am very proud of it. I am happy that we live in a democracy, that all people take part in shaping the country’s future.

RT: Do you have any favorites in the race or maybe you’d rather skip that question?

CK: Favorites are for the royalty. No, in a democracy we don’t think in these terms. It’s has nothing to do with a democracy. Favorites belong to a monarchy.

RT: You mentioned the reform of the election system in Argentina. But there’s one item still outstanding – the reform of the judiciary.

CK: Absolutely. This is what we still have to do. The nation demands a more democratic justice system. This is confirmed by opinion polls. People think that the government doesn’t focus on the issue, that changes are happening too slowly. Overall, there are many problems. Our job was to empower people as that they can influence the government agencies that control and assess the performance of judges. It must be direct representatives of the people, not political parties, who have this authority. This was one of the reforms that we put forward. We didn’t succeed in it but I am confident that sooner or later the reform will be implemented – in line with the expectations of our nation.

It takes time. When I was senator, I pushed for a draft law to make domestic politics more democratic. But the bill failed because no-one supported it. People often fall into despair in such moments. But I pushed harder and eventually the bill was approved and took effect. I’ll give you another example. When we proposed mandatory primaries, no-one thought it’s going to work, even my colleagues. Governors said no-one would come out to vote. But the result was astounding, both at the primaries and the final vote. The turnout was very high, marking a genuine change towards a more democratic political system. Everyone thought it was possible, but we made it possible. Yes, it took many years. So why can’t we hope that we will see a more democratic judicial system sometime in the future? And I am certain that this is bound to happen.

RT: Madam President, we are running out of time here… There have been some significant developments in your personal life since you became president. You are now a grandmother, you have two grandchildren.

CK: That’s true.

RT: We recently learned about this. How did you take the news? Were you happy?

CK: Yes, it’s wonderful. Of course, the mother was the happiest person…

RT: Is that right?

CK: Yes, yes. And also the Dad. And me, as the grandmother – obviously!

RT: What do you think your life will be like after December 10, 2015, when you leave office? Will you be spending more time with family or..?

CK: You want me to retire and stay home with the grandkids?

RT: No, I am just asking where you see yourself.

CK: This is an interesting question. I get asked that a lot. December 10 will mark eight years of my presidency. I am 62 years old. If you subtract 8 from 62, you will see that I was something else, not the president of Argentina, for most of my life.

RT: But this is not just some government office…

CK: Of course not! For someone in public service, this is the top job to get. But you can become president and not make history. Or become part of history due to some other reason. So I think what you do is more important than your title. I know many former presidents, some of whom are still alive. And if I had a say in the matter I wouldn’t choose to be like them, to be that kind of president. So the most important thing in life is what you do, not the office you hold.

RT: Madam President, thank you very much!

Beloved in the Lord my brothers the archpastors, all-honourable fathers, pious monks and nuns, dear brothers and sisters!

It is with joy that I greet you with the ancient and yet eternally new and life-affirming victorious exclamation:

CHRIST IS RISEN!

This wondrous resonance of truly life-creating words contains the foundation of our faith, the gift of hope and the fount of love.

Just yesterday, together with the Lord’s disciples, we grieved at the death of our beloved Saviour, while today with the whole world, both visible and invisible, we sing triumphantly: ‘For Christ has risen, the everlasting eternal joy!’ (Canon of Holy Pascha). Just yesterday it would seem that the last hope for salvation had been lost, while today we have acquired firm expectation of eternal life ‘in the never-fading Kingdom of God.’ Just yesterday the ghost of corruption prevailed over creation, casting doubt over the meaning of our earthly life, while today we proclaim to each and all the great victory of Life over death.

The divinely-inspired apostle Paul spoke of the significance of the miracle that took place on that distant, and yet forever near to every Christian night; he tells us directly that this event has the greatest importance for our faith, for ‘if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain’ (1 Cor 15:14). The Lord’s Passover is the very heart and invincible power of Christianity: as St. Philaret of Moscow says, it ‘creates hope, ignites love, inspires prayer, calls down grace, illumines wisdom, destroys all calamities and even death itself, gives vitality to life, makes bliss not a dream but a reality, glory not a phantom but the eternal lightning of the eternal light illuminating all things and defeating nobody’ (Homily on the Day of Holy Pascha, 1826).

Belief in Christ’s Resurrection is inextricably harnessed to the Church’s belief that the incarnate Son of God, in redeeming the human race and tearing asunder the fetters of sin and death, has granted to us genuine spiritual freedom and the joy of being united with our Maker. We are all in full measure communicants of this precious gift of the Saviour, we who have gathered on this radiant night in Orthodox churches to ‘enjoy the banquet of faith,’ as St. John Chrysostom puts it.

Pascha is the culmination of the Saviour’s path of thorns crowned with suffering and the sacrifice of Golgotha. It is not fortuitous that in both the writings of the Fathers and liturgical texts Christ is repeatedly called the ‘First Warrior in the battle for our salvation.’ ‘For I have given you an example,’ (Jn 13:15), the Lord says to his disciples and calls upon us all to follow the example of his life.

Yet how are we to imitate the Saviour? What sort of spiritual heroism can we apply to the realities of modern-day life? Today, when we utter the word ‘heroism,’ an image often arises in peoples’ minds of a legendary warrior, a historical figure or famous hero from the past. Yet the meaning of spiritual heroism lies not in the acquisition of resounding fame or the gain of universal recognition. Through spiritual deeds, immutably linked to our inner endeavours and the limiting of oneself, we can know by experience what true and perfect love is, for the willingness to sacrifice oneself, which lies at the foundation of all spiritual deeds, is the highest manifestation of this feeling.

The Lord has called us to the feat of active love embedded in losing oneself in service to our neighbour, and even more so to those who especially need our support: the suffering, the sick, the lonely and the downcast. If this law of life, which is so clearly manifested and expressed in the earthly life of the Saviour, becomes the inheritance of the majority, then people will be truly happy. Indeed, in serving others, we gain incomparably more than we give: the Lord then enters our hearts and by communicating with divine grace all of human life is changed. As there can be no holiness without labour, as there can be no Resurrection without Golgotha, so too without spiritual feats the genuine spiritual and moral transformation of the human person is impossible.

When spiritual heroism becomes the substance not only of the individual but of an entire people, when in striving for the celestial world the hearts of millions of people are united, ready to defend their homeland and vindicate lofty ideals and values, then truly amazing, wondrous things happen that at times cannot be explained from the perspective of formal logic. The nation acquires enormous spiritual strength which no disasters or enemies are capable of overcoming. The truth of these words is evidently attested by the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, achieved by the self-sacrificing heroism of our people. We shall mark the seventieth anniversary of this glorious date in the current year.

In afflictions and temptations we are called upon to preserve peace and courage, for we have been given the great and glorious promise of victory over evil. Can we be discouraged and despair? No! For we comprise the Church of Christ which, according to the Lord’s true word, cannot be overcome by the ‘gates of hell’ (Mt 16:18), and Divine Revelation bears witness to us by foretelling that ‘God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away’ (Rev 21:4).

I prayerfully wish you all, Your Graces my brothers the archpastors, all-honourable fathers, dear brothers and sisters, strength of spirit and steadfastness in faith, peace and unfailing joy in the Lord, the Conqueror of death. Imbued by the light of Christ’s Resurrection and in communing with the mystery of the Paschal miracle, let us share our exultant joy with those who are close to us and those far from us in testifying to all of the Saviour who has risen from the tomb.

May we all the days of our life be forever warmed, comforted and inspired to good deeds by the ardent words of the good news of Pascha which impart to us the true gift of the joy of life:

CHRIST IS RISEN!

HE IS RISEN INDEED!

RT: Aren’t you tired of this constant military rhetoric all the time?

Konstantin Dolgov: Frankly, Kevin, there is almost nothing to comment [on] from the human rights perspective. But as a diplomat, I can only reiterate that any actions aimed at fanning even further the military hysteria are counter-productive and [are] definitely highly deplorable. What Europe needs, what our continent needs, is to move along the way of collective security, to strengthen the foundations of collective security – that is what Russia has been persistently advocating. It’s interesting to see, to hear about those precautionary measures which the NATO commanders have been taking. It means they are pretty much aware that the general public is not applauding.

RT:What are the prospects of the fragile truce in Ukraine? Is it going to continue?

KD: Hopefully so. The weakest spot is the lack of political will in Kiev and in some Western capitals which continue to support the Kiev authorities as far as the implementation of the Minsk agreement goes. And the so-called 'party of war' in Kiev is still pretty much strong...unfortunately there have been clashes, there have been violations. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the other day that if we take the OSCE observers’ reports, for instance, roughly 80 percent of ceasefire violations, according to OSCE observers, have been perpetrated by the Ukrainian army and the so-called ‘volunteer battalions’ who are fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. This is the weakest point – the political will to implement the agreements and to preclude the situation in which we would witness huge casualties, above all among civilians. Let me remind you of the UN figures: more than 6,000 people are dead. In reality, these figures might be much higher.

RT:Are you absolutely convinced that Russia is doing enough to keep its side of the Minsk agreement?

KD: First of all, we are not a side and we are not party to any agreement. We are not party in [the] internal Ukrainian conflict. Secondly, obviously we’ve been supporting and promoting the political settlement. The Russian leadership has been doing a lot. President Putin himself played a more than instrumental role in making the February 12 Minsk agreement happen. Obviously we are doing whatever we can. But the bulk of responsibility lies definitely with the parties themselves. And today, most and foremost, the responsibility is with Kiev because most of the violations come from there.

READ MORE: Five Ukraine war tragedies: Questions unanswered, investigation drawn out

RT: How do you see the violation is still happening on that side?

KD: Absolutely, of course. And if we speak of the military side of agreements, that’s for sure. Let me once again refer to the OSCE monitors. This is not the Russia’s view – this is the OSCE monitors' view, which is [an] impartial factor present there. If we take the political side of it and the humanitarian side of it, definitely the latest decisions by the Ukrainian parliament changed the Minsk agreements dramatically. They actually altered the agreement without the acquiescence of the second party: those decisions on the [local] elections, a declaration which proclaimed the Donetsk and Lugansk areas as occupied territories, and so on. Obviously it’s a deviation from the peace plan and we very much regret about it (sic).

RT:The UK has recently sent military advisers to train Ukrainian personnel, but has not sent lethal armament. If it drags on and the situation gets worse and lethal aid is given to Ukraine, is it dangerous or not?

KD: Well, definitely. We’ve said more than once that any supplies of armaments and military equipment to the Ukrainian government is a factor of huge risk. There is no solid foundation of peace yet. The hostilities definitely stopped on a large scale but the clashes continue and people continue to get killed. Definitely, the numbers are low which is very good. We should not forgive about the decisions taken within the OSCE and also within the European Union which actually preclude and warn against any supplies of arms to the situations of military conflict...

RT: Do you see the OSCE mission as a totally impartial, professional body?

KD: As Minister Lavrov has said, the reports have become more regular, the reports have become more substantive, and evidently the OSCE has been playing an important role. The problem now is to continue to buttress the OSCE mission, to provide equipment. Russia is ready to do what it takes on our part. But it should be a collective endeavor to give equipment, to give technical means for the monitors to be more capable. However, all this is happening against a very negative backdrop, the catastrophic situation in Ukraine as far as human rights are concerned, and the OSCE spends a lot of time on human rights. We should not forget about that side of the story. Ukraine is still a country which has quite a number of political prisoners and political inmates. And this is a big problem. They have not abolished their so called “lustration” law, which has been criticized by the Commission of Venice of the Council of Europe. [Also] not to forget about the lack of investigations into huge crimes in Odessa and Mariupol.

RT: One year ago, on March 20, 2014, President of the USA Barack Obama - quite surprisingly to anyone, and probably to you, too - issued an Executive Order that included you on the blacklist of the persons subject to the US sanctions against Russia. Why do you think he did that?

Viktor Ivanov: In fact, it really did come as a surprise not only for me, but also for my American counterparts, officials with the presidential administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration. They actually told me this decision had come straight from the top. I’d like to point out that putting the head of Russia’s drug control agency on a blacklist has done no good for either the US or Russia. The only ones to benefit from this were international drug traffickers, and I believe drug lords were dancing with joy at seeing the demise of such a robust counterdrug partnership.

RT: How did this isolation of Russia affect countering the international drugs trade?

VI: We can look back at what has happened over the past year. I can tell you drug production has continued to grow in Afghanistan. Last year’s annual output in raw opium has totaled a record 6,500 tons, while the cultivation of opium poppy has also come close to record levels, covering almost a quarter million hectares in total. And that’s just the Eastern Hemisphere. As for the Western Hemisphere, we have seen a continued increase in cocaine production in South America – by the way, in the past year we noted an increase in cocaine trafficking from South America to Europe, particularly to the United Kingdom and other EU member states. I’d like to stress that, according to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs, Afghan heroin alone claims more than 20,000 lives in the European Union [each year].

So it’s been an onslaught against public health and public safety, and by the way, it has also served to undermine the productivity of the euro zone. In recent months, we’ve seen the euro continuously depreciate against the dollar, and drugs have played a role in that. Particularly, the mass production of heroin in Afghanistan and of cocaine in South America, and their increasing flow to the euro zone.

RT: Which regions are among the most affected? What’s all the statistics say?

VI: I’ve already mentioned Afghanistan, which accounts for 95 percent of global heroin production. The US plays a key role in running a NATO-led military operation in Afghanistan. What they’ve amassed there is a significant fighting force and political asset. Our counterdrug cooperation with the US between 2005 and early 2014 enabled us to carry out joint operations, as in locate illegal drug laboratories (particularly, in northern Afghanistan, the mountainous Badakhshan Province), check GPS coordinates, exchange sensitive intelligence information and plan special operations engaging the Afghan Ministry of the Interior’s counterdrug forces. Over the years, our joint efforts resulted in busting ten large-scale drug labs and seizing more than ten tons of Afghan heroin, opium and hashish, already packaged for trafficking to the Russian Federation and the European Union, along with roughly seven tons of precursors for processing opium into heroin. In other words, it used to be a strong, efficient partnership that served to mitigate the threat to our countries coming from the Afghan drug cartels. And now, regrettably, it has been totally undone.

RT: Is it even possible to imagine an efficient global effort against illegal drug-trafficking without Russia's participation?

VI: I believe that would be impossible, and my fellow heads of police agencies in the US, Europe and Southeast Asia share this opinion. Last December, I visited China. We are similarly engaged in negotiations with Japan, which also profoundly relies on Russia in combating synthetic drug trafficking. Meanwhile, our joint operations with European counterparts have never ceased. We regularly carry out joint drug busts to intercept African hashish, which mainly comes from Morocco and travels to the Russian Federation through a number of European countries. In addition, Russia continues to play an important role in the international diplomatic effort through its active engagement in the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which is in charge of shaping an international counterdrug policy.

RT: What's the latest news on the Russian-American work group for countering the illegal drug trade and what are its further prospects?

VI: The US-Russian working group on combating drug trafficking has been entirely suspended. There has been no communication since the White House has instructed our counterparts not to maintain contacts with us. We do, however, continue to stay in touch with our colleagues in the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) as part of police cooperation; my deputy has been posted to Washington, while DEA officials have been posted to the US Embassy in Moscow. So there is still engagement, but its intensity is of a fraction of what it used to be.

RT: And I believe your American partners see that clearly as well, don't they?

VI: Not only do they realize it, but they find this decision regrettable.

RT: Then why was this decision made?

VI: I believe this decision was prompted by the fact that 2014 and 2015 are the crucial years in closing down Operation Enduring Freedom, the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan. Now that this operation is over, Russia has started questioning whether it had fulfilled its mandate issued by the UN Security Council with a view to stabilizing Afghanistan. We haven’t seen a response. Violence and extremism are still rampant in Afghanistan. Moreover, we are seeing ISIS cells entrench themselves in various provinces of the country. As for drug production, we have all witnessed the phenomenal drug boom in Afghanistan. Since the start of the US-led operation, heroin production in that country has increased more than forty-fold. That is unprecedented, and it deserves a public debate. Why did the Western military intervention coincide with such a remarkable increase in drug production?

On a side note, the G8 had put Great Britain in charge of the counterdrug efforts in Afghanistan as part of the NATO operation. Ironically, the UK has engaged in staging a trial regarding Aleksandr Litvinenko’s death, which has unleashed a storm of lies and slander against Russia, alleging a link between the Colombian drug cartels and a number of Russian officials, including myself.

RT: Right. Can we talk about that now? London's High Court claimed you had ties with a Tambov-based criminal group involved in drug-trafficking and money laundering for a Colombian drug cartel, during the hearing of Aleksandr Litvinenko's case. Those were some really high-profile allegations. Could you comment on those?

VI: Over the first three months of 2015 we saw a massive number of allegations and fabricated accusations that London's High Court was feeding to the UK media, which went on to circulate in newspapers and on TV, and after that, these allegations were picked up by the global mass media. It should be noted that the High Court based these claims on the testimony of a certain Dean Attew, a witness to the case – although the materials of the case clearly indicate that in fact Mr. Attew neither witnessed nor could have witnessed himself the events that took place in St. Petersburg in the early 1990s, the Court is referring to, and that Mr. Attew's testimony is based on the account he claimed he heard from the late Mr. Litvinenko, who in turn – as the case materials also confirm – neither witnessed nor could have witnessed the events in St. Petersburg in question.

The case materials indicate that the late Mr. Litvinenko went on to request that information from Mr. Andrey Lugovoy, who also – as the case materials also confirm – neither witnessed nor could have witnessed the events in question, which prompted the late Mr. Litvinenko to request that information from Mr. Yury Shvets who, again, neither witnessed nor could have witnessed himself the events in question, because he has been permanently residing in the US since the 1980s, and the source of the information that Mr. Shvets allegedly passed on to Mr. Litvinenko is, in fact, unknown. And yet, London's High Court sees it fit to use this information.

Thus, this information that came from an unknown source, in other words, basically, an allegation was used by the High Court, and the High Court itself was cynically used by some forces as a mouthpiece for circulating falsehoods.

RT: Why do you think you drew such attention from the American administration and now Britain?

It is clear that I cannot be the main target of this attack. These stones were thrown at the president of the Russian Federation, and this points us towards those who pulled the strings, certain Western political elites and their intelligence services. This is the level where there is no room for playing by the rules or delivering justice. There is only one thing that is true in all of this – that's the fact that I was heading the Department for the Prevention of Unlawful Trading in St. Petersburg in 1993.

Under my guidance, this department prevented the smuggling of one ton of Colombian cocaine into Russia in a batch of Colombian meat preserves. In cooperation with the Israeli police, my department identified ten criminals involved in the scheme and brought them to justice. They all got long prison sentences. The same goes for the Tambov-based gang, which was mentioned. Its leader Vladimir Barsukov is serving life, by the way. Thus, as we can clearly see, it was nothing more but an attempt to put us in the wrong and shift the blame. It is a known fact that the British mission to Afghanistan was a complete failure. It was actually worse than that, it led to a dramatic increase in the illegal drug production there, and that's a very uncomfortable truth to admit. Diverting the international attention to some other scandalous events of a shady background certainly does the trick of relieving the responsible parties from this necessity.

RT: And why does it have to be now?

VI: It has to be now because that mission ended recently. Now there is a new mission in Afghanistan, and Russia – the Russian Foreign Ministry – requested for a mission report to see what's been done in Afghanistan. We see clearly that an increase in the drug production volumes has become a contributing factor to the destabilization of the situation in all the drug trafficking transit countries. We also see that the drug money became a powerful funding source for ISIS extremists. ISIS is 100 percent involved in trafficking the illegal drugs through the territory of a destabilized Iraq into Africa and on into the EU countries. This is an established fact; it is captured in the UN documents. Besides, ISIS expanded its presence in Afghanistan. At the same time, the UK and US-led military mission to Afghanistan destabilized the situation in the country.

Foreign military presence drove large numbers of Afghans to desert their military and police service on a regular basis. According to the statistics, at least 30 per cent of the Afghan military and police officers desert their service annually. Given that the total number of the law enforcement force in Afghanistan exceeds 300,000 people, we are talking about 100,000 armed drop-outs in uniforms, who join the illegal drug trafficking pipeline, serving either in production or protecting the crops, or delivering the drugs to other countries. Some join ISIS and other groups in other regions, creating instability throughout the world. Thus, these Western states we're talking about basically did a tragically deplorable thing by destabilizing the entire region and this needs to be brought to the attention of the international community. They need to report on what they've done but they have done nothing about this. That's exactly why they are trying to feed all sorts of hoaxes to the public, through London's High Court in particular.

RT: Let’s talk about my colleagues now. As you’ve said, various international media circulated this information from the London Court. Have many of them asked you personally for comments – you or your service?

VI: No, nobody addressed us. BBC Russian was the only one that did, but frankly speaking, when I heard those blatant lies I wanted to look at them first, and to see where they were coming from. By the way, there were a lot of quite interesting aspects – for instance, Mr. Scaramella was mentioned. Pino Arlacchi, who had been the UN Deputy Secretary General until 2012, visited me not long ago. When I told him about Scaramella, he replied, “I know that man.” While Arlacchi was still in his office Scaramella accused him of giving UN money to the Taliban, who had been responsible for the 9/11 terror attack. I couldn’t even imagine anything more absurd than that.

There were many other curious facts regarding the London Court. For instance, Dean Attew testified that the information received by Litvinenko was of a destructive nature, and that it disrupted a certain deal between a large British company and Russia. Various media reported about it, because Russia was ostensibly promised a reward for this deal in the amount of $10-15 million. Also, a particular official sitting here in front of you was mentioned in this regard. Considering that this information was voiced in the London Court while administering justice, and that Attew had received this information nine years ago, in 2006, two questions arise.

Question one: why didn’t this British company, whose name wasn’t revealed, bear responsibility in accordance with British law? The United Kingdom is a member of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials. According to British law, it’s a grave offense. So this company was supposed to be made liable for plotting to give a bribe to a foreign public official in the aforementioned amount of $10-15 million.

Secondly, why did Dean Attew conceal this information from relevant authorities, which evidently weren’t involved in the investigation of this crime committed on the territory of the UK? This is also a penal act, and it’s really strange that the British court did not spot the signs of such grave offenses against the UK.

RT: Are you expecting more of these kinds of surprises in the near future?

VI: You see, this scenario of using the court as a tool for casting aspersions was built on the following factors. After Litvinenko’s death, the court hearings were proceeding behind closed doors. Then, allegedly upon request by Litvinenko’s widow, the public hearings began in January 2015, where explicitly fake, malicious information was spread. It’s been announced that the deliberation will be over by the end of March, and then the hearings will return behind closed doors. So we will never know what decisions they make, what facts they bring up, or how they assess evidence. Apparently, these three months were used to mislead the entire international community, as well as to throw dirt on a number of Russian officials. It’s as simple as that. It was a spectacle, a farce, a knockabout act, as they say in English.

RT: Have any of your colleagues or partners fallen for these aspersions? Has it made any impact on your contacts?

VI: Nobody even takes this information seriously.

The Russian president gave an interview to the Egyptian daily newspaper Al-Ahram in the run-up to his visit to the Arab Republic.

Russia hails Egypt's post-Arab Spring stabilization and modernization

Al-Ahram:How do you assess the current state of bilateral relations between Russia and Egypt following the revolutionary events in Egypt in 2011-2013? What is your vision of their prospects, particularly in light of the outcomes of the visit of Abdel el-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt, to Russia in August 2014?

Vladimir Putin: Egypt is a long-time and trusted partner of Russia. The history of modern diplomatic relations between the two countries that dates back to the year of 1943 has been eventful and colorful. For more than seven decades, both our countries and the international arena have seen numerous transformations. And yet, our desire to work together towards the development of Russia and Egypt as well as ensuring international and regional security has remained unchanged.

It was with the Soviet Union’s support that major economic infrastructure facilities were constructed in Egypt. These include the Aswan Dam and large enterprises such as the Helwan Iron and Steel Company and the Nag Hammadi aluminum smelter. We are glad that these industrial complexes continue to function effectively to the benefit of a friendly nation.

As for the events of 2011-2013, we welcome the efforts of the Egyptian government and people aimed at strengthening the country’s internal stability, improving its political system and modernizing economy. We have treated with respect the expression of will by the Egyptian people in the course of the plebiscite held on the draft of the new constitution and the elections of the head of state.

Despite all the difficulties Egypt has faced these past years, our countries managed to keep our bilateral dialogue multidimensional and multiformat. Our meeting with President el-Sisi that took place on August 12, 2014 in Sochi fully confirmed that. The meeting was very productive and useful. We have once again affirmed that Russia and Egypt share the same determination to further expand relations of friendship and equal cooperation.

Russian-Egyptian relations are developing rapidly. The volume of bilateral trade has increased significantly over the past years: in 2014, it has increased by almost half compared to the previous year and amounted to more than $4.5 billion. Clearly, this trend needs to be strengthened. We see great potential for achieving results that are even more impressive.

We have established mutually-beneficial and effective cooperation in the field of agriculture. Egypt is the major buyer of Russian wheat, Russia provides about 40 percent of grain consumed in the country; as for us, we import fruit and vegetables.

Many Russian companies, including those of the fuel and energy sector, chemical or automotive industry, show interest in the Egyptian market. We see promising prospects in the field of high technology, particularly in the areas of nuclear energy, outer space use and sharing of the Russian GLONASS satellite navigation system.

Egypt is also one of the popular vacation destinations for Russian citizens. By the end of 2014, we reached a record number of more than 3 million Russian tourists visiting Egyptian resorts, which is almost 50 percent more than in 2013. Russia highly appreciates Egyptian hospitality and those measures which are taken to ensure the safety of our tourists in the resorts of the Red Sea.

READ MORE: Russia, Egypt looking to create a free trade zone - Putin

I am convinced that a multifaceted dialogue between Russia and Egypt will continue to deepen and expand for the benefit of the peoples of our countries, for the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East and North Africa.

Russia & Egypt may drop dollar in bilateral trade

Al-Ahram: How could you comment on the idea that is being actively discussed in Egypt to exclude US dollar and use national currencies that are rubles and Egyptian pounds for settlement of accounts in the bilateral trade?

VP: This issue is really being actively discussed, primarily because the tourist season will begin in Egypt soon. Evidently, settlement of accounts in national currencies will contribute to creating more favorable conditions for millions of Russian citizens who annually spend their holidays in your country.

Besides, this measure will open up new prospects for trade and investment cooperation between our countries, reduce its dependence on the current trends in the world markets.

Therefore, it is quite natural that the business circles of both States raised an issue of advisability of using national currencies for bilateral payments.

READ MORE: Chinese and West to 'invest heavily' in Russia, despite challenges – Gaidar Forum

I should note that we already use national currencies for trade with a number of the CIS States, and China. This practice proves its worth; we are ready to adopt it in our relations with Egypt as well. This issue is being discussed in substance by relevant agencies of both countries.

Moscow, Cairo efforts to tackle Syria, Palestine complement each other

Al-Ahram: To your mind, what are the possible ways of interaction between Russia and Egypt in the context of the prompt political settlement of the Syrian crisis?

VP: The approaches of Russia and Egypt to the situation in Syria are similar. Our States advocate the unity and sovereignty of Syria, consistently stress that there is no alternative to political and diplomatic settlement. We have a similar vision of the initial measures to be taken to settle the Syrian crisis. They include, first of all, launching an inter-Syrian dialogue without any preconditions and foreign interference on the basis of the principles outlined in the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2012.

Cairo is hosting meetings of the Syrian opposition aimed at creating a common platform which could be used at the negotiations with the Syrian government. A consultative meeting of the representatives of various Syrian opposition groups, civil society and the delegation of official Damascus recently took place in Moscow.

Evidently, Russian efforts and the activities of the Egyptian partners complement each other and are aimed at overcoming the standstill in the political settlement of the Syrian crisis. We also should help to launch a dialogue between the Syrian government and its political opponents so that they can find mutually-beneficial compromises and solutions themselves without any foreign pressure.

READ MORE: No Saudi-Russian talks to bump up oil price in return for disowning Assad – Moscow

We discussed it in detail with President el-Sisi at our meeting last year in Sochi and we are also going to discuss this issue in substance in Cairo. The foreign policy services of our countries also interact closely.

Al-Ahram: In recent months we have seen a serious deterioration of the situation on the Palestinian territories. Please describe what Russia is doing to de-escalate the tensions and to settle the Palestinian problem.

VP: After a nine-month round of Israel-Palestine negotiations, held under the auspices of the USA, ended unsuccessfully in April 2014, relations between the parties have noticeably worsened. In summer, a bloody conflict between Israel and the Gaza strip broke out. In autumn, the unrest began in Jerusalem, caused, inter alia, by religious contradictions. Israel has simultaneously boosted settlement activities. Taken as a whole, this led to the aggravation of the situation in the whole Middle East and is fraught with further escalation of tension.

The Palestinians seem to have lost their faith in a possibility to reach a compromise with the Israeli government in that situation. So they submitted to the UN Security Council a draft resolution on the parameters of a peaceful settlement. I would like to note that Russia voted in favor of this document together with some other members of the UN Security Council. However, it did not receive the required majority of votes.

READ MORE: 500 rabbis urge Israel to stop demolition of Palestinian homes

Of course, the unceasing conflict cannot but worry us. That is why we remain in regular contact with senior officials in Palestine and Israel. We urge both parties to make concessions to each other and to search for common ground in order to normalize the situation. We will further pursue this policy, both through bilateral channels and on various international platforms, first of all within the framework of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, the activities of which should be intensified. We also consider it important to ensure close coordination of the Quartet's efforts with Egypt and other Arab countries.

Nuclear deal with Iran requires compromise, not selfishness

Al-Ahram: What measures does Russia take in order to settle the problem over the Iranian nuclear program?

VP: I can say with no exaggeration that Russia makes a significant contribution to the settlement of the situation around the Iranian nuclear program. Our position is based on a belief that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear activity including uranium enrichment, naturally under control of the IAEA.

It was not an easy task to convince our partners from the P5+1 to agree with this approach. At first, we continuously asked all the parties involved to sit down at the negotiating table and start a serious discussion of the ways to resolve this problem. We tried to convince them that there was no alternative to the political and diplomatic settlement. Then, we proposed a conceptual framework to advance along this way – the principles of the stage-by-stage movement and reciprocity. And such an approach was supported by all the participants in the process.

The negotiations are well under way now. Substantial progress has been made. However, we have not managed yet to produce a final comprehensive solution either regarding the Iranian nuclear program itself or the prospects of lifting the sanctions.

READ MORE: Iran threatens nuclear enrichment expansion if US pursues sanctions

We expect the efforts in this field to be continued. The crucial point is that nobody should try to derive unilateral benefit from the situation or to bargain out more than what is needed for a balanced and just resolution of this complicated issue.

ISIS crisis sparked by double standards, disregard to international institutions

Al-Ahram: The terrorist threat, including that posed by the ISIS, is one of the most dangerous challenges that the countries of the Middle East and the international community as a whole are faced with today. What do you think about the future of cooperation between Russia and Egypt in addressing this threat?

VP: The challenge posed to the international community by the Islamic State terrorist group is unprecedented. In essence, the terrorists are trying to gain control over a huge part of Iraq and Syria with a population of nearly 10 million. And they already threaten countries which are far from the Middle East region. We have witnessed this in France, Australia and Canada.

Today’s developments in Syria and Iraq stem, among other things, from a heavy-handed and irresponsible interference from the outside into the affairs of the region and unilateral use of force, ‘double standards’, and differentiating between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists.

Regrettably, we must note that the actions being undertaken today by the members of the anti-terror coalition, their strategy and tactics are disproportionate to the scale and nature of the existing threat. Airstrikes alone are not enough to deal with it. What is more, such actions lack legitimacy since they were not directly sanctioned by the UN Security Council and in certain cases are taken without the consent of states whose territories are being targeted by strikes. Unlike Iraq, where the fight against terrorism is conducted in cooperation with the officials in Baghdad, in Syria the coalition refuses to work together with the legitimate authorities.

READ MORE: Hopes for breakthrough: Moscow talks on Ukraine 'constructive,' joint doc 'possible'

Russia advocates the consolidation of efforts taken by the international community to fight terrorism on the basis of international law and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. We are interested in developing relevant cooperation with friendly Egypt, both at bilateral and international level. The more so since both our countries have been repeatedly attacked by terrorists.

US' will to dominate precipitated Ukraine situation

Al-Ahram: How would you assess the situation in Ukraine and around it? What do you think will be the most appropriate way out of the Ukrainian crisis?

VP: I would like to remind Egyptian readers that the Ukrainian crisis was not caused by the Russian Federation. It has emerged in response to the attempts of the USA and its Western allies who considered themselves ‘winners’ of the Cold War to impose their will everywhere. Promises of non-expansion of the NATO to the East (given yet to the Soviet authorities) have turned out to be hollow statements. We have seen how NATO's infrastructure was moving closer and closer towards Russian borders and how Russian interests were being ignored.

Moreover, in the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership Program there have been attempts to tear states which were parts of the former USSR off Russia and to prompt them to make an artificial choice "between Russia and Europe." The Ukrainian crisis has become a high point of these negative trends. We repeatedly warned the USA and its Western allies about harmful consequences of their interference in Ukrainian domestic affairs, but they did not listen to our opinion.

Last February, the USA and a number of EU member states supported the coup d’état in Kiev. The ultranationalists who seized the power using military force put the country on the edge of disruption and started the fratricidal war.

Unfortunately, today we can see how the ‘war party’ in Kiev actively supported from the outside continues its attempts to push the Ukrainian people over the edge of a catastrophe. The situation in Donbass has aggravated dramatically. Ukrainian security forces resumed the bombing of Donetsk, Lugansk and other residential areas in the region. They are building up their military presence there. The 'new wave' of mass mobilization has been announced in the country; there are calls for 'taking revenge' after summer's 'military failures' and for a forceful 'Ukrainization of Donbass'.

Ukraine is militarizing rapidly. We can judge by the statistics: in 2014, the Ukrainian military budget increased by almost 41 percent. This year, according to preliminary data, it will more than triple and reach more than $3 billion – which is about 5 percent of the country's GDP. And this is happening when its economy supported mostly with international, including Russian, funds is in rather deplorable situation.

We certainly feel worried. We hope that common sense will prevail. Russia strongly calls for a comprehensive and exclusively peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis based on the Minsk agreements which were largely achieved owing to the initiative and efforts of the Russian side.

The most important condition for the stabilization of the situation is immediate ceasefire and ending of a so-called ‘anti-terrorist’, but in fact punitive, operation in the southeast of Ukraine. Kiev's attempts to exert economic pressure on Donbass and disrupt its daily life only aggravate the situation. This is a dead-end track, fraught with a big catastrophe.

It is evident that the crisis will continue until the Ukrainians themselves agree with each other. Until the unbridled radicalism and nationalism are finished with, and the society is consolidated around positive values and genuine interests of Ukraine. To achieve this, Kiev authorities need to listen to their people, find a common language and reach an agreement with all political forces and regions of the country. They need to elaborate such constitutional state system formula that would provide for a safe and comfortable living for all citizens with human rights being fully observed.

READ MORE: Lithuania wants to supply weapons to Ukraine amid ongoing civil war

In the meantime, it is necessary to do one's utmost to make all the parties to the conflict gather around the negotiating table. In this context, the Russian side stands for forging sustainable and direct contacts between Kiev and Donetsk and Lugansk, for continued work within the Contact Group. On our part, we intend to actively contribute to that process.

Eventual oil market rebound would hurt world economy

Al-Ahram: To what extent has the drop in global oil prices influenced the state of Russian economy? In your opinion, what effect will this phenomenon have on the Middle East countries, global economy as a whole?

VP: Russia is an active participant in the global economic relations. And, of course, Russian economy is affected by sharp fluctuations in the global economic situation, especially such as a 50 percent plunge in oil prices. For Russia, as one of the world's largest oil-producing countries, it means certain problems related to budget revenues, state spending on economic growth and implementation of oil companies' investment programs.

At the same time, I would like to underline that it is not the first time we have faced such problems. We have the experience of overcoming the previous crisis of 2008–2009. Just like then, Russia has accumulated substantial reserves which enable us to cope with the effects produced by negative factors.

The government has adopted a large-scale plan of actions to ensure sustainable economic development and social stability. It includes support for the real sector of economy and systemically important credit institutions, employment promotion and assistance to small and medium-sized businesses. We will optimize budget expenditures and monetary policy.

As for the Middle East region, where oil-producing countries have traditionally been playing a significant role, current oil prices are also having an evidently negative effect. Budgets of many countries were drafted on the basis of oil prices that were higher than the current ones. What is more, the region is facing new challenges and an adequate response to them will require additional resources. This is why in the Middle East there is a growing understanding that the oil market should be stabilized and demand balanced with supply.

After all, what is the major risk posed by dropping oil prices? It is that the oil and gas industry becomes less attractive for investors. They have to abandon developing technologically complex oilfields and infrastructure development projects, and, as a result, oil supply on the market will gradually but inevitably shrink. It means that at some moment there may be a powerful price correction in the opposite direction that will mean a real economic shock. Such disturbances do not benefit anyone – neither oil producers, nor consuming countries or the global economy as a whole.

READ MORE: Energy alliance priority of Eurasian Economic Union – Medvedev

I would like to stress it once again: a predictable and stable energy market serves the interests of all countries. This is why in the current situation it is necessary to combine the efforts of responsible actors of the global oil market to create conditions for its steady long-term development.

President Vladimir Putin's address:

Friends,

The New Year of 2015 is about to begin.

As always, we look forward to it with anticipation, making wishes, giving gifts and traditionally seeing in the New Year with family and friends. An atmosphere of kindness, goodwill and benevolence warms our hearts, opening them up to pure thoughts and honourable deeds and giving hope.

Naturally, everyone is concerned primarily about the well-being of their own family, wishing health and happiness to their near and dear ones. The happiness and success of each individual makes up the well-being of Russia.

Love for one’s Motherland is one of the most powerful and enlightening feelings. It has found its reflection in our fraternal aid to the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, after they made the firm decision to return to their native home. This event will remain a landmark in national history.

Friends,

Now, as we reflect on the outgoing year I would like to sincerely thank you for your unity and solidarity, for your innermost truthfulness, honour, justice and responsibility for the fate of your country, for your invariable readiness to defend Russia’s interests, to be with it both in days of triumph and in times of trial, to strive for the implementation of our bravest and grandest of plans.

Only a few years ago the Sochi Olympics were no more than a dream. Meanwhile, it not only came true: we not only prepared and hosted the best ever winter Olympics, but we also won them. This victory has been achieved by all the citizens of this country, both the Olympic athletes and those who supported them.

In the coming year, we are facing quite a few tasks and the year will be as good as we make it, depending on how efficient, creative and effective each one of us is. There are no other recipes. We need to implement all our plans – for our own sake, for the sake of our children, for the sake of Russia.

Friends,

The New Year is knocking at our doors. It is time to let it in and say words of kindness to our near and dear ones. Time to thank them for their understanding and reliability, for their patience and care. The more kindness and love there is around the more confident and powerful we become, which means we will definitely be successful.

Happy 2015 to you!

France 24: Hello, and welcome to Moscow, welcome to Exclusive. Our guest today is the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. Mr. Lavrov, thank you for being on the show.

Sergey Lavrov: My pleasure.

F24: Mr. Lavrov, let’s begin with the crisis in Ukraine. It’s been going on for months, however there seems to be maybe some optimism. There were rumors that Moscow was ready to host maybe some negotiations. Can you tell us about the latest...?

SL: Well, there is reason for some cautious optimism, but the news which you just mentioned, about Moscow being ready to host some meeting, is new to me. We have been in agreement with our Ukrainian colleagues, colleagues from the OSCE and the people from Lugansk and Donetsk area. We have been pushing for convening another meeting in Minsk of the contact group, which is very important to make sure that we intensify the implementation of the Minsk protocol signed in September, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve at the moment.

F24: Are you optimistic that there will be such another meeting? Because it seems that the previous agreement isn’t really being implemented on the ground.

SL: As far as I understand, the reason for delay of this meeting is linked to the desire of the people from Donetsk and Lugansk to include on the agenda not only the ceasefire implementation, which is something absolutely necessary, and also exchange of hostages – and they are still discussing how many and trying to verify the lists. But the people from Donetsk and Lugansk, they also want – which, I believe, is very important as well – to start discussing economic issues. They also have been covered by the Minsk protocol and [it] provides for economic interaction to be resumed and restored. And as far as I can understand at the moment, the representatives of the government are not yet ready to discuss the economy, which is a cause of concern.

F24: But shouldn’t they be focused primarily on a ceasefire that’s really holding? Because we’ve seen many calls for a ceasefire saying yes, it’s going to happen, but it hasn’t really happened. Do you think now there can be genuine hope?

SL: The OSCE monitors reported yesterday, I think, that the ceasefire is generally holding, with some incidents taking place, yes, but they are absolutely not numerous at all, like it was in the past experience. There are things which cause concern, like accumulation of some government forces against around the area, but generally speaking, the OSCE reports that the heavy artillery is being withdrawn. So ceasefire is absolute priority, because people shouldn’t be killed. But at the same time, people should have something to live on, therefore, to discuss economic and social matters, resuming economic interaction between these areas and the rest of Ukraine is absolutely imperative. And we want to understand why President Poroshenko signed a decree which is basically aimed at cutting off – economically, financially and socially – these areas from the rest of Ukraine. It’s also a cause of concern of the United Nations, because this decree was, again, criticized in the latest report of the United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator Office [the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs].

F24: So are you calling on President Poroshenko to rescind that decision?

SL: Absolutely. This was the message which my President sent to President Poroshenko when they last talked over the phone.

F24: And are you hopeful that he will listen?

SL: Well, we believe that he should be interested in resolving the problems which a [large number] of his citizens [are] experiencing.

F24: Is he your real partner?

SL: I think he is the best chance Ukraine has at the moment

F24: But you still mistrust him or people around him? Do you think...

SL: I cannot say that we have any difficulties in dealing with President Poroshenko, at least at the level of the presidents of two countries. There is a regular dialogue. I am in contact with my colleague, Minister Klinkin. I think we established business-like relations, and the main thing is for the Ukrainian leaders to understand that this is their country, and this is their obligation not to spend and waste time on power sharing and power struggle, which is taking place in Kiev, but to proceed with reforms, to proceed with constitutional process which they promised and which they committed themselves to – a constitutional process which would be transparent, which would be inclusive, with the participation of all the regions and all political forces. This is something which was solemnly declared in Geneva, when the EU, the US, Russia and Ukraine met and signed a statement in April of this year. And we still don’t see any genuine effort to start this constitutional reform. Unless the constitutional reform problem is resolved, we would always be, you know, facing problems here and there, because the constitutional situation is a systemic problem of Ukraine and they must address it urgently.

F24: This means large autonomy for the regions?

SL: I don’t know. No, this is for Ukrainians to decide. We’re not suggesting federalization, we’re not suggesting autonomy. It was the French President who used the word ‘autonomy’ or ‘decentralization’, somebody else like Federica Mogherini used the autonomy terminology. John Kerry told me, “Why don’t they think about devolution?” Fine, we have a lot of synonyms in the English language. It is not the words, it is the essence, the substance which is important. The Ukrainians themselves, from all the regions, as promised, from all the political parties should be delegated to meet in one place and to discuss how the regions want to elect or select their leaders, what kind of tax split could be agreed on between the federal authorities and the regional authorities, what language would be comfortable for each and every region or for some regions, what holidays are they going to celebrate. Is it going to be the birthday of Bandera and Shukhevych, who were cooperating with Nazis, which is now the proposed holidays in Ukraine? I don’t think the east of Ukraine would celebrate those holidays. I don’t think that the west of Ukraine, unfortunately, would celebrate the Victory Day. So they have to have a deal in their country, including on what kind of holidays they have. It’s a very important psychological moment. And unless you resolve this systemic problem of the constitution, you will be encountering difficulties every day, more and more.

F24: The problem is, the Ukrainian leadership and the West generally believes that, you see, it’s their country, but they seem to think that for Russia it’s not exactly the case, that those self-proclaimed republics in the southeast are in fact trying to move away from Ukraine because they are encouraged, financed and armed by Russia. Are you saying today that those areas are for the future definitely part of Ukraine?

SL: Well, first of all, whenever we are accused of hundreds or thousands of Russians fighting in the east of Ukraine – with modern technologies, with the creativity of mass media this could have been on the screens long ago. Whenever I hear this, I challenge my interlocutors to show it on TV. I discussed this with John Kerry a few days ago in Rome, and we would have nothing against the truth being shown on the screens.

F24: But he is still repeating the same things.

SL: Yes, but, unfortunately, it’s only words that we hear. We haven’t seen any facts. Like, you know, after this tragedy of the Malaysian airliner, we have been hearing statements from Washington and some other capitals pointing fingers, but we challenge them to do what we did. We presented to the commission the images we have from our satellites. The Americans did have a satellite in that area on that day and on that hour. They also had an AWACS plane in the area, working and active, and we challenged them to submit these materials. Just like in the case of the accusations that Russia is fighting in the east: if you have this fact, present it, don’t just repeat it. But answering your question, after the meeting with President Hollande in Moscow on December 6, President Putin talking to the press reconfirmed what he said repeatedly, that we support the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

F24: Definitely?

SL: Definitely.

F24: Even in those regions? There’s no second Crimea in the works?

SL: Crimea is unique, the one and only, the Russian land.

F24: It was an exception?

SL: It was not an exception, it was the will of the people. The Ukraine as we recognize it now is territorially integral from the Russian point of view and should be supported in this form.

F24: I want to get to the issue of sanctions, Western sanctions that were slapped on Russia. They seem to have an effect: the Russian economy is suffering, the ruble has tumbled to new record lows, there was an emergency meeting last night to raise the interest rates to 17 percent, the oil price is tumbling. It seems Russia is feeling the bite of the sanctions.

SL: Well, of course it hurts, we don’t take any pleasure from sanctions, but it’s not our problem, it’s the problem of the European Union and the United States and other countries.

F24: But it’s a problem for your population.

SL: The population will express itself when elections come. I’m sure the population would know what to do to express what the Russian people feel. I don’t believe it helps Europe. As Joe Biden publicly said, it was the United States which ordered Europe to join sanctions against Russia, and frankly, it’s really a pity that we for some previous years overestimated the independence of the European Union and even big European countries. So, it’s geopolitics. Some people believe that sanctions are a sign of weakness or a sign of irritation, which is not the best quality of a politician, but I can assure you that Russia will not only survive, but will come out stronger out of this. We have been in much worse situations in our history, and every time we were getting out of these fixes much stronger. This will happen this time.

F24: So you’re not afraid that we could see an economic meltdown in Russia?

SL: Never. Economic meltdown could happen to a small country. It can happen even to a big country like Ukraine, and it’s basically almost there. Russia is doing whatever we can to help resolve the crisis in Ukraine – not to please the West, not to ask for sanctions relief, but because we are seriously concerned. Contrary to what the Europeans feel, we are seriously concerned about the future of Ukraine and Ukrainian economy. Actually, speaking of sanctions and, you know, that this is a sign of irritation, not an instrument of serious policies.

The latest portion of sanctions which was voted in the European Union last September was introduced the next day after the Minsk protocol was signed. This is a very interesting logic, you know, to stimulate the political process. So the next morning after the huge achievement was reached, which was praised by everyone, the gentleman, what was his name, Van Rompuy, declared that there was a new portion of sanctions being introduced in Russia. If this is the European choice, if this is what Europe has as a reaction to something positive, then I once again can only say that we hugely overestimated European independence in foreign policy.

F24: Are sanctions, as some people are thinking, a way of trying to create regime change in Russia?

SL: I have very serious reasons to believe that this is the case.

F24: Really?

SL: Yes. Some politicians don’t even hide it.

F24: What about the new bill that passed unanimously in Congress in the US, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, which would give lethal weapons for the first time to Ukraine, and sanction two of Russia’s foremost companies…?

SL: First, it has to be signed.

F24: You think..

SL: Second, second, if it is signed..

F24: If Obama promulgates it, what…what would..

SL: Once again. First, it has to be signed. Second, if it is signed and enters into force it has to be applied in practice. And we’ll see whether this would be the case, whether this would be signed, and if it is signed, if Obama would be in fact putting some of the provisions into practice, and if he does, then we will assess the situation. But, you know, Congress is a very special group of people, more than 80 percent of them never left the United States, they live in their own world, so I’m not amazed about this Russophobia which is being demonstrated by the Congress at the moment.

F24: If Obama endorses this, would this be for you a kind of a declaration of war against Russia?

SL: If he does, we’ll see. We want to see what Obama does and what will happen, because the bill is not automatic. It provides for some specific things, I believe, to be done automatically, but it also provides for something to be left to the president’s discretion. The things which are automatic, I believe, they relate to the Russian Rosoboronexport company and its foreign partners, but among foreign partners of Rosoboronexport are many Ukrainian military-industrial enterprises, and basically the bill provides for the Americans to find some alternative markets to the Ukrainian arms industry. But I talked to my American colleagues, and they admit that except Russia hardly any other country actually needs Ukrainian military products. So we’ll see how it works.

F24: You’ve said many times that you feel that NATO as an organization is an enemy for Russia, that it has tried to expand, that it has really nefarious…

SL: I never said this.

F24: No?

SL: No, never.

F24: But it’s the impression we get in the West.

SL: No, no, no. Well, when you have an impression you should ask a question, and then read the documents. The document which is relevant in this case is the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. It never mentions that NATO is an enemy. What it says is that the security risks for Russia, among other things, are NATO expansion to the East and the movement of military infrastructure of NATO closer to the Russian borders – not NATO itself, but its militarized movement to the East is considered by the Russian military doctrine as a security risk and threat for Russia.

F24: Would you consider cutting off ties with NATO if this continues?

SL: We don’t need to do this because NATO did it for us. They have cut practically all ties between the Alliance and Russia, they just kept on hold basically the NATO-Russia Ambassadorial Council, but they severed all practical cooperative mechanisms, including on Afghanistan, including on counter-terrorism, some other specific things – they have frozen everything. But having done so in the context of NATO-Russia projects, they quietly come to us and say, “Well, let’s continue training pilots for the Afghan Air Force, but doing this outside NATO-Russia. In other words, the substance they want to continue, but for the public consumption, they want to say that they are so firm with Russia that they severed all the ties. Childish, but what to do? Sometimes big boys play games.

F24: Speaking of games, there was a contract signed a few years ago with France for Russia to have the Mistral helicopter carriers, Is it suspended?

SL: I have to interrupt you. I don’t make any comments on this issue. This is the matter a) of a signed legal contract, and b) of the dignity of the French nation.

F24: You expect France to fulfill this contract?

SL: I don’t have any more comments.

F24: On Syria, the situation there is blocked, there are talks of trying to revive negotiations between the government and the opposition – is this a possibility, given the deteriorated situation?

SL: Well, I don’t know who is talking about this, we certainly discuss this with Staffan de Mistura, the new Special Representative on Syria of the United Nations. But we, Russia, not only talk, we are engaged, we are deeply engaged in preparing such process to be resumed. We meet with all more or less meaningful representatives of various opposition groups, and with the government of Syria. We have been promoting the idea of, before they start something like Geneva III under the formal UN umbrella, to have a warming-up, if you wish, a preparatory meeting just to bring the opposition groups together for them to try to develop a common approach to the negotiations with the government, then to bring the government representatives to meet with them informally, and to agree the agenda of the process, which could be resumed. Because one of the reasons the Geneva, the previous Geneva process failed was they could not agree on the agenda, which comes first – fighting terrorism or discussing political transition. I believe this could be done in parallel. And Staffan de Mistura, the UN Special Envoy has some ideas on this score, which we support.

And the second reason for the failure of the previous attempts was that the opposition was only represented by the National Coalition, which is composed of the people who immigrated some time ago to France, to Egypt, to Qatar, Turkey. And the government used this, you know, to say that these people do not represent everybody, or maybe they don’t even represent anyone in Syria. So our idea now is to remove this argument by bringing, by persuading the opposition groups to come together and to form a common delegation, probably with more than one spokesman but a delegation, which would be based on the same principles.

And of course, parallel to this, we have to support another UN idea, which is the so-called freezing of the hostilities, starting from Aleppo. Staffan de Mistura has some specific plan, and we would be supportive of his efforts.

F24: So are you optimistic about all those informal talks shaping up, do you think there is grounds for…

SL: So far, so far what we hear from the majority of our interlocutors, both in the opposition and in the government of Syria, we can be optimistic that this process could at least be tried early next year.

F24: Early next year, on Iran, there’s a new round of nuclear talks. This week, an agreement couldn’t be reached despite the deadline a couple of weeks ago. Are you optimistic that this is only a delay and not a failure?

SL: Why, on each of those issues, [do] you want me to be optimistic?

F24: Or pessimistic?

SL: I have to be realistic. Well, you know that an optimist, or rather a pessimist, is a well-informed optimist. So we prefer to be realistic, and realistically speaking, the deal on the Iranian nuclear program is within reach. And certainly the timeframe, which was agreed again – the end of June next year – is chosen because in addition to the basic political framework agreement, which could be reached in a couple of months, there would be a need for very technical, very detailed annexes. That’s why June seems a realistic date, and I don’t think there would be any further extensions.

F24: So you you’re saying the issues are more technical than political, right?

SL: No, I said that the political deal to be reached will require a couple of months, not more, I am sure, I mean, given the political will on the part of all the participants, because the issues are very well established, and the gap in the approaches is not that big. But in addition to this framework deal, which is a political deal, there would have to be technical interpretation of several issues, which will require two or three more months.

F24: The last issue I want to ask you about – Palestine wants to go to the United Nations Security Council with a resolution calling for an end to the Israeli occupation within two years. Some are saying it’s a desperate move because there’ll likely be a US veto. Do you favor the Palestinian move, do you think it can be useful to try to revive peace talks?

SL: Those are two different questions. First of all, the position of Palestine, the demand of Palestine is justified: they have been promised the state long, long, long ago. And the proposal, the substance of the draft resolution, which the Arab countries are promoting in the Security Council, is absolutely legitimate, and we cannot but support it, because we have always been supportive of what is written there. They just request the previous agreements, the Security Council resolution – resolutions, the Madrid principles, and other arrangements reached by the parties in the past, to be implemented, period. And we would be, as I said, considering these as an absolutely legitimate step. Whether this would help in reaching a deal – this is a more complicated question, because the Palestinians are considering asking to be admitted to the instruments of international organizations, international conventions; and Israelis say that if Palestinians go to these international organizations, especially to the international Criminal Court, then there would be an end to any dialogue. But this is a Palestinian matter, and they have to take their own decision with the advice, I believe, of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. But this would be their decision, they have to calculate the consequences, the positive and the negative alike. We would strongly prefer to do everything to reach consensus in the Security Council. Then it would be a different game. And I discuss this thing with John Kerry, with my Arab counterparts, and we will continue these discussions just in the next few days.

F24: OK. Sergey Lavrov, thank you very much for answering all our questions.

Hubert Seipel: Good afternoon, Mr President. You are the only Russian President who has ever given a speech at the Bundestag. This happened in 2001. Your speech was a success. You spoke about relations between Russia and Germany, building Europe in cooperation with Russia, but you also gave a warning. You said that the Cold War ideas had to be eradicated. You also noted that we share the same values, yet we do not trust each other. Why were you being a little pessimistic back then?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I gave no warnings or admonitions and I was not being pessimistic. I was just trying to analyse the preceding period in the development of the situation in the world and in Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I also took the liberty of predicting the situation based on different development scenarios.

Naturally, it reflected the situation as we see it, through the prism, as diplomats would put it, from Russia’s point of view, but still, I think it was a rather objective analysis.

I reiterate: there was no pessimism whatsoever. None. On the contrary, I was trying to make my speech sound optimistic. I assumed that having acknowledged all the problems of the past, we must move towards a much more comfortable and mutually advantageous relationship-building process in the future.

Hubert Seipel: Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, which would not have been possible without the Soviet Union’s consent. That was back then. In the meantime, NATO is conducting exercises in the Black Sea, near the Russian borders, while Russian bombers conduct exercises in Europe’s international airspace. The Defence Minister said, if I’m not mistaken, that they fly as far as the Gulf of Mexico. All of this points to a new Cold War. And, of course, partners exchange harsh statements. Some time ago, President Obama named Russia as a threat on a par with Ebola and the extremists, the Islamic extremists. You once called America a nouveau riche, who thinks of himself as a winner of the Cold war, and now America is trying to shape the world according to its own ideas about life. All of this is very reminiscent of a Cold War.

Vladimir Putin: See, you mentioned 2001 and I said that my perspective was rather optimistic.

We have witnessed two waves of NATO expansion since 2001. If I remember correctly, seven countries – Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania and three Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – joined NATO in 2004. Two more countries joined in 2009. Those were significant geopolitical game changers.

Furthermore, the number of military bases is growing. Does Russia have military bases around the world? NATO and the United States have military bases scattered all over the globe, including in areas close to our borders, and their number is growing.

Moreover, just recently it was decided to deploy Special Operations Forces, again in close proximity to our borders.

You have mentioned various exercises, flights, ship movements, and so on. Is all of this going on? Yes, it is indeed.

However, first of all, you said – or perhaps it was an inaccurate translation – that they have been conducted in the international European airspace. Well, it is either international (neutral) or European airspace. So, please note that our exercises have been conducted exclusively in international waters and international airspace.

In 1992, we suspended the flights of our strategic aircraft and they remained at their air bases for many years. During this time, our US partners continued the flights of their nuclear aircraft to the same areas as before, including areas close to our borders. Therefore, several years ago, seeing no positive developments, no one is ready to meet us halfway, we resumed the flights of our strategic aviation to remote areas. That’s all.

Hubert Seipel: So, you believe that your security interests have not been accommodated.

Let me return to the current crisis and to its trigger. The current crisis was triggered by the agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The title of this agreement is relatively harmless. It is called the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. The key point of this agreement is to open the Ukrainian market to the EU and vice versa. Why is it a threat for Russia? Why did you oppose this agreement?

Vladimir Putin: In reality the economy follows almost the same path as security. We preach the opposite of what we practice. We say that a single space should be built and build new dividing lines instead.

Let us look at what the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement stipulates. I have said this many times, but it appears I have to repeat it once again: it eliminates the import duties for the European goods entering Ukrainian territory, brings them down to zero. Yet as Ukraine is a member of a free trade zone within CIS, zero customs tariffs have been introduced between Russia and Ukraine. What does that mean? It means that all European goods will flow through Ukrainian territory directly to the customs territory of the Russian Federation.

There are many other things that may not be clear for people who are not informed regarding these matters, but they do exist. For example, there are technical regulations that are different in Russia and in the EU, we have different standards. Those are standards of technical control, phytosanitary standards and the principle of determining the origin of goods. By way of an example I would cite the component assembly of cars in Ukrainian territory. According to the Association Agreement, the goods manufactured in the territory of Ukraine are intended for our market within the framework of the Russian-Ukrainian free trade zone. Your companies that invested billions of euros in factories in Russia (Volkswagen, BMW, Peugeot, Citroen, the US Ford, and others) entered our market on completely different terms, on condition of deep localisation of production. How could we accept that? So we said from the outset, "We agree, but let us proceed step by step and take into consideration the real problems that can emerge between Russia and Ukraine." What were we told in response? "It is none of your business, so get your nose out of these affairs."

Hubert Seipel: I would like to turn to the past. When the EU‑Ukraine Association Agreement was discussed, the negotiations took quite a while. This caused rallies on Maidan in Kiev. I refer to the protests during which people demanded a better life within the European Union. But they were also protesting against the Ukrainian system. In the end all that resulted in a wave of violence. After the then president failed to sign the Agreement, it provoked an outbreak of violence, and people were killed on Maidan. Then the German Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived and tried to find a compromise between the protesters and the government, and managed to do that. An agreement was made providing for a government of national unity. It remained in force for about 24 hours and then it disappeared. You followed closely the developments of September 21 and you remember how you talked with Mr Obama and Ms Merkel.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. Indeed, on February 21, not only the German Minister of Foreign Affairs but also his counterparts from Poland and France arrived in Kiev to act as guarantors of the agreement achieved between the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. The agreement stipulated that the only path the process would take was the peaceful one. As guarantors, they signed that agreement between the official authorities and the opposition. And the former assumed that it would be observed. It is true that I spoke by telephone with the President of the United States that same day, and this was the context for our conversation. However, the following day, despite all the guarantees provided by our partners from the West, a coup happened and both the Presidential Administration and the Government headquarters were occupied.

I would like to say the following in this regard: either the Foreign Ministers of Germany, Poland and France should not have signed the agreement between the authorities and the opposition as its guarantors, or, since they did sign it after all, they should have insisted on its implementation instead of dissociating themselves from this agreement. What is more, they prefer now not to mention it at all, as though the agreement never existed. In my view, this is absolutely wrong and counterproductive.

Hubert Seipel: You acted promptly. You, so to say, annexed Crimea and justified it at the time based on the fact that 60 percent of Crimea’s population were Russians, that Crimea has a long history of being part of Russia and, lastly, that its fleet is stationed there. The West saw that as a violation of international law.

Vladimir Putin: What is your question exactly?

Hubert Seipel: Did you underestimate the reaction of the West and the possible sanctions, which were later imposed on Russia?

Vladimir Putin: We believe that this sort of reaction was totally disproportionate to what had happened.

Whenever I hear complaints about Russia violating international law I am simply amazed. What is international law? It is first of all the United Nations Charter, international practice and its interpretation by relevant international institutions.

Moreover, we have a clear recent precedent – Kosovo.

Hubert Seipel: You mean the International Court of Justice ruling on Kosovo? The one in which it stated that Kosovo had the right to self‑determination and that the Kosovars could hold a vote to determine the future of their state?

Vladimir Putin: (In German.) Exactly. (Continues in Russian.) But not only that. Its main point was that when making a decision concerning their self-determination, the people living in a certain territory need not ask the opinion of the central authorities of the state where they presently live. They do not need the approval by the central authorities, by the government, to take the necessary measures for self-determination. That is the central point.

And what was done in Crimea was not in any way different from what had been done in Kosovo.

I am deeply convinced that Russia did not commit any violations of international law. Yes, I make no secret of it, it is a fact and we never concealed that our Armed Forces, let us be clear, blocked Ukrainian armed forces stationed in Crimea, not to force anybody to vote, which is impossible, but to avoid bloodshed, to give the people an opportunity to express their own opinion about how they want to shape their future and the future of their children.

Kosovo, which you mentioned, declared its independence by parliamentary decision alone. In Crimea, people did not just make a parliamentary decision, they held a referendum, and its results were simply stunning.

What is democracy? Both you and me know the answer well. What is demos? Demos is people, and democracy is people's right. In this particular case, it is the right to self-determination.

Hubert Seipel: It shows immediately that you are a lawyer. But you know the arguments of the West as well. The West says that the elections were held under the control of Russian military. This is the reasoning of the West. Let me touch upon the next issue. Today, Ukraine is more or less divided. Four thousand people have died, hundreds of thousands have become refugees and fled, among other places, to Russia. In the east of the country, Russian-speaking separatists are demanding broad autonomy, some want to join Russia. In accordance with the Minsk agreement, ceasefire was declared, but people are dying every day. The country is bankrupt. Basically everybody lost in the conflict. Ukraine seems to have lost the most, but Europe and Russia did as well. How do you see Ukraine's future?

Vladimir Putin: Ukraine is a complex country, and not only due to its ethnic composition, but also from the point of view of its formation as it stands today.

Is there a future and what will it be like? I think there certainly is. It is a large country, a large nation with the population of 43–44 million people. It is a large European country with a European culture.

You know, there is only one thing that is missing. I believe, what is missing is the understanding that in order to be successful, stable and prosperous, the people who live on this territory, regardless of the language they speak (Hungarian, Russian, Ukrainian or Polish), must feel that this territory is their homeland. To achieve that they must feel that they can realise their potential here as well as in any other territories and possibly even better to some extent. That is why I do not understand the unwillingness of some political forces in Ukraine to even hear about the possibility of federalisation.

We’ve been hearing lately that the question at issue should be not federalisation but decentralisation. It is all really a play on words. It is important to understand what these notions mean: decentralisation, federalisation, regionalisation. You can coin a dozen other terms. The people living in these territories must realise that they have rights to something, that they can decide something for themselves in their lives.

Hubert Seipel: The central question in the West as follows: will Ukraine remain an independent state? It is the central question now on the agenda. The second question is whether Russia can do more? Maybe Russia has more opportunities to expedite this process in Ukraine, in particular with regard to the Minsk agreements?

Vladimir Putin: You know, when someone tells us that we have some special opportunities to solve this or that crisis it always troubles and alarms me. We have heard many times that Russia has a key to the solution of the Syrian problem, that we have some special opportunities to solve some other problem or the Ukrainian crisis. I always begin to suspect that there is an intention to pass on the responsibility to us and to make us pay for something. We do not want that. Ukraine is an independent, free and sovereign state. Frankly speaking, we are very concerned about any possible ethnic cleansings and Ukraine ending up as a neo-Nazi state. What are we supposed to think if people are bearing swastikas on their sleeves? Or what about the SS emblems that we see on the helmets of some military units now fighting in eastern Ukraine? If it is a civilised state, where are the authorities looking? At least they could get rid of this uniform, they could make the nationalists remove these emblems. That is why we have fears that it may all end up this way. If it happens it would be a catastrophe for Ukraine and Ukrainian people.

The Minsk agreements arose only because Russia became actively involved in this effort; we worked with the Donbass militias, that is the fighters from southeast Ukraine, and we convinced them that they should settle for certain agreements. If we had not done that, it would simply not have happened. There are some problems with the implementation of these agreements, it is true.

What are those problems? Indeed, self-defence fighters, for example, were supposed to leave some of the towns they had surrounded, are yet they haven’t left. Do you know why not? I will tell you plainly, this is no secret: because the people fighting against the Ukrainian army say, "These are our villages, we come from there. Our families and our loved ones live there. If we leave, nationalist battalions will come and kill everyone. We will not leave, you can kill us yourselves." You know, it is a difficult problem. Of course, we try to convince them, we talk, but when they say things like that, you know, there is not much that can be said in response.

And the Ukrainian army also has not left some of the towns it was supposed to leave. The militias – they are the people who are fighting for their rights, for their interests. But if the central Ukrainian authorities choose not just to determine the demarcation line, which is very important today in order to stop the shelling and killing, but if they want to preserve the territorial integrity of their country, each particular village or town are not significant; what is important is to immediately stop the bloodshed and shelling and to create conditions for starting a political dialogue. That is what is important. If it this is not done, there will be no political dialogue.

I apologise for such a long monologue, but you make me go back to the essence of the problem.

What is the essence? The coup took place in Kiev. A considerable part of the country supported it, and they were happy partly because they believed that after the signing of, say, the Association Agreement there will be open borders, job opportunities, the right to work in the European Union, including in Germany. They thought that it will be like that. In fact, they have nothing of the sort. The other part of the country, the southeast, did not support it and said, "We do not recognise you." And instead of starting a dialogue, instead of explaining to people that the central authorities in Kiev are not going to do anything bad, and on the contrary, they will propose various forms of coexistence and development of a common state, they are ready to grant them their rights, instead of that they begin making arrests at night. Once the night arrests began, people in the southeast took up arms. Once they took up arms, instead of stopping (the authorities should have the wisdom to do that) and starting this dialogue they sent the army, the air force, tanks and multiple rocket launchers. Is this a way to solve problems? And ultimately everything came to a deadlock. Is it possible to get out of it? I am sure that it is possible.

Hubert Seipel: The question or, more properly, the claim made by Kiev today is that Russia supplies weapons to the separatists and sends its servicemen there.

Vladimir Putin: Where did they get the armoured vehicles and the artillery systems? Nowadays people who wage a fight and consider it righteous will always get weapons. This is the first point.

But I would like to stress that this is not the issue. The issue itself is entirely different. The issue is that we can't have a one-sided view of the problem.

Today there is fighting in eastern Ukraine. The Ukrainian central authorities have sent the armed forces there and they even use ballistic missiles. Does anybody speak about it? Not a single word. And what does it mean? What does it tell us? This points to the fact, that you want the Ukrainian central authorities to annihilate everyone there, all of their political foes and opponents. Is that what you want? We certainly don't. And we won't let it happen.

Hubert Seipel: Do you intend to propose ways to resolve the crisis in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: Madam Chancellor is very much aware of all the nuances of this conflict. As for the energy problem, she has done a great deal for its solution.

As for the security issues, I would say that in this area our viewpoints and approaches do not always coincide. What is clear is that Russia and the Federal Republic of Germany want the situation in this region to be settled. We are interested in this and we will work for the observation of the Minsk agreements. There is just one thing that I always pay attention to. We are told again and again: pro-Russian separatists must do this and this, you must influence them in this way, you must act in that way. I have always asked them: "What have you done to influence your clients in Kiev? What have you done? Or do you only support Russophobic sentiments?" This is very dangerous, by the way. A catastrophe will happen if somebody surreptitiously supports Russophobia in Ukraine. It will be a real catastrophe! Or shall we seek a joint solution? If so, let's bring the positions of the parties closer together. I am going to say something that some people in this country may not like. Let's try to achieve a single political space in those territories. We are ready to move in this direction, but only together.

Hubert Seipel: It is very difficult to correct the mistakes made by others. Sometimes it is only possible to correct one's own mistakes. I would like to ask you: have you made mistakes?

Vladimir Putin: People always make mistakes. Every person makes mistakes in business, in private life. Does it really matter? The question is that we should give a rapid, timely and effective response to the consequences of such mistakes. We should analyse them and realise that they are mistakes. We should understand, correct them and move on towards the solution of problems rather than an impasse.

It seemed to me that this is the way we acted in our relations with Europe as a whole and the Federal Republic of Germany in particular over the past decade. Look at the friendship that has been established between Russia and Germany in the past 10–15 years. I don’t know if we had ever enjoyed such relations before. I don’t think so. I see it as a very good base, a good foundation for the development of relations not only between our two states, but also between Russia and Europe as a whole, for the harmonisation of relations in the world. It will be a pity if we let it go to waste.

Hubert Seipel: Mr President, thank you for the interview.

READ THE SECOND PART OF THE INTERVIEW HERE

READ MORE: 'Politics blinded them?' Putin says sanctions against Russia may backfire on Ukraine

Vladimir Putin answered questions from ARD's Hubert Seipel.

Hubert Seipel: After the Crimea joined Russia, the West expelled Russia from the Group of Eight, this exclusive club of industrial states. At the same time the USA and Great Britain imposed sanctions against Russia. Now you are heading to a G20 summit of the most important industrial states on the planet. The focus there will be on economic growth and employment. Russian Finance Minister said the following about your country: "There is no more growth and unemployment is set to increase. The sanctions are starting to have an effect: both the ruble and the oil price have set anti‑records." This is the exact opposite of what you are going to speak about in Brisbane. The forecast of attaining 2 percent growth in Russia is unfeasible. Other countries are in the same situation. This crisis has a counter‑productive character, including for the upcoming summit, wouldn’t you say?

Vladimir Putin: You mean the Ukrainian crisis?

Hubert Seipel: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Of course, who could benefit from it? You wanted to know how the situation is evolving and what our expectations are. Of course we expect the situation to change for the better. Of course we expect the Ukrainian crisis to end. Of course we want to have normal relations with our partners, including in the United States and Europe. Of course, the situation with the so-called sanctions is damaging for the global economy (it is damaging for us and it is damaging for global economy as well) and it is damaging for the Russian EU relations most of all. In this case it contradicts international law, which governs economic relations, the WTO principles and the agreements we will try to reach during the G20summit. It comes into direct collision.

By the way, according to the European Commission data, the losses from Russia’s counter-measures aimed at protecting our economy are estimated as 5–6 billion euro. Can we estimate the losses that these sanctions have caused Russia? It is rather difficult. To some extent, these are virtual losses. Although we have really sustained losses, it is true. However, there are some advantages as well: the restrictions imposed on some Russian companies on purchasing certain goods from Western countries, from Europe and the United States, have induced us to produce these goods ourselves. The comfortable life, when all we had to do was produce more oil and gas, and to buy everything else, is a thing of the past. Now we must think about producing goods ourselves, not just oil and gas. We have solid science and technology resources, which makes us fully confident of our ability to address any technology issues independently, including in the defence sphere.

With regard to growth, we should note that this year growth was modest but it was present nevertheless at about 0.5–0.6 percent. Next year we are planning to achieve 1.2 percent growth, the year after that 2.3 percent and 3 percent in three years. Generally, these are not the figures we would like to have but nevertheless it is growth and we are confident that we will achieve these figures.

Hubert Seipel: Another theme to be discussed in Brisbane will be financial stability. The situation in Russia may also be complicated because Russian banks can no longer obtain refinancing on world markets. Moreover, there are plans to close for Russia the international payments system. Do you think that this issue will be discussed at the summit as well? And what do you expect from this summit overall?

Vladimir Putin: I expect to have frank discussion with my colleagues and not to beat about the bush. In general, such venues, the decisions made there and the discussions at these venues are not binding and unfortunately are often not implemented, for example the decision to change the configuration of the international monetary system, to enhance the role of developing economies due to their changing position in the world economy as a whole. For example, we adopted a decision at a G20 summit to enhance the role of developing economies in the IMF. But the US Congress blocked the decision and everything came to a standstill. The Congress does not endorse the decision, and that’s it. We see what is happening but, of course, we hope to have frank and unbiased discussions.

As for the international financial architecture, the current problem is not new; it concerns the fact that developed economies have a surplus of capital that the Western economies do not know where to invest efficiently and reliably. The developing economies have commodity imbalance because they produce and sell goods using low-cost labour and some other production instruments that are cheaper than in Europe and the United States. So, there is a capital imbalance on one side and a commodity imbalance on the other side. It is difficult to agree on joint efforts in this area because the developing economies are always uncertain about the rules of the game concerning the allocation of this capital. The sanctions you have mentioned are a vivid negative example of our partners' behaviour.

By the way, you have mentioned Ukraine, which is a striking example of the current situation in this sphere. Russian banks have currently extended a $25 billion loan to the Ukrainian economy. If our European and American partners want to help Ukraine, how can they undermine the financial base limiting our financial institutions’ access to world capital markets? Do they want to bankrupt our banks? In that case they will bankrupt Ukraine. Have they thought about what they are doing at all or not? Or has politics blinded them? As we know eyes constitute a peripheral part of brain. Was something switched off in their brains?

The bank that I mentioned is Gazprombank, which only this year, this calendar year, has extended a loan of $1.4 plus $1.8 billion to the Ukrainian energy sector. How much is that in total? $3.2 billion. This is the sum it has allocated. In one case, it issued a loan to Ukrainian Naftogaz, which is a public company; in the other case, it allocated $1.4 billion to a private company in order to support Ukraine’s chemical industry. In both cases, today this bank has the right to demand early repayment because the Ukrainian partners have violated their loan agreement. As for Naftogaz…

Hubert Seipel: The question is if they are paying or not?

Vladimir Putin: (In German) They are paying at the moment. (Continues in Russian) They are servicing the loan. Naftogaz is servicing one of the loans. However, there are some conditions that are being violated. Therefore, the bank has the formal right to demand early repayment.

In the second case they are doing nothing to repay the $1.4 billion. The government is holding the gas in an underground storage facility and does not give it to its industry. It is their own business that they are crippling their chemical industry. It is also not good to leave people without jobs, but it is their business. However, as the gas does not reach the consumer, as it is not paid for, our bank does not get the money back. It has the right to demand an early repayment. But if we do it, the whole Ukrainian financial system will collapse. And if we don’t do it, our bank may collapse. What should we do?

Moreover, when we extended a $3 billion loan a year ago, there was a condition that if Ukraine’s total debt exceeded 60 percent of GDP, we, the Russian Ministry of Finance, would be entitled to demand an early repayment. Again, if we do it, the whole financial system will collapse. We have already decided that we will not do it. We do not want to aggravate the situation. We want Ukraine to get on its feet at last. As for the bank, it is a financial institution, a joint-stock company whose shareholders include foreigners.

This is basically an answer to your question: any restrictions are counterproductive and in the long run cause damage to all international economic or financial actors.

Hubert Seipel: Not all G20 countries hold the same positions. For example, we have the BRICS states, including Russia, which have united to promote economic cooperation. Last year, you established your own BRICS Development Bank to provide an opposition to the West in the international financial sector in the future. Is this another split in this market?

Vladimir Putin: No, you should not see it like that. The issue is as follows. Indeed, the decision was made at the last BRICS summit in Brazil to create several financial instruments, to be more precise, two instruments – the BRICS Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement. This Contingent Reserve Arrangement is being established along the same principles as the IMF and in a sense it may be considered its analogue, but it is being created for completely different purposes. It is being created to promote development in the BRICS countries only, or primarily development in the BRICS countries, and it is not going to replace such global institutions as the IMF.

What is the danger, in my opinion? It is to start separate international economic relationships. This concerns not only the monetary component but also trade.

As you know, the negotiations within the WTO, the so-called Doha Round, have come to a deadlock. Developed and developing economies cannot agree on the rules of the game in the agriculture sector and on some other issues. Today we hear some hints from our partners, first of all from the United States, concerning the creation of an Atlantic Alliance on the one side and a Pacific Alliance on the other, with those who meet certain requirements, as our partners see it. And the WTO does not seem to be such an important organisation anymore. I believe this is quite dangerous because the developing economies play an increasingly important role in the global economy as a whole and it is dangerous to ignore this.

Incidentally, the combined GDP of the BRICS countries calculated using purchasing power parity is already bigger than that of the so-called G7 countries. As far as I know, the BRICS countries have more than $37 trillion calculated using purchasing power parity, while the G7 has $34.5 trillion. And this upwards trend is in favour of the BRICS, not vice versa. That is why I think we should not follow the way of creating powerful but local associations but try to reach consensus within global organisations.

We spoke about what is happening in trade, how harmful what is currently happening is or isn’t. You know, if our banks are even partly cut off from international financing, they receive fewer resources. This means that our economic entities can purchase fewer goods from you. After all, our cooperation, say, between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Russian Federation, provides hundreds, thousands of jobs in Germany. Some experts believe that nearly 300,000 jobs are maintained through our commercial and economic relations, through large quantities of Russian orders, through joint ventures. If the resources of our financial institutions are cut off, they can extend fewer loans to the Russian companies that work with German partners. Sooner or later, it will begin to affect you as much as us.

TASS: You’re going to attend another G20 summit. To what extent is this format still in demand and relevant, and is it logical that some G20 countries, while striving to cooperate and develop the global economy, have been taking sanctions against one of the G20 members?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Is this format still in demand or not? I believe it is. Why? The G20 is a good platform to meet each other, discuss both bilateral relations and global problems, and develop at least some sort of common understanding of what this or that problem is all about, and how to resolve it. A good place to make a road map for joint work.

This is the most important thing because it is totally unrealistic to expect that everything that may be said there will be implemented, especially since the decisions themselves are not mandatory. To a certain degree they are neglected. They are not observed whenever and wherever they are not in line with somebody’s interests. First and foremost, this means the interests of global players.

‘US drops out of general context for resolving problems’

For instance, at one of the G20 summits a decision was made to enhance the role of developing economies in the activities of the IMF and to redistribute quotas. The US Congress blocked that decision. Full stop. The negotiators, our partners, are saying: well, we would be happy to do that, we did sign it, but the Congress does not let it through. So much for decisions.

And yet, the very fact that a certain decision has been formulated, that all international actors involved in the G20 found it right and fair and consonant with current realities, this fact alone shapes international public opinion and the experts’ minds in a certain way, and this has to be taken into account.

The very fact that the US Congress has refused to pass this law indicates that it is the United States that drops out of the general context of resolving the problems facing the international community. One little thing: nobody cares to remember this. Some capitalize on their world mass media monopoly to hush up this information, to give the impression that it doesn’t really exist.

You see, everyone is talking about some current problems, including the sanctions and Russia, but in reality, in global terms, it is the United States that neglects the decisions being made. This is a fundamental thing, by the way, but it is being neglected. That does not mean, though, that it is a useless format. I have already explained why. It does yield benefits.

TASS: It would possibly make sense to make the decisions binding, wouldn’t it?

VP: That’s impossible. You know that there have been no such precedents in international practice. Except for UN Security Council decisions regarding international security proper. But that procedure was generated in the very dramatic conditions of bloody World War II. It is just unrealistic to expect that these days some new mechanisms may be established to enforce compliance with decisions, let alone decisions concerning economy. Let me say once again, all this is of moral, political and economic nature. Which in itself is not bad at all.

Now a few words about the sanctions some G20 countries have taken against Russia. Of course, they run counter to the very principle of G20 activities, and not only the activities of the G20 and its principles, they run counter to international law, because sanctions may be introduced only through the United Nations and its Security Council. Moreover, they are against the WTO principles and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT. The United States itself created that organisation at a certain point. Now it is crudely violating its principles.

This is harmful and, of course, it does certain damage to us, but it is also harmful to the United States as well, because as a matter of fact the entire system of international economic relations is being undermined. I do hope, and I proceed from the understanding that in the final count the awareness of this will prevail and bygones will be bygones.

‘Today’s world exists within very narrow planning horizon’

TASS: Are you planning to raise this question at the summit, or will it remain in the background and you will speak your mind only if the subject is raised…

VP: If the subject is raised, I will speak about it, of course, but I am not going to raise these questions for discussion myself. The way I see it, it will be useless. All understand what they are doing, I mean, those who impose the sanctions. What’s the use of drawing attention to this matter or asking for something? It’ll make no sense. Such decisions are made at the level of blocs or at the national level; they are made based on how our partners perceive their geopolitical interests. I believe that’s just a mistake, even from the standpoint of their geopolitical interests.

Regrettably, today’s world exists within a very narrow horizon of planning, in particular, in the sphere of politics and security. Everybody lives from election to election. This is a very narrow planning horizon. It leaves no opportunities for taking a broader perspective, for looking into a more distant future. That’s bad. But I hope that we shall discuss this. At the just-ended APEC summit, there were discussions with practically all those who were in attendance on international problems and on bilateral problems, including the problems of sanctions you’ve just mentioned.

TASS:In the G20, there is a certain balance of force. On the one hand, there is the G7, and on the other hand, the BRICS countries and some associated states. Proceeding from what you’ve just said about each country pressing for its own interests, how do you see this balance of force – as a dispute that will eventually produce the truth or as a fundamentally new confrontation of two blocs?

VP: Firstly, I believe it will be very bad if blocs begin to pop up again. That’s very counterproductive and even harmful to the global economy. We are on the subject of economy, aren’t we?

Decisions must be made together

TASS: Economy that is being more and more affected by politics.

VP: That’s true, but nevertheless, the G20 is an economic forum in the first place. I suggest that we shift the focus of our conversation in that direction. And here I would like to make a point. I have already mentioned the WTO, which has established certain rules of the game.

There is the mechanism called the IMF. Discussions are underway over perfecting the international financial mechanisms and international trading relations. You know that the Doha round of WTO talks is stalled. Why? Because of the difference in approaches and interests of the developing and developed economies. Because in one case there emerges an imbalance of capital and in the other, imbalances of commodity flows. Developed economies have a fair bit of free capital, and the question is about the effective, reliable and safe placement of this capital in those regions and those economies of the world which can ensure stability, protect property and generate some profit, some revenues for such developed economies.

For this reason they export capital, and the developing countries form the commodity flows. Some need to be sure that their capital is well-placed, while others, the recipients of the capital, need to be sure that the rules of the game will not be changed at the sole discretion of capital exporters, including for political reasons.

Everyone must understand that the global economy and finance these days are exceptionally dependent on each other. Take our case: imagine our partners have restricted the access of our financial institutions to global money markets. As we attract capital from global financial markets, our financial institutions finance our companies that import finished products from the very same industrialised economies, thus supporting jobs in those countries, their social sector and economic growth. If we stop doing that, there will be disruptions. These are fundamental things. They are not lying on the surface; they are not obvious at first sight.

Our cooperation with the Federal Republic of Germany gives that country some 300,000 jobs. If there are no contracts, these jobs may be lost. True, they will reorient, but it’s still unclear in what direction. It is not so easy.

Therefore, it is important that we solve all those challenges that come up together. If we take a different path… The United States is currently contemplating the creation of two associations: one Transatlantic, and the other Transpacific. If these are going to be two closed groups, eventually, it will not remove the imbalances in the global economy, but rather exacerbate them. Of course, we want to get rid of such imbalances, we want to work together, but this can be achieved only through joint efforts.

Just 20, 30, 50 years ago the situation was different. Why am I so certain that only joint efforts can be effective? The GDP of the BRICS countries calculated at the purchasing power parity is greater than that of the G7. As far as I know, the GDP of BRICS is $37.4 trillion, while that of the G7 is $34.5 trillion. And if we go and say, “No, thank you, we are going to do this and that here on our own, and you can do it the way you want it,” this will only add to the imbalances. If we are really set to resolve some issues, we should do that together.

TASS: There has been much talk about the emergence of another G7 – the BRICS countries plus Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico. Do you believe this format may have a future?

VP: As I have already said, decisions must be made together. Everything is interdependent in today’s world, and if some regional associations, like the one we are creating these days – the Eurasian Economic Union also involving Belarus and Kazakhstan – are to be created, they should emerge only as addenda to the existing global instruments that must be operating in compliance with these global rules.

‘Global economy, finance are exceptionally dependent on each other’

TASS: You spoke about imbalances in global economy, and the IMF is talking about them, too. It forecasts the emergence of some new bubbles. Is the Russian economy prepared to rebuff a new wave of the crisis?

VP: Yes, it is. We’re considering all the scenarios, including the so-called catastrophic fall of prices for energy resources, which is quite possible, and we admit it. The Ministry of Economics and the Finance Ministry analyse our economy’s development under each scenario. You see, the thing is I spoke about the imbalances of capital on the one hand, and commodities on the other hand. When they appear, in some cases owing to political considerations, and when they increase, some countries – especially the emerging economies – find it difficult to cope with this and end up in a complicated situation.

A country like ours finds the situation easier to cope with. Why? Because we are producers of oil and gas and we handle our gold and currency reserves and government reserves sparingly. Our reserves are big enough and they allow us to be sure that we will meet our social commitments and keep all the budgetary processes and the entire economy within a certain framework. And what about those who don’t have these reserves? It will be hard for them in a situation like that, but I’d like to say once again that I expect us to have a joint discussion and seek a joint solution on how to change things for the better and eliminate these imbalances.

TASS: You just mentioned the reserves. The funds accumulated enabled us to get smoothly enough through 2008 and 2009. Has the time come to unseal those funds to warm up and speed up our economy?

VP: I don’t think so. We were ready to unseal them anyway even before the discouraging events that are linked to ruble fluctuations or the oil price slide. We discussed the possibility of using the funds from the National Welfare Fund. We didn’t say it just yesterday, did we? We said it two years ago. But it always happens this way in situations that the global economy and our economy have found themselves in.

So what actually happens? If the funds are spent at all, they are used in several areas. One of them is infrastructure development. That’s where we intended to invest the funds from the Welfare Fund. An extra automobile ring road around Moscow, de-bottlenecking railway crossings, building and extending new routes for transporting goods and cargoes eastwards along the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline, building high-speed railways, as well as developing port and airport infrastructure. Actually, we planned all those things before, and now that the market situation is getting worse, we’ll get down to them.

Still this doesn’t mean we can simply eat the reserves out and overlook economic returns just because we’re solving current problems. That’s not the way for us to go.

TASS: Quite naturally, the case in hand is structural reforms, for which time and money are always in short supply.

VP: Structural reforms do not require that much money. They call for political will and certain administrative steps both in the economy and in the social sphere.

TASS: I’d like to get back to the infrastructure issue later, but now round up the National Welfare Fund issue. What do you think about the request from [Russia’s major oil corporation] Rosneft to allocate funds to it from the Welfare Fund?

VP: If I were the Rosneft CEO, I would ask for money, too. Why not? Who doesn’t ask for it today? Everyone’s asking for money and hoping to get it. The Cabinet – I know their position because I discussed it both with the Cabinet and Rosneft – will make a decision based not just on the needs of the company which we truly treasure and which we will definitely help. It will also analyze the company’s activities, analyze how it plans to use this money and what benefits the entire national economy will get from this investment. This will be a real assessment and I don’t rule out that Rosneft may get some funds. Yet the amount of such allocations and the terms require a thorough analysis. No hurry here.

TASS: Since no decision has been taken yet, it looks like Rosneft hasn’t convinced anyone.

VP: You know, in the context of my visit to China, Rosneft is arranging an agreement with a major Chinese corporation on getting a 10 percent stake in the Vankor oilfield project. Along with the stake, the Chinese will get seats on the board of directors. But we’re also making arrangements on selling oil from that deposit, which is actually huge, for the yuan. In this situation, our Chinese partners will be ready to issue loans and to finance many transactions. Secondly, we’re moving away from the diktat of the market that denominates all commercial oil flows in US dollars. We’re encouraging in every way the use of national currencies – both the ruble and the yuan. Thirdly, this will additionally stabilize corporate finances.

Recently, we checked the financial standing of Rosneft and didn’t find any problems there whatsoever. No financial problems at all. I’d like to stress once again that if they need more money they must prove that these funds they get will be spent for specific purposes and there will be returns for the entire economy, on top of returns for the company.

TASS: One of the proposals of the Australian G20 presidency is to set up an infrastructure investment center. Given the priority that Russia is already attaching to infrastructure, does the proposal offer advantages? Or will it stand at variance with what we are doing, if we take into account the sanctions?

VP: Well, you don’t need to coordinate anything with anyone here. The fact simply proves – and one cannot but agree with the Australian proposal – that we’re on the right track. Absolutely in the mainstream, as it were. And the international community – the economic one in this case – shares the same views of government actions in a situation that’s taking shape in the global economy. The fact merely confirms we’re right and this is always pleasant and good to know.

TASS: Will this be a source of assistance for Russia or just a platform for sharing our experience?

VP: I think this will be much rather a platform for exchanging experience. And for training specialists, which is a fairly good thing, too. Besides, it is a follow-up on our own proposals in a sense. We formulated them at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg.

TASS: Here in Russia, a number of infrastructure projects you mentioned are being implemented while others have been halted like a bridge across the Lena River in Yakutsk or a seaport in Taman [a city on the Black Sea coast]. What’s the future for these projects? Is it clear or in a total haze?

VP: It’s not about haze actually. It’s about feasibility. Should we build a bridge in Yakutsk or no? Of course, we should. And what’s next? Yakutsk is home to more than 300,000 people. It’d be nice to give people a bridge so that they could move freely. Move this way and that way. Then the railway will get right into the city. Nice, isn’t it? Sure it is. I do love Yakutsk. The local people are wonderful and the republic [Sakha/Yakutia] has an immense mineral wealth. And everything there needs to be developed. But when we discuss these things with my colleagues, they tell me the actual reason is bigger than the 300,000-strong population as such. The bridge is needed to stretch the railway out to a number of mineral deposits.

On top of being socially significant, the project will also become economically sound and rational. And if you extend it farther on so that we could deliver more goods to the highly remote northern areas and get to certain deposits… Well, this needs analysis and calculation. An in-depth professional study is essential. But on the whole, that’s the movement in the right direction.

The same thing is with Taman. We must analyze a whole set of infrastructure-related issues. Private investment, too. A private company has been building a modern seaport in that area for several years now and a foreign investor has been invited who invests billions there. We should carefully analyze it. Are we provoking competition there? What’s the volume of goods? Is it enough to give both ports a full load? What about railway infrastructure? Will it cope with covering both ports? And where is the money right now, at this very moment, to develop this infrastructure so that it services both ports?

Add to this a bridge to Crimea we also need to build. It’s not a matter of liking or disliking. Everything should be done in a proper and timely fashion and calculated very professionally.

TASS: Back to the G20. It didn’t really matter much if it is was G20, APEC or the previously known G8 – it was always about the opportunity for you to meet with your colleagues tête-à-tête. Your recent participation in the Beijing Summit was your first trip abroad following your speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club concerning the global security and the world order. Did you get any reaction from your foreign partners following that speech?

VP: Not really. The Valdai Club is about communicating with experts. It is a sort of free discussion. Maybe even a bit fierce as it should be on platforms like that, since it should set the tone of the discussion and even provoke your partners to open up and voice their point of view so that we could look for possible solutions at the expert level together. But pragmatic issues are more often discussed when we meet with our colleagues at a bilateral level.

TASS: Putting it differently, were there any changes in their attitude or any new questions you wanted to ask them? Have you noticed anything of the kind?

VP: No, nothing happens that quickly. It takes time for someone to actually hear and understand what I had actually said. It must be all well digested at the administrative, governmental and presidential levels, starting with aides and experts. It needs discussions, without any clamor or senseless chirping, which are usually attributed to such forums as the Valdai Club. It is better to talk in the calm of our offices.

All these debate forums are good for sincere and open talks. However, as I have said before, it is good to return to issues without any fuss in the calm of offices and discuss everything over. It takes time.

TASS: Do you plan any personal meetings on the sidelines of the G20 summit?

VP: Yes, I have scheduled meetings there. With the German Chancellor. A lot of meetings.

TASS: Analysts say that your relations with [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel recently became more strained and less friendly. Have you noticed it?

VP: No, I have not. You know that we are guided by interests instead of sympathies and antipathies.

TASS: Were you also guided by the same interests in the past?

VP: Not just in the past, but always. And she had also been guided by same interests, just like any other leader of a nation, state or government. This is why I see neither considerable changes nor any substantial alterations in the nature of our relations.

Vladimir Putin gave an interview to leading Chinese media outlets in the run-up to his visit to Beijing, where he will take part in the Nov. 10-11 APEC Summit.

Question: The next APEC Summit will be held soon in Beijing. How does Russia view the role of this association? What does the Russian side expect from this meeting? In your opinion, how can Russia and China consolidate their cooperation within the framework ofthis Forum contributing to the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region?

Vladimir Putin: APEC’s progressive development during a quarter of a century has persuasively demonstrated the relevance of this authoritative association format, a platform to agree upon common “rules of the game” in the trade and economic sphere in the APR.

It is worth noting that all the decisions reached within the framework of the Forum are adopted on the basis of the principles of mutual respect, accommodation of the interests of each other, which reflects the spirit of APEC. Under the current conditions, when some countries prefer to act on the international arena using methods of political, economic and often even coercive pressure, the role of APEC as an effective coordinating mechanism for building a new regional architecture is indispensable.

Russia actively participates in APEC activities. The Full-scale participation of our country in the regional integration processes contributes to the development of the national economy and social sphere, to the development of the regions of Siberia and the Far East.

The next meeting of the APEC leaders during 10‑11 November in Beijing will definitely be one of the key APR events of the year. As Chairman of APEC in 2014, China has prepared a huge package of initiatives. For example, a road map towards an Asia-Pacific free-trade zone is to be adopted. A plan providing specific measures aimed at promoting comprehensive coherence within the region, innovative development and structural reforms, has been elaborated.

I would like to stress the consistency of the current agenda with the issues that we proposed for discussion in Vladivostok in 2012. I think that it demonstrates that Russia and China are both interested in the common development of the region in order to promote comprehensive, sustainable and innovative growth.

We intend to pursue our traditionally close, constructive cooperation with the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, during the future discussions, including in the implementation of the Summit decisions. I am convinced that the APEC leaders meeting in Beijing will make a great contribution to the further consolidation of an equal and mutually beneficial partnership in the region.

Question: Currently, Russian-Chinese relations are particularly dynamic. The sides have made a significant breakthrough in cooperation in the natural gas industry and have carried out successful activities in the context of the Youth Friendly Exchanges years. What is your assessment of the progress of Russian-Chinese ties at this stage? What steps is the Russian side ready to take in order to deepen its comprehensive strategic cooperation and partnership with China?

Vladimir Putin: Strengthening ties with the PRC is a foreign policy priority of Russia. Today, our relations have reached the highest level of comprehensive, equitable, trust-based partnerships and strategic interactions in their entire history. We are well aware that such collaboration is extremely important both for Russia and China.

We take similar or even identical stands on major global and regional issues on the international agenda. Our countries have pursued efficient cooperation on various multilateral platforms and close coordination in addressing relevant international concerns.

Russia‑Chinese relations have become a crucial factor in accommodating the foreign policy interests of the two countries in the 21st century, playing a significant role in establishing a just, harmonious and safe world order. At the same time, our bilateral ties hold great potential for further progressive development.

I would like to emphasize that today our countries face similar tasks. First of all, we need to upgrade infrastructure and promote high technology sectors. We also share many sectoral priorities, such as energy conservation and energy efficiency, the development of new information technologies, transport, nuclear energy, outer space, environmental protection, the production of modern drugs and medical equipment.

We have considerably enhanced our cooperation in the energy sector. We have built and put into operation an oil pipe-line from Russia to China and concluded agreements providing for an increase in crude oil supplies. In accordance with our previous accords, our export of energy resources to China has grown and joint activities aimed at exploring and extracting crude oil and coal in Russia have been undertaken. The construction of a large joint oil refinery plant has been launched in China. Projects relating to the peaceful use of nuclear energy are being successfully implemented.

An obvious breakthrough was made this year by concluding an ambitious natural gas agreement. In May, we agreed on natural gas supplies to China through the eastern route. The contract for 30 years provides for the supply of 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually. This is the largest long-term agreement in the history of our bilateral relations and global trade in general. Furthermore, we have reached an understanding in principle concerning the opening of a western route. We have already agreed on many technical and commercial aspects of this project, laying a good basis to reach final arrangements.

As Russia and China are countries with rich traditions and distinct cultures, humanitarian ties are of special significance to them. Thanks to unique projects, such as national years (the Year of Russia proclaimed in China in 2006 and the Year of China in Russia in 2007), the Years of the Russian and Chinese Languages (2009‑2010), the Year of Tourism of Russia and China (2012‑2013) our ties in education, science, culture, tourism, sport and healthcare have expanded significantly.

After the success of the national years, we approved a list of the activities that had received most public attention and acclaim, and started holding them on a regular basis. I refer in particular to economic, political studies and science forums, fairs for tourism, days of culture and film festivals, University Rectors’ forums, exhibitions of education featuring Chinese and Russian universities, youth conferences and sports events. We have also been consistently implementing the Ten‑Year Plan of Action for Developing Russian‑Chinese Humanitarian Cooperation approved in December 2012.

2014 and 2015 are seeing a new ambitious interstate project, the Years of Friendly Youth Exchanges between Russia and China. Its programme includes about 600 events in total. The opening ceremony that took place this March in Saint-Petersburg featured the first performance of the joint Russian-Chinese youth symphony orchestra and the students’ choir conducted by Valery Gergiev.

Question: The 70th anniversary of the Victory over nazism will be celebrated next year. Russia and China will carry out a series of ceremonies commemorating this event. In your opinion, what does the joint celebration of this date by two countries mean for preserving the historical memory, suppressing the attempts to deny the results of the Second World War II and contributing to global peace?

Vladimir Putin: A remarkable date will be celebrated in Russia on May 9, 2015 – the 70th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic war. On September 3, 2015, ceremonial events commemorating the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese people, who forced out the invaders, will take place in Beijing.

In the course of negotiations in Shanghai, which took place this May, we agreed with PRC President Xi Jinping that we would celebrate these memorable dates together, as noted in our Joint statement.

During the war the Soviet Union and China were allies who struggled against a common enemy, shoulder to shoulder. Our countries withstood the severe test with honour and bore the brunt of resistance against the aggressors. At the concluding stages of the war, tens of thousands of our compatriots sacrificed their lives for the liberation of Northeast China. I would like to thank our Chinese friends for their careful attitude towards the memory of heroes, the beds-of-honour, the war memorials.

Our brotherhood in arms and the mutual aid of the peoples of our countries, have provided a solid foundation for present-day Russia-Chinese relations. Today, Russia and China are interested in enhancing global stability and developing broad cooperation on the basis of international law and the key role of the UN. We oppose a return to ideological confrontation in world affairs and strongly condemn any attempts to falsify the history of World War II.

I am sure the oncoming celebration of the Victory's anniversary in Russia and in China will enhance bilateral understanding and cooperation ever more.

Question: What factors do you think have led to a fall in global oil prices? Will this process have a significant impact on the Russian economy? How is Russia tackling its negative effects?

Vladimir Putin: Of course, the obvious reason of the decline in global oil prices is the slowdown in therate of economic growth which means energy consumption being reduced in a whole range of countries. Moreover both strategic and commercial oil reserves in developed countries are at their highest levels in history. There is also the impact of innovations in the technology of oil production which led to new volumes of hydrocarbon entering the regional markets.

In addition, a political component is always present in oil prices. Furthermore, at some moments of crisis it starts to feel like it is the politics that prevails in the pricing of energy resources.

Another negative factor is the lack of a distinct direct link between the physical oil markets and the financial platforms where the trade is conducted. At the same time, the derivatives greatly increasing the volatility of oil prices are being actively used. Unfortunately, such a situation creates the conditions for speculative activity and, as a consequence, for manipulating the prices in someone's interests.

Certainly, we cannot ignore the developing oil market conditions taking into account the important role of fuel and energy production incomes in generating budget revenues. The steps taken by us are of a comprehensive and long-term nature. They envisage further diversification of the structure and growth sources of the Russian economy as well as decreasing the over-dependence on the European hydrocarbon market, among other things due to the growth in oil and gas exports to the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. Alongside that, we intend to optimize budget spending, monetary and fiscal policy.

It is obvious that the risks connected with the new situation on the global oil market affect quite a wide range of states and companies. That is why we support a constant dialogue on this issue with the leading producers and consumers of energy resources.

Question: Recently, significant progress in the creation of the Trans-Pacific partnership was announced. Some experts believe that Washington is seeking to counter APEC due to the growing influence of Russia and China in the region. How do you assess the prospects for APEC if the TPP is formed?

Vladimir Putin: The conclusion of different regional free trade agreements is one of the global trends. It is no coincidence that this practice is widespread in the Asia-Pacific Region, which is becoming the center of global economic and political activity. Today there are about 70 such agreements and a number of projects are underway. Among them is the above-mentioned Trans-Pacific Partnership and a comprehensive regional economic partnership.

Russia seeks to strengthen regional economic integration. Moreover, we also believe that free trade agreements should not fragment the multilateral trading system, but rather complement them, contribute to its consolidation and the growth of interconnectedness. The regional unions should not be turned against each other or otherwise divided. Such agreements should be transparent, fair and address the needs of each economy. Regional integration should be transparent and promote information-sharing between all the negotiations processes.

We pay special attention to this approach in the implementation of our priority integration project – the Eurasian Economic Union. The values and principles of this association’s activities are transparent and carried out in full compliance with the rules and regulations of the World Trade Organization.

It is not yet easy to evaluate the progress of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This initiative is carried out behind closed doors, even businesses and the public of the contracting states have no access to it, let alone other countries. Over the past five years of negotiations, we have repeatedly heard about the success achieved, but such statements have always been refuted later. Last time this happened on the threshold of the APEC summit in Bali in November 2013. It looks like it was a question of continuing negotiations, which have been "frozen" for over a year now. Dates for the resumption of negotiations have not been announced.

Obviously, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is just another U.S. attempt to build an architecture of regional economic cooperation that the USA would benefit from. At the same time, I believe that the absence of two major regional players such as Russia and China in its composition will not promote the establishment of effective trade and economic cooperation.

The multilateral system of economic relations in the APR can only be strong if the interests of all states across the region are taken into account. This approach is reflected in the draft of the Beijing road map for the establishment of an Asia-Pacific free trade area. The draft is to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of APEC leaders.

READ MORE: Putin: Russia’s isolation is ‘absurd and illusory goal’

“Regrettably, in some European countries the Nazi virus 'vaccine' created at the Nuremberg Tribunal is losing its effect. This is clearly demonstrated by open manifestations of neo-Nazism that have already become commonplace in Latvia and other Baltic states,” Putin told Politika newspaper ahead of his visit to Serbia. “The situation in Ukraine, where nationalists and other radical groups provoked an anti-constitutional coup d’état in February, causes particular concern in this respect.”

Below is the full text of the interview.

Politika:You are coming to Belgrade to take part in the celebrations commemorating the 70th anniversary of the city’s liberation from occupation by Nazi Germany. Why, in your view, are such commemoration events important today?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to thank the Serbian leadership for the invitation to visit Serbia and take part in the celebrations commemorating the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Belgrade from occupation by Nazi Germany.

We are truly grateful to our Serbian friends for the way they treasure the memory of the Soviet soldiers who fought together with the National Liberation Army of Yugoslavia against Hitler’s occupation troops. During World War II, over 31,000 Red Army officers and soldiers were killed, wounded or went missing on the territory of former Yugoslavia. About 6,000 Soviet citizens fought against the invaders in the ranks of the National Liberation Army. Their courage brought our common victory over Nazism closer and will always be remembered by our peoples as an example of bravery, unyielding determination and selfless service to one’s homeland.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of the upcoming events. Seventy years ago, our nations joined forces to defeat the criminal ideology of hatred for humanity, which threatened the very existence of our civilization. And today it's also important that people in different countries and on different continents remember what terrible consequences may result from the belief in one’s exceptionality, attempts to achieve dubious geopolitical goals, no matter by what means, and disregard for basic norms of law and morality. We must do everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.

Regrettably, in some European countries the Nazi virus “vaccine” created at the Nuremberg Tribunal is losing its effect. This is clearly demonstrated by open manifestations of neo-Nazism that have already become commonplace in Latvia and other Baltic states. The situation in Ukraine, where nationalists and other radical groups provoked an anti-constitutional coup d’état in February, causes particular concern in this respect.

Today, it is our shared duty to combat the glorification of Nazism. We must firmly oppose the attempts to revise the results of WWII and consistently combat any forms and manifestations of racism, xenophobia, aggressive nationalism and chauvinism.

I am sure that the anniversary celebrations in Belgrade, which are to become another manifestation of the sincere friendship between our nations based on the feelings of mutual affinity and respect, on spiritual kinship, on brotherhood in arms in the years of WWII, will also contribute to addressing these challenges. We hope that the preservation of historical memory will continue to help us strengthen peace, stability and welfare of the common European space together.

Politika:How do you see the Russian-Serbian relations today? What has been achieved during the past 20 years and what future trends in the interaction between the two countries do you foresee?

Vladimir Putin: Serbia has always been and still is one of Russia’s key partners in southeastern Europe. Our nations are united by centuries-long traditions of friendship and fruitful cooperation. Their development is fostered by common interests in such spheres as politics, the economy, culture and many others.

Today, Russian-Serbian relations are on the rise. In 2013, President of Serbia Tomislav Nikolic and I signed the Interstate Declaration on Strategic Partnership, reaffirming our shared intention to promote large-scale collaboration in all key areas.

We have maintained active political contacts to discuss relevant bilateral and international issues in the spirit of confidence and agree on joint practical steps. Our governments cooperate closely within the United Nations, OSCE, the Council of Europe and many other organizations.

We are satisfied with the consistent progress in our economic relations bolstered by the existing free trade regime between our countries. In 2013, our mutual trade grew by 15 percent amounting to $1.97 billion, and, in the first six months of 2014, it increased by another 16.5 percent to $1.2 billion. We expect it to reach $2 billion by the end of this year.

A positive trend continues in the field of investment as well. The total amount of Russian investments in Serbia has exceeded $3 billion. Most of these funds have been invested in the strategically-important energy industry. One example of successful cooperation is the energy giant Petroleum Industry of Serbia, which has turned from a loss-making enterprise into a major contributor to the Serbian state budget. The South Stream project will provide Serbia with more than 2 billion euro in new investments and significantly strengthen the country’s energy security.

Serbia’s rail infrastructure is being rebuilt and upgraded with the participation of the Russian Railways and our support in the form of loans.

I am pleased to see Serbian businesses play an active part in the promising Russian market. For example, they supply high-quality agricultural and industrial products.

I would like to note another important area of our bilateral cooperation. In recent years, the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre in Nis has taken part in disaster response operations in the Balkans on several occasions. Last May, Russian rescuers helped to evacuate people during a severe flood. Russian Emergencies Ministry aircraft made several flights to deliver more than 140 tonnes in humanitarian aid to Serbia.

The growing mutual interest of Russian and Serbian people in our countries’ history and culture is also evidence of deepening humanitarian relations. This autumn, Serbia is hosting Days of Russian Spiritual Culture with great success. The central event is the exhibition titled Russia and Serbia. History of Spiritual Connections, 14th-19th Century. We plan to expand cultural, educational, scientific and youth exchanges, and to promote tourism and sports events.

I am confident that my upcoming visit to Belgrade will give a new boost to the traditionally friendly Russian-Serbian relations, which will continue to grow and strengthen from year to year.

Politika:There is currently a great deal of speculation regarding the possible reduction in the supplies of Russian gas to Europe because of Ukraine's debt. Should European consumers get ready for a cold winter? What about the future of the South Stream project, which is of great interest to Serbia?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to stress that Russia is meeting its obligations in full with regard to gas supplies to European consumers. We intend to further deepen our cooperation with the EU in the energy sector, where we are natural partners, on a transparent and predictable basis.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, we have successfully implemented a number of major projects together with our European partners. This includes the Nord Stream pipeline, which is an important factor in minimizing transit risks and ensuring uninterrupted gas supplies to Europe. Over recent months, Gazprom has been actively increasing gas reserves in European underground gas storage facilities. These measures are aimed to prevent transit disruptions and meet peak demand in winter.

Naturally, we are aware of the risks generated by the Ukrainian crisis. We were forced to interrupt gas supplies to Ukraine last June because the Kiev authorities refused to pay for gas supplies they had already received. In late summer and early autumn, we held a series of consultations in a three-party format with the participation of Russia, the EU and Ukraine, where we discussed possible mutually-acceptable solutions to the problem of the Ukrainian gas debt settlement, resumption of gas supplies to Ukraine - which had been stopped by the Ukrainian side itself - and continuous hydrocarbon transit to Europe. We are ready to continue constructive talks on these issues.

As for the future of Russian gas exports to Europe, the problem of transit across the Ukrainian territory remains. One of the more obvious solutions might be to diversify the delivery routes. In this regard, we hope that the European Commission will finally make a decision in the nearest future about the use of the OPAL gas pipeline at full capacity.

In addition, we need to resolve the deadlock concerning the South Stream. We are convinced that this project will significantly contribute to integrated energy security in Europe. It will benefit everybody, Russia as well as European consumers, including Serbia.

Politika:In your opinion, what is the ultimate objective of the sanctions against Russia, imposed by the EU and the United States? How long will they last, in your view, and how much harm can they do to Russia?

Vladimir Putin: This question should be addressed to the EU and the United States, whose reasoning is hard to understand. Any unbiased person knows that it was not Russia who staged the coup d’état in Ukraine, which led to the grave internal political crisis and a split in society. An unconstitutional seizure of power was the starting point for the subsequent events, including the ones in Crimea. The people of Crimea, seeing the complexity and unpredictability of the situation and in order to protect their rights to their native language, culture and history, decided to hold a referendum in full compliance with the UN Charter, as a result of which the peninsula re-joined Russia.

Our partners should be well aware that attempts to put pressure on Russia with unilateral and illegitimate restrictive measures will not bring about a settlement, but rather impede the dialogue. How can we talk about de-escalation in Ukraine while the decisions on new sanctions are introduced almost simultaneously with the agreements on the peace process? If the main goal is to isolate our country, it’s an absurd and illusory goal. It is obviously impossible to achieve it, but the economic health of Europe and the world can be seriously undermined.

With regard to the duration of the restriction measures, it also depends on the United States and the European Union. For our part, we will adopt a balanced approach to assessing the risks and impact of the sanctions and respond to them proceeding from our national interests. It is obvious that the decline in mutual confidence is bound to have a negative impact on both the international business climate in general and on the operation of European and American companies in Russia, bearing in mind that such companies will find it difficult to recover from reputational damage. In addition, it will make other countries think carefully whether it is wise to invest their funds in the American banking system and increase their dependence on economic cooperation with the United States.

Politika:What do you think the future holds for Russian-Ukrainian relations? Will the United States and Russia re-establish a strategic partnership after all that has happened, or will they build their relations in a different way?

Vladimir Putin: As for Russia, its relations with Ukraine have always played and will continue to play a very important role. Our nations are inextricably linked by common spiritual, cultural and civilizational roots. We were part of a single state for centuries, and that huge historical experience and millions of intertwined fates cannot be dismissed or forgotten.

Despite the current difficult stage in Russian-Ukrainian relations, we are interested in progressive, equitable and mutually-beneficial cooperation with our Ukrainian partners. In practice, this will become possible after sustainable peace and stability are achieved in Ukraine. Therefore, we hope to see an end to the protracted deep political and economic crisis.

Today, there is a real opportunity to end the armed confrontation, which actually amounts to a civil war. The first steps in this direction have already been made. It is vital to start a real intra-Ukrainian dialogue as soon as possible involving representatives from all the regions and political forces. This approach was documented in the Geneva Statement of April 17. Such a nationwide dialogue must focus on Ukraine’s constitutional structure and the future of the country, where all the citizens with no exception will live comfortably and in safety.

As for Russian-US ties, our aim has always been to build open partnership relations with the United States. In return, however, we have seen various reservations and attempts to interfere in our domestic affairs.

Everything that has happened since the beginning of this year is even more disturbing. Washington actively supported the Maidan protests, and when its Kiev henchmen antagonized a large part of Ukraine through rabid nationalism and plunged the country into a civil war, it blamed Russia for provoking the crisis.

Now President Barack Obama in his speech at the UN General Assembly named the “Russian aggression in Europe” as one of the three major threats facing humanity today alongside with the deadly Ebola virus and the Islamic State. Together with the sanctions against entire sectors of our economy, this approach can be called nothing but hostile.

The United States went so far as to declare the suspension of our cooperation in space exploration and nuclear energy. They also suspended the activity of the Russia-US Bilateral Presidential Commission established in 2009, which comprised 21 working groups dedicated, among other things, to combating terrorism and drug trafficking.

At the same time, this is not the first downturn in relations between our countries. We hope that our partners will realize the futility of attempts to blackmail Russia and remember what consequences discord between major nuclear powers could bring for strategic stability. For our part, we are ready to develop constructive cooperation based on the principles of equality and genuine respect for each others' interests.

Read the full version of the interview

RT: We’re talking right after your speech at the UN General Assembly. Perhaps for the first in 10-15 years, many speakers criticized the UN: the Brazilian president spoke on this issue, the Venezuelan president spoke about it, and there have been many protesters outside the UN building in recent months. They say the UN needs to be reformed. Do you agree? Do you think the UN is an efficient institution today?

Sergey Lavrov: The UN cannot be more efficient than its member states because the UN is not some abstract notion; the UN is an international organization composed of governments, and it is these governments that define its agenda. All the Secretariat does is act on the instructions they receive from the governments. The UN has been changing and will certainly continue to change; the UN reform is an ongoing process. And this is not just because the people working on it have nothing else to do; no, we live at a time when the whole world is changing. New challenges come up all the time. Who knew this Ebola virus would come up, for example? And yet it is perhaps the top priority now. Something needs to be done to stop people from dying. We need to find some kind of cure.

The UN is being reformed in many different aspects. For example, the Peacebuilding Commission was set up a few years ago. It deals with the situations when a conflict enters the stage of settlement, and there is a need for reconstruction. Such situations are in between two jurisdictions: that of the Security Council dealing with war and peace matters, and that of the Economic and Social Council – dealing, naturally, with the matters reflected in its name.

There is also another lengthy process that is currently under way. It started in the early 2000s or even earlier. I am referring to the UN Security Council reform. The Security Council is criticized primarily for being unable to resolve certain specific conflicts. For example, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict hasn’t been resolved, and this is the longest conflict under the Security Council’s consideration. It has been going on for about 70 years, and no solution has been found so far that would be acceptable both to the Palestinians and the Israelis. So, people criticize the Security Council for that, even though it is the parties to this conflict who should come to the negotiating table and work out an agreement. The Security Council can’t invent anything for them. All the Security Council can do is encourage them, provide certain recommendations, appoint mediators, special envoys, etc., and the Security Council does all that with all the conflicts – be it the Western Sahara, which is another long-time conflict, or new conflicts like the ones we are witnessing today in Mali, in the Central African Republic, in Afghanistan. I repeat, the Security Council can’t solve all the problems for everybody.

Some people criticize the Security Council because in some situations it fails to sanction the use of force in order to defeat one of the parties to the conflict. But the UN can only be efficient if we focus on the key matter, and the key matter is this: if we are facing obvious common challenges like terrorism, the illegal drug industry, WMD proliferation, epidemics, or food security (which is another very serious challenge), we should focus on finding ways to deal with these challenges collectively. But instead, people sometimes use the Security Council for entirely different purposes: to make an appearance or to spite someone. For example, when the Syrian crisis broke out, Russia and China were first to propose a resolution that would urge both the government and the opposition to launch the political process of settlement, discussing what kind of nation they all would live in. Western countries categorically rejected the idea and said they would veto the resolution. So, we decided not to put it up for a vote because that would create a somewhat scandalous situation, you know, with a resolution backed by Russia and China being vetoed. This was not because we thought the approach we suggested was wrong; no, we just thought there was no point in starting this whole process if we know for sure that the resolution has zero chance of passing. We didn’t want to put our partners in a position where they would have to vote against it. But then our partners proposed their own draft, which put all the blame on the Syrian government and justified everything the armed opposition did. And they put it up for a vote, knowing perfectly well that Russia and China would veto it. So, you see, different countries have different concepts of partnership in the UN Security Council. I think our concept is more appropriate, more ethical, if you will. But unfortunately, we are not always able to persuade our partners that they shouldn’t use the Security Council to increase tension. On the contrary, the Security Council was set up for the purpose of working out compromises – primarily, between the five permanent members, each of whom has the right of veto.

Some people accuse the permanent members of abusing the veto right but these criticisms are misplaced, because when the UN was established, it took into account the negative experience of the League of Nations with its “one country, one vote” system. The United States, for example, did not join the League of Nations, because its opinion would not matter much under such an arrangement, and the League of Nations gradually sank into oblivion. And so when the UN was set up, it was decided that the resolutions of the Security Council must be approved by all the five permanent members unanimously. It’s a not a privilege, it’s a responsibility for maintaining peace and security. The authors of the UN Charter were wise enough to incorporate this requirement. They realized that consensus was vital to resolving issues in a collective and efficient way. We must put an end to the UN being exploited in someone’s narrow egoistic interests. We create this body and we bear the responsibility for its efficiency and we must work hard together on the issues where we share the same opinions. On the issues where our views are divergent we need to continue consultations seeking ways to align our positions as much as possible. But it doesn’t always happen that way. Some of our Western partners are tempted to use some of the world’s issues to make a biased statement tailored to their domestic audience. Some leaders are getting ready for re-election, some are vying for high-ranking positions within the EU. That’s life and there can be no perfect solutions but anyway we must be moving towards that goal.

Vesti: In one of the statements by the Russian Foreign Ministry, it claimed that the US often resorts to lies in its foreign policy. Now that you’ve been to the General Assembly and heard Barack Obama’s speech, does it re-affirm that view? Can you give us any examples from this forum and elsewhere?

SL: In their public statements on the Ukraine crisis, Washington relies on unconfirmed reports or spins facts on purpose. Once they claimed the footage showed a helicopter downed in Ukraine while in reality it happened in Syria. There were multiple cases when false data was used to back up a public statement or a call for action. We all remember how Colin Powell, the then US Secretary of State, displayed a vial with a white substance that he claimed was anthrax and that the Iraqi leadership was working on a program to illegally produce biological, chemical and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction. It later turned out Colin Powell had been actually framed by the CIA. Some use lies on purpose, some make statements based on unconfirmed online reports. This is very embarrassing.

Russia and the US have a solid channel of communication between me and John Kerry. Our discussions are straightforward on any issue – be it the Ukraine crisis or anything else. Sometimes I get a hope that our signal has been heard but unfortunately it’s not always followed up by action. We actively worked together during the active phase of the Ukraine crisis, it was in April, and the outcome of the efforts was the Geneva declaration signed by Ukraine, Russia, the US and the EU which outlined the key provisions for a settlement. It was agreed that Ukraine should immediately launch an inclusive dialogue involving all the political groups and regions to pursue a constitutional reform that would ensure the interests of all Ukrainians are respected. Ukraine signed up to it but the process didn’t start at that point. And it was only in September that together with the EU leaders we managed to persuade the Ukrainian authorities to sit down at the negotiating table with the militia forces. And since then we’ve seen some relative success. People may be still dying, but not as many as before, and the shelling became less intense. The disengagement process is underway, heavy weaponry is being withdrawn 15km away from the separation line, and the OSCE mission is going to monitor the ceasefire. The parties are now expected to engage in the talks on a political settlement. The Ukrainian parliament recently adopted a law on the self-government of those regions. This is a good example that diplomatic efforts can achieve success – despite the fact that there had been attempts to torpedo the talks as part of the so called Minsk process. These attempts were made by foreign stakeholders, including in the US. I don’t have the names but there were folks in Washington who encouraged Ukraine’s Prime Minister Yatsenyuk whose stance is different to that of President Poroshenko. Every time there’s a ray of hope he engages in arrogant rhetoric suggesting Ukraine should join NATO or that Russians are not to be trusted or that the West should push for more sanctions against Moscow. It’s strange to hear these comments from a prime minister who is supposed to be in charge of the economy. I remember the times when Arseny Yatsenyuk was Ukraine’s Foreign Minister and at that time he had completely different views. Something has happened to him. Or maybe it’s part of the internal squabbles ahead of the election. As you know, Yatsenyuk and Turchinov refused to cooperate with the Poroshenko-led party and set up their own People’s Front. Again, the goals of the election campaign are out of sync with the need for a settlement to the Ukraine crisis.

I very much hope that the US will finally see the light and realize that they can no longer act as the prosecutor, the judge, and the executioner in every part of the world and that they need to cooperate to resolve issues. As you can see, they began fighting terrorists only when their own citizens were beheaded and that footage was made public. We had warned them long ago that the US should not support those forces only because they are fighting Assad in Syria. So they declared this war on terror and their plans to defeat ISIS. And they had to build a broad coalition – they realize the mission required a political and military alliance. The proper way to do it would have been to put the issue up at the UN Security Council and to cooperate with the Syrian government which had long declared they were ready to cooperate with the international community in fighting terrorism. But the US picked a different path. This is wrong, and doesn’t add legitimacy to the process. Furthermore, unintended consequences could provoke an escalation of the situation. I still hope that the reality will teach all of us that there’s a strong need for collective action and that there’s no room for personal grievances. Grievances are okay if it’s a family issue or an issue between friends. There’s no room for petty grievances in politics when one country takes actions to spite the opponent. In doing so, they simply shoot themselves in the foot.

RT: Mr. Lavrov, you mention your personal relationship with Kerry and other Western partners. We’ve been hearing the term “Cold War” a lot recently – from them and especially from the Western media. Do you think we are really witnessing Cold War 2.0 today? And how would you describe your personal relationship with John Kerry and other Western colleagues in view of their tough rhetoric?

SL: Like I mentioned recently elsewhere, I was talking to one of my colleagues here in New York, and as we were discussing the opening part of the General Assembly and the speeches given by some of the Western leaders, he told me, “It seems like the Cold War never ended.” Perhaps he is right in a sense. Look how quickly NATO switched to confrontation over the Ukraine crisis and started hurling serious yet completely unfounded and biased accusations at us. They immediately terminated all of our cooperation programs, including the ones that served their interests. They did this so quickly and so brusquely that it becomes clear that NATO still has the Cold War mentality.

This is very sad because we had been building a relationship after the 2008 crisis in the Caucasus, when Georgia attacked, basically, its own citizens in South Ossetia, because even though it was a conflict zone, nobody questioned Georgia’s territorial integrity at the time. Yet Saakashvili gave the order to attack his own citizens. We had our peacekeepers there, and they came under fire, and some of them were killed. We went to the Russia-NATO Council and asked for an emergency meeting in order to discuss this situation. But the Americans told us, “No, there will be no Russia-NATO Council meeting, and we will even suspend the Council altogether for what you did in response to Saakashvili’s actions.” Then, after a few months, Western countries came back to us and said, “We made a mistake. We want the Russia-NATO Council to continue its operations under any circumstances, because otherwise we’ll have no channel for dialogue.” So, today they are making the same mistake again. Of course, they kept the political format at the level of ambassadors, but all practical cooperation has been suspended.

If a cold war starts today, I think it will be different. It will be primarily a media war. Of course, the Cold War we know used the media as well. But that was nothing compared to what you can do with the media today, with the Internet and all that comes with it. But in my contacts with John Kerry and with the foreign ministers of Germany, France and many other European countries, I can see that they don’t particularly enjoy the current situation but they simply can’t abandon the position they’ve taken, namely, that it’s all Russia’s fault, that it was Russia who brought about the Ukraine crisis.

The same thing happened three-and-a-half years ago, when the Syrian crisis broke out. The president of the US, France and other European countries said there could be no talks with Assad. I’m pretty sure they regret saying that today. They hoped everything would happen quickly, like in Egypt and Libya, but Syria turned out to be different. We always said the situation in Syria can’t be resolved unless we bring the government and all of the opposition forces to the negotiating table. In fact, this is what we all agreed on back in in June 2012, when we had a meeting on Syria in Geneva. The document says that there should be a “transitional governing mechanism” that has the support of both the government and all the opposition forces, representing the entire spectrum of the Syrian people. This is what the document said. But when we said, “Alright, let’s implement this, let’s call a conference,” they told us, “No, first Assad has to go.” So, you see, they even violate the agreements we have, which makes us wonder whether it is even possible to have any agreements with them at all.

There is a saying in Russian, words are not birds: once the word is out, you can’t take it back. Politicians usually don’t want to risk their reputation by taking back what they said on the spur of the moment. This shows that we should never jump to conclusions. You have to examine the situation before you say something.

With Ukraine, I think our Western partners realize today that they made a botch of their– first, when they refused to have trilateral talks between Russia, the EU and Ukraine on a solution that would enable Ukraine to align its ambitions to sign the Association Agreement with the EU and stay within the free trade zone of the CIS member states. Back in November Moscow made a proposal to that effect but the EU rejected it. They told us bluntly that their relationship with Ukraine is none of our business. Then on February 21, 2014 an agreement was signed between Yanukovich, Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, and Tyagnibok, and the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany also put their signatures. The first provision called for the establishment of a national unity government that would draft a new constitution that was expected to be adopted until September, with the presidential election to be held by the year’s end. It was clear as daylight that Yanukovich didn’t have any chance to win it. A day after that agreement had been signed, the radical forces stormed government buildings and announced a new government, a government of winners instead of a national unity government. They also demanded the abolition of laws giving Russian-speaking Ukrainians the right to speak their native tongue and granting the same right to other ethnic minorities. They attacked government and public buildings in other parts of Ukraine, including in Crimea.

We urged the parties to get back to the February 21 agreement, we addressed our Western partners, those who took part in drafting the document specifically. We were told that ship had sailed and the realities on the ground had drastically changed. But how deep should the realities change for the national unity to be completely removed from the domestic agenda? We continued to get this sort of ridiculous explanations, including when we pushed for the Geneva declaration to be implemented. We were told ‘it’s a great plan but look, there’s a new plan proposed by President Poroshenko’. Our partners have been clearly engaged in moving the goalposts, as they say, when the terms are changed time and again. It’s dishonest and utterly ineffective.

Finally, Ukraine has returned to the idea of a national dialogue. Right now it involves Kiev and just these two regions but I am certain Ukraine needs a comprehensive constitutional reform. Fortunately, the country is now moving towards a political settlement. Incidentally, the EU and President Poroshenko recently recognized our concerns and agreed to delay the implementation of certain provisions of the Association Agreement that affect the economic interests of Russia and other member states of the Free Trade Zone. The parties now have until the end of 2015 to work out the differences. Paradoxically, things have come back to where they were supposed to be – we now see the launch of a national dialogue and negotiations on our economic concerns. But it could have been done a year ago. Yanukovich made the same kind of argument. He never wanted to reject the pact with Europe altogether – instead, all he asked for was more time to review its impact on the economy. So we got back to where we started but at the cost of thousands of lives, considerable damage to the infrastructure, and a crisis that shook the whole of Europe.

Vesti: We often hear about a new cold war raging in the world at the moment, at least in the minds of many leaders who spoke at the UN General Assembly. But contrary to their statements you had dozens of bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the forum. Some view Russia’s visa free treaty with Honduras with irony but the reality is that we now need visas only to get to the US and Canada. Does it mean their claims that Russia is isolated do not hold water?

SL: We still have a visa regime with the EU.

Vesti: I referred to the countries in the Americas.

SL: There are still a number of Latin American countries that have not lifted the visa regime with Russia. It’s Mexico – and we agreed with its Foreign Minister to move towards this goal, Panama and some others. You don’t need any visa to travel to the rest of Latin America. As for Honduras, it’s a wonderful country, with responsible and experienced leaders, and we enjoy a great relationship. I would recommend Russians to take advantage of the treaty and spend some time in Honduras. It’s a very hospitable land.

I met with many counterparts and also with the leaders of a number of international organizations, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Arab League, and CELAC. We held a ministerial session of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS. The latter resulted in a substantive communique. We met with member states of the Southern African Development Community, a powerful body led by South Africa, Namibia, Angola, and Mozambique.

These meetings have been very productive. The world is seeing a growing number of new centers of gravity. Integration efforts in Africa and Latin America are picking up steam and offer a bright future. We have expanded our interaction and signed a cooperation memorandum with Mercosur, Latin America’s trading bloc and customs union. We are finalizing another memorandum that would grant Russia observer status in another body, the Central American Integration System.

So, in general I didn’t notice any evidence that Russia is isolated. To the contrary, there were even more people who wanted to contact me than before.

RT: When the MH17 flight crashed in Ukraine, the Western media rushed to blame Russia. How come that today, two months on, Russia appears to be the only country that is repeatedly calling for a full investigation into the tragedy, here at the UN and other international bodies, while the nations that lost their citizens in the crash are silent?

SL: It’s a mystery to me and a source of much concern and doubt. It’s not the first time that incidents in Ukraine are investigated not as fast or full as they should be. Take the deadly sniper shootings at Maidan which killed the Heavenly Hundred. There is evidence that it was actually a provocation by the Right Sector and Paruby, the commandant of the Maidan, who was seen with a sniper rifle. The chairman of the investigation committee resigned saying he didn’t manage to get the data from the current Kiev regime. There is no probe into the Odessa tragedy on May 2 when dozens were burned alive. There were reports that the authorities identified a suspect and maybe a second suspect, but the investigation has been frozen in its tracks. A similar tragedy took place in another Ukrainian city, Mariupol. There’ve been numerous cases. Just recently, mass graves were discovered near the city of Donetsk. There’s evidence that civilians were shot in cold blood.

Russia will demand that the real cause of all these incidents be established. We have repeatedly raised this issue with the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and the UN human rights agencies. They seem to be heeding our call and are ready to take action. But the Ukrainian authorities first need to ensure independence and transparency of the investigation.

The same goes for the situation with MH17. They say the experts sent by the Netherlands and Australia don’t have safe access. “Safe access” is the explanation provided by the Ukrainian authorities. Militiamen say, “You are welcome to come anytime, we will provide you with everything you need for your work.” Immediately after this disaster, the Security Council adopted a resolution on July 21, calling for an immediate independent international investigation. In other words, we were supposed to see something happening immediately, on July 21. The resolution demanded “immediate access.” Yet I remember very clearly that the Kiev authorities said they would provide access after they clear this area of terrorists and separatists – and this is after the Security Council adopted a binding resolution demanding immediate access! And it was only about ten days later, in the last days of July, that they declared a ceasefire so the experts could come.

So, those are the facts. There is an international commission headed by the Dutch Security Council. It includes ICAO experts, including some from Russia. But not all the experts have access to all the documents, unfortunately. And this is another question we regularly raise with our partners. The preliminary report presented by this commission says nothing of the steps that any expert investigating such a disaster must take. These things are like ABC. I won’t go into details but specialists know what I’m talking about. There is a certain procedure. But the experts who went to Ukraine did not collect all the debris, did not look for the objects that hit the plane. After our aviation experts read this report, they wrote a few pages with questions regarding this ongoing investigation – and that’s in addition to the 20 questions they wrote immediately after the disaster.

So, we will insist on completing this investigation.

Vesti: And the last question. On the same day the US president gave his speech, the New York Times carried a large piece saying that the US is currently upgrading numerous nuclear facilities and will spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over the next 30 years – and this despite the fact that Obama spoke about the need of disarmament at a Security Council meeting in 2009, and this was part of the reason why he received the Nobel Peace Prize. If this is not a cold war, is this a new arms race?

SL: Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize before he addressed the Security Council. I don’t think we are on the verge of a new arms race. At least, Russia definitely won’t be part of it. In our case, it’s just that the time has come for us to modernize our nuclear and conventional arsenals. We have a long-term armament program, which takes into account our economic situation and, of course, the need to have efficient and modern defensive capabilities to protect our national interest. It is not super-expensive, and besides, like I said, we haven’t been doing much in this regard for a number of years. The US nuclear arsenal is somewhat younger than ours but perhaps it is also time for them to upgrade it. I just hope that the US will abide by the provisions of the New START treaty, which are legally binding. It is fine to upgrade your stockpile, replacing old weapons with new ones, but there are certain restrictions on how many weapons you can have, and all these restrictions are still in place.

RT: Mr. Naryshkin, thank you very much for being here.

SergeyNaryshkin: Thank you for the invitation.

RT: The European Union recently put you on its blacklist. You are even banned from traveling to Europe. It is a pretty unique situation for the speaker of the Russian parliament to be blacklisted. Do you think this will make it difficult to you to work with your European counterparts in the future?

SN: The decision made by our European counterparts seems strange, or even absurd, to me as well, since Europeans have always prided themselves on their democratic tradition. This decision is absolutely at odds with it. Besides, if we look at the current crisis in Ukraine which triggered the sanctions in the first place, our partners keep saying that it's very important to hear what Russia has to say on this highly complex situation, which presents a threat to Europe. But then they go ahead and limit their own ability to maintain contact and dialogue with Russia, and specifically Russian MPs in our situation. However, I don’t think this is the end of the world; instead, we should convey our point of view to the European public and our colleagues, the MPs, through every possible means, including the media and the contacts we MPs, and I personally, have. Of course, even such sanctions and restrictions won't isolate Russia. You know, I recall that in his address at the West Point Military Academy, President Obama proudly reported that he had isolated Russia. But just a few weeks after that Moscow hosted a conference, the International Parliamentary Forum, attended by MPs, experts, researchers and NGO representatives from 71 countries. That's our response and our strategy: an extensive and open dialogue.

RT: Let’s go back a little. Why do you think Europe chose to take this path, the path of sanctions, in the first place? Was this a well-considered decision? Or was it just an impulsive response by Europeans to the Ukraine situation?

SN: I would like to think that it was an emotional response based on misunderstanding and misconception regarding the actual reasons behind the situation in Ukraine. We see, however, that to a large extent our European partners acted as advised or even instructed by Washington. As for economic sanctions, at times they look like a tool used for unfair competition – an unlawful tool that is not based on a court ruling and is not sanctioned by the UN. And as regards sanctions targeting individuals, I think the purpose is in part to limit our ability to express our views in order for Western Europe to remain unaware of Russia's arguments.

RT: So the purpose was to make sure Russia doesn’t have a voice?

SN: Yes, to limit Russia’s ability to voice its position.

RT: Let’s talk about European MPs now. What is the predominant sentiment among them today? Are they eager to impose more sanctions on Russia and push ahead with this policy? Or do they realize that the situation has gone too far and all they can do at the moment is back out? What’s the prevailing mood today?

SN: From the very beginning, sensible European MPs have been against sanctions. Perhaps there were not too many of them at the beginning, but as the sanctions policy spirals out of control more and more MPs and politicians in general start to question their effectiveness. They see with increasing clarity that it's their people who have to pay the price for this policy. Basically, while imposing sanctions on Russia, EU governments make their own businesses and their own people pick up the tab, make them pay for their political mistakes. I think it's becoming more and more obvious, so the sentiment of the political elite and the general public is shifting.

RT: Why did Russia choose the agricultural sector for retaliation?

SN: You have to realize that agriculture is crucial for national security – food security, specifically. And since our Western partners have compromised their own reputation as business partners, we can no longer rely on their produce. They are unreliable partners. So we had to do something. I would like to emphasize that the purpose of the measures taken by Russia is not to get back at our partners. We're simply trying to ensure our food security. And I think our response sobered up our Western partners because businesses in Western Europe are suffering substantial losses. Take France, for example. Experts estimate that France will lose about a billion euros this year alone.

RT: Considering that this comes immediately on the heels of the crisis, we’re talking about immense losses, of course. I’d like to ask you now about certain incidents we see happening from time to time. For example, the situation with the defense minister’s jet that happened over Poland the other day. Of course, the issue was resolved later, and they explained that it happened for technical reasons, because the flight plan, they said, was not filed properly. Anyway, do you think this was an isolated incident? Or is it a new trend to target Russian officials?

SN: I’m not familiar with all the details of what happened yesterday, but in any case this incident utterly perplexed me and probably everyone else. If our Polish counterparts decided to do this because of what's happening in Ukraine, these steps of the Polish government can in no way bring about the resolution of the bloody and deep-rooted Ukraine crisis, and it will certainly do no good for Russian-Polish bilateral relations. At the very least, I can say Poland will not sell more apples by acting this way.

RT: Certainly. In your recent letter to PACE president Anne Brasseur, you basically blame the EU for the Ukraine crisis. You wrote that it came as a result of the EU’s “clumsy” integration policy. Why did you call their policy “clumsy”?

SN: I did describe their policy as clumsy, because they’ve taken quite a few clumsy steps in the last few months, which are inconsistent with EU integration standards. This is not to mention the fact that the Ukraine crisis did not start this spring, when it evolved into an open conflict, a military, bloody conflict, a civil war. It all started much earlier, last fall and then last winter, when our Western European partners decided to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. Look how liberal the EU has been about its own procedure. It’s absolutely clear that they are guided by their current political goals instead of rules. They apply their procedure arbitrarily with different countries. I believe this goes against Europe’s democratic tradition. Look how quickly they signed the association agreement with a country where a full-scale civil war is raging, which already cost thousands of lives, a war involving heavy artillery, armor, multiple rocket launchers and air strikes. This war has created a million refugees. And yet the European Union set a speed record when processing an association agreement with such a country. Well, my congratulations to the European Union on this record; I say this with a heavy heart.

RT: You wrote in your letter that Europe’s future to a large extent depends on the peaceful resolution of the Ukraine crisis. Do you really think that the civil war in Ukraine can evolve into something bigger?

SN: This is really a big threat, and not just to Ukraine but to the whole of Europe. This conflict involves different political forces and different countries. I have to stress, though, that this is an internal conflict. The Kiev authorities are at war with their own people, or at least with a part of their people. So, it is primarily the Kiev authorities who are responsible for this conflict. We realize, though, that the Kiev authorities are not absolutely independent in their actions. They are not in charge; they are following other people’s orders. Neither Russia nor the European Union is a party to this conflict. Yet the international community, including Russia, European Union, United States, etc., has an important role to play in de-escalating this conflict and finding a solution to this crisis.

RT: The new Ukrainian government makes no secret of the fact that they want Ukraine to join NATO. Do you think this can help de-escalate the conflict?

SN: I don’t see how this can help deescalate the conflict. This issue may come up later; I guess it will, and there will be extensive talks on this issue, and Russia, naturally, will be part of this discussion because we can’t remain indifferent as NATO edges closer to our borders. But, like I said, this is something for the future; right now, it is not something we need to talk about and definitely not something that can help restore peace in Ukraine.

RT: Let's go back to the situation in PACE where Russia's voting rights were suspended after Crimea became part of Russia. Some people in Moscow say Russia doesn't need PACE membership and should withdraw from this organization altogether. How much do you think Russia needs PACE and vice versa?

SN: Russia has been a member of the Council of Europe and participated in its Parliamentary Assembly for many years. It hasn’t always been easy for our delegation there but our approach has been constructive. We value PACE as Europe’s widest parliamentary forum. So we need to think everything through before making a decision to withdraw from this organization. Yes, Russia is one of the top five donors to the Council of Europe, which includes PACE. Yes, the Russian delegation was stripped of a number of important rights in April. Still, we hope for mutual understanding, which is why I accepted the invitation from PACE President Anne Brasseur to attend a session of the PACE Presidential Committee, which will take place in early September in Paris. My colleagues and I are going to attend in hopes of finding common ground. We'll look each other in the eye, and we’ll see who will be the one to look away or even shut their eyes.

RT: Do you think this might mean Europe is seeking rapprochement with Russia? Or is it just wishful thinking?

SN: We have received this invitation from the PACE president. I know Anne Brasseur as a responsible and conscientious person. I know she realizes that her presidency in PACE came at a difficult time, and she is aware of her responsibility for the future of PACE.

RT: Yes, she has some tough choices to make. Now, to my last question. How long do you personally think this crisis between Russia and Europe will go on? Is it something that will last for a long time? Or is it something that can be resolved in a relatively short time? What do you personally think about that?

SN: Well, of course, I cannot predict how long this deep-rooted and bloody crisis will last, and it’s all relative anyway. How long is a long time? One thing that’s clear to all is that sooner or later this crisis will be over. Of course, it will take us years or even decades to learn the lessons of this crisis. I’m talking about all sorts of lessons – things that pose a threat to international law, democracy and human rights; the resurgence of Nazism we’re unfortunately witnessing today, and so on. These are all lessons we’ll have to learn.

RT: Thank you very much for coming, and good luck with your trip.

SN: Thank you, and thanks for having me.

The campaign is aimed at discrediting Russia and the US is ready to “exploit any means” in the information war, Antonov said.

Diplomatic tensions between Moscow and Washington have been growing as the bloody confrontation between Kiev forces and self-defense groups continues in east Ukraine. Adding fuel to the fire, the White House recently accused Russia of breaching the 1987 INF Treaty that bans the intermediate-range and shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Moscow slammed the allegations as unfounded adding that there were questions regarding the US’s fulfillment of the agreement.

READ ALSO: US accuses Russia of nuke treaty breach... but has it?

RT met with Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov to discuss the situation, NATO’s attempt to meddle in the INF Treaty dispute and the way the story was presented in the Western media – where Moscow’s position was sometimes misinterpreted.

RT: What’s your comment on these media reports?

AA: The INF Treaty is of unlimited duration. The treaty clearly provides for specific procedures to consider any non-compliance issues. In an earlier period, when the missiles that fall under the Treaty were destroyed in large quantities, a special commission was in place that convened on a regular basis.

Any non-compliance issues were supposed to be raised during the sessions of the commission. This procedure proved to be highly effective – despite the complexity of the goals set out by the Treaty, not a single matter remained unresolved. And complete elimination by Russia and the US of two classes of the most dangerous missiles is the best illustration of the point.

With this in mind, it’s only natural that we were very much surprised when our American counterparts ignored the dispute resolution procedures provided in the Treaty and chose to simply leak their ungrounded accusations to the press. Why draw NATO’s Secretary General into the issue? The alliance is not a party to the Treaty.

The answer is simple: a massive wave of US claims and allegations is part of the anti-Russian campaign unleashed by Washington in connection with the Ukraine crisis. And the US is ready to exploit any means to discredit Russia.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that amid a deterioration of US-Russian relations over the Ukraine crisis Washington is planning a new propaganda move that is supposed to cast a shadow on Russia. The White House wants to launch a new offensive in the information war, accuse Moscow of non-compliance with its international commitments and demonstrate so-called ‘Russia’s international isolation’.

If the US had other goals in mind, it would have relied on time-tested procedures set out in the INF Treaty as well as other formats of negotiations. I have never heard of a single case when disputes arising from an international treaty have been resolved via the mass media. This can only lead to yet another escalation and a complete stalemate.

RT: What has Russian-US dialogue on the INF treaty been like in the past couple of years?

AA: The commission has not convened since 2003. Instead, we’ve used other formats of negotiations to discuss its implementation.

The last time the INF Treaty was brought up was in late 2013. The issues on the agenda were the same as the ones that the US officials referred to recently. We have looked into the US concerns and the Russian side provided detailed explanations which seemed to have satisfied our American counterparts at the time, at least that’s what they told us. The points that we had laid out were deemed a definitive answer and, as far as we know, were presented by the Obama administration to the US Congress.

For its part, Russia laid out a list with its own concerns to the US that includes:

- the use of target missiles in development testing of missile defense systems whose performance is very much similar to the missile types banned by the INF Treaty;

- the use of combat drones;

- the MK 41 launching systems that are planned for deployment in Poland and Romania.

Some of the questions have remained unanswered because our partners need time to analyze them. It’s standard practice and we are ready to wait for a substantiated reply.

However, we were surprised that the annual report on international compliance with arms control agreements says that Russia never raised any concerns over Washington’s compliance with the INF Treaty in 2013. Such a statement is a distortion of the real state of affairs, at the very least.

RT: What role does the INF Treaty play in the legal framework of the global security system?

AA: The INF Treaty was, effectively, the first international agreement on nuclear disarmament. In line with the Treaty, the USSR and the US destroyed all missiles with a range from 500 to 5,500 km. The biggest benefit for the USSR was that the US removed its missiles from Europe that had the shortest silo-to-target flying time to Soviet sites. The elimination of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles significantly reduced the level of military confrontation, contributing to a calmer military and political situation in Europe and the world in general.

The positive outcome of the INF Treaty paved the way for further productive negotiations on arms reduction, and the experience was later used in the succeeding agreements on nuclear disarmament. First and foremost, this applies to START I.

RT: The decision to ratify the INF Treaty was reportedly regarded as a controversial one in the USSR. Is this true?

AA: Indeed, the decision to sign the INF Treaty raised some controversies back home. Some groups supported the treaty, but others pointed to what they thought were concessions on the part of the Soviet Union. They believed it was an act of betrayal of national security interests. The main reason for this was the fact that the USSR agreed to eliminate the state-of-the-art Oka missile (NATO designation SS-23 Spider) whose range was less than 500km. Also, the number of missiles to be eliminated by the US and the USSR was different.

Nevertheless, despite certain downsides, the INF Treaty clearly has an important historical significance.

RT: So what is Russia’s current stance on the Treaty?

AA: During his meeting with the defense industry leaders in 2013, President Putin admitted that Mikhail Gorbachev’s decision to sign the INF Treaty was ‘debatable, to say the least’, but added that Russia would abide by its provisions.

At the same time, it’s undeniable that the military and political situation in Europe and the world has changed drastically in the last 30 years.

First of all, the Warsaw Pact that ensured the parity in forces between the USSR and NATO ceased to exist.

Secondly, Russia doesn’t have the military capabilities that the USSR enjoyed during the Cold War.

Thirdly, in 1987 the only states that had intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles besides the USSR and the US were France and China. Today, the number of such countries is nearly 30, and most of them are in close proximity to Russia.

We can’t overlook the fact that the US and NATO are actively building a global missile defense system. Its European segment features anti-ballistic missiles launched from MK 41 launching systems that the US Navy usually uses for Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles.

For the US, almost nothing has changed in terms of national security since the INF Treaty came into effect. All the conflict zones in the world that the US had a hand in creating are located far from American borders.

RT: How did Russia try to handle challenges to its own security under the INF Treaty restrictions?

AA: We have voiced our concerns regarding the INF Treaty binding only two super-powers at different international platforms. We have urged all the countries of the world to use the potential of the Treaty to contribute to the disarmament process in a continuous and timely way. We underscored the importance of ridding the world of two types of deadly missiles.

In 2007, following a proposal by President Putin, Russia put forward a draft resolution to the UN to adjust the treaty to modern realities and make it open and universal by urging all the states in possession of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles to join. We believed that this would improve the security of all countries and bolster the international missile non-proliferation regime.

Unfortunately, the proposal didn’t find much support. NATO member states were indifferent, and the countries that had acquired intermediate- and shorter-range missiles in recent years don’t want to relinquish them, considering them a reliable means of deterrence. The US didn’t offer much assistance, either, and only issued a joint statement with Russia on the issue in 2007 at the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly.

RT: What’s to be done in this situation?

AA: We are willing to continue our dialogue with the US, including the issues regarding the INF Treaty. We expect Russia’s so-called ‘violations’ to be substantiated with hard data rather than ‘evidence from social media’ and blurry images made by commercial satellites that have no clear geographical references.

We also hope that our American counterparts will not use trumped up legal pretexts to avoid uncomfortable questions put forward by the Russian Federation.

Below is the full transcript of the statement by Vitaly Churkin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the UN Security Council Monthly Assessment Meeting on July 30, 2014.

Mr. President,

The work of the Security Council in July coincided with the escalation of several regional crises. Unfortunately, the Council has been unable to play the role the international community expects it to play. The operation in the Gaza Strip continues, resulting in a significant number of casualties among the Palestinians, and the shelling of Israeli territory continues as well. While the statement by the Security Council President on the situation in Gaza, adopted on July 28, was quite appropriate, it was insufficient and came too late. In such cases, the efficiency of the Security Council obviously depends on the so-called pen holders and delegations from the respective region showing initiative.

Israeli-Palestinian confrontation has been often known to flare up when unilateral US efforts to reconcile the two parties fail yet again. We have repeatedly emphasized that secretive negotiations have outlived their usefulness. There has long been the need to work out a more efficient instrument for conflict resolution. We expect more in-depth consultations to take place in September on the sidelines of the General Assembly session, including a detailed discussion of the Middle East conflict at the Quartet ministerial meeting. We also suggest holding an informal “brainstorming” session as early as August, which is to be attended by a high-ranking Washington official directly involved in the Middle East talks. At this session, we hope to talk about the current developments and explore the factors hampering the peace process.

Right now the primary goal certainly consists in achieving a sustainable ceasefire between Israel and the Gaza Strip at the earliest possible date.

Mr. President,

We were all shocked by the horrendous tragedy that occurred in Ukraine on July 17 and resulted in the deaths of 298 passengers of the Malaysia Airlines flight. The UN Security Council promptly adopted Resolution 2166 that stresses the need for a full, thorough and independent international investigation into the incident in accordance with international civil aviation guidelines, with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) playing its role.

The resolution contains an important provision, which was included at the behest of the Russian delegation. It calls for all military activities to be immediately ceased in the immediate area surrounding the crash site to allow for security and safety of the international investigation.

The Ukrainian president ordered a ceasefire within a radius of 40 km from the site of the tragedy. However, this promise was immediately broken and Ukrainian officials publicly announced their new goal – to ‘mop up’ and secure the area. Such actions directly violate UN Security Council Resolution 2166 and pose a great threat to conducting an objective and unbiased international investigation. We fear that the Kiev authorities seek to destroy the evidence exposing their involvement in the Malaysian airliner crash.

In this regard, the Russian delegation suggested that the Council should adopt a clear and simple press statement reiterating the call for ceasefire included in Resolution 2166. However, the proposal was unceremoniously blocked by some Security Council members, who are clearly not interested in full implementation of Resolution 2166.

We support today’s statement by the UN Secretary General who called for immediate cessation of hostilities around the crash site.

The Netherlands, Australia and Malaysia have dispatched large groups of their experts to Kiev and Donetsk to examine the crash site. Many of them have established working ties with the militiamen. For example, Australia’s special envoy Angus Houston pointed out the professionalism of the militiamen, their constructive position and willingness to assist the investigation.

Yet the investigators still haven’t reached the crash site.

Russia provides comprehensive assistance to the investigation. Based on its experience, Russia's federal air transport agency promptly came up with a list of questions that need to be clarified to reveal the full picture of the tragedy. Our experts got down to work as soon as they were invited to join by the Netherlands, which is playing the leading role in the international investigation. We handed over our monitoring data from the crash area to international organizations, including the UN and the OSCE. We hope other countries follow our example and take specific and constructive steps instead of spreading unsubstantiated accusations and insinuations.

Mr. President,

Earlier this month we saw a glimmer of hope that the vicious circle of violence in Ukraine can finally be broken. On July 2, the foreign ministers of Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine adopted the Berlin Declaration. President Poroshenko issued a remarkable statement:

“Most of those living in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions are hard-working and peace-loving people. They have had a chance to feel our empathy, love, and respect. The Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard and other services will never use force against civilians. They will never attack residential areas. Ukrainian soldiers and guardsmen will risk their own lives to keep women, children and the elderly out of harm’s way. The Ukrainian military have always been chivalrous.”

Sounds nice, doesn’t it?

However, in reality the Kiev authorities conduct their military campaign with outrageous atrocity. Donetsk, Lugansk, Gorlovka and many other cities suffered massive bombardment, including indiscriminate shelling with Grad rocket launchers and air strikes. The targets include civilian buildings, such as transport routes, utilities, hospitals and residential areas. Dozens of civilians have been killed in Gorlovka alone. In most of these cases, there were even no militiamen in sight. And what about the recent reports regarding the use of ballistic missiles by the Ukrainian army? Doesn’t this mean that the military conflict is spiraling out of control?

All this fully supports our assessment that the Kiev authorities are conducting a punitive operation against their own people.

Even the official estimate puts the death toll at over one thousand civilians, while unofficial reports claim it’s much higher. Just today, at least 19 people were killed. Refugees continue to arrive in Russia. More than 150,000 people have applied for temporary asylum, residence permit or Russian citizenship. The number of people crossing the border and staying in Russia runs into hundreds of thousands.

The shells fired by the Ukrainian military continue to hit Russian territory. On July 29, Russian customs officers at the Gukovo crossing once again became their target. Apparently, Kiev doesn’t want the OSCE observers monitoring the situation on the Russian-Ukrainian border to do their job. We demand that Kiev stop shelling Russian territory and undermining the security of the international observers.

We have repeatedly warned against any attempts to resolving the political crisis in Ukraine by means of force. We have called for a mutually respectful inclusive dialogue between all the major political forces, between Kiev and the regions. The priority now should be to end the hostilities and to establish a peaceful negotiation process on the basis of the Geneva Statement of April 17 and the Berlin Declaration of July 2.

Mr. President,

Among other issues, an important step of the international community in its fight against terrorism was the statement of the President of the Security Council adopted on July 28 as suggested by Russia, which condemned the illegal oil trade with terrorist groups operating in Syria and Iraq.

Successful implementation of Resolution 2165 of July 14 would hopefully lessen the suffering of civilians in Syria.

In their speeches at the meeting of the Security Council on July 17, Secretary Generals’ Special Representative Tarek Mitri and Libyan Foreign Minister Monamed Abdelaziz confirmed that the situation in the country has been degrading like a snowball. We cannot rule out the country’s possible breakup into warring territories. The extremists that have established communication channels with their cohorts across the Middle East and North Africa feel quite at ease in this country. The UN mission’s withdrawal and evacuation of a number of Western embassies’ staff are a strong example of the present escalation. Perhaps we should reconsider the nature and the mission of the UN presence in Libya.

We are still deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq. The current escalation is due to the external support rendered for the terrorists in Syria, even though the roots of this situation go back to the events of 2003. Now the Islamists are presenting a threat for the entire Middle East and beyond. Iraq alone should be in charge of forming its new system of government. This is the only way to ensure national accord in this country.

Mr. President,

We’d like to mention the meeting initiated by Rwanda on the issues of interaction between the UN and regional peacekeeping organizations on July 28. We support the intensification of this collaboration based on Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

In conclusion, we’d like to wish success to the UK delegation, which will hold presidency of the Council in August.

Thank you.

Questions to Ukraine regarding the investigation of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 crash

The following data shall be requested:

1. Video and audio recording of the air traffic control center communications.

2. Tape recordings of radio exchanges between the air traffic controller and adjacent air traffic control centers inter alia covering the entry into the Ukrainian airspace.

3. Recordings of radio exchanges and phone calls between the air traffic controllers and the military air traffic control sector or Ukraine Air Defense.

4. Tape recordings of radio exchanges between the air traffic controllers and aircrews of SIA351 (Singapore Airlines) and AIC113 (Air India).

5. Data from ground-based radar facilities (including primary surveillance radar) on the aircraft track starting from the entry into Ukrainian airspace.

6. Information on the composition and performance of Ukrainian ground radar facilities, including the Russian-type radar stations, “Dome” radar stations etc.

7. Information from the Ukraine Armed Forces on the Air Defense control of airspace in this region (if such control has indeed occurred), including recordings of radio exchanges between Air Defense sites.

8. Description of the radar situation, including the complete information on military aircraft flights in the area of the military conflict and impact area of the aircraft debris.

9. Information on the specific detachment of Ukrainian Armed Forces which was tracking aircraft on July 17, 2014 and its location.

10. Tape recordings of radio exchanges between military pilots and the military air traffic control sector and the military pilots themselves in the area of the military conflict and the impact area of the aircraft debris.

11. Data from military aircraft data recorders present in this area.

12. Information on the specific instructions from the Ukraine Aviation Administration to the air traffic control units of Ukraine with relation to the imposed restrictions on the airspace utilization in the area of Donetsk and Lugansk (issuance of NOTAM) as well as the implemented procedures for coordination between the aircrews and Ukraine Air Defense units.

13. Parameters from the specialized onboard systems maintaining accurate data on aircraft track based on GPS signal.

14. Information on possible interference with GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) performance on the day of the accident (the Federal Air Transport Agency of Russia had been previously informed by Russian airlines flying over Ukraine).

15.Information on the aircrew pre-flight briefing (including the availability of information on the valid NOTAMs, enplaned flight levels and possible deviations from the filed flight plan).

16. A copy of the flight plan filed by the Malaysian airliner.

17. Statistics on previous MH17 flights on this air route.

18.Information about the missile launches planned for the date of the air accident including placement of the respective forces and means.

19. Daily plan and objective control data of the flight operations executed by the Ukrainian air forces on July 17, 2014.

20.Data about actual existence and consumptions of the anti-aircraft guided missiles, all anti-aircraft missiles systems, which are in the armament of the Ukrainian military forces.

21. Information about all the launches of the guided missiles by the Ukrainian military (including training exercise) during the period of July 10-17, 2014.

22. Information about the activation of the radar centers in the period close the time of the air accident.

It is necessary to make the following actions:

23. To execute a layout of the aircraft construction elements. To make the visual examination in regard to the existence of striking elements.

24. To make the detailed visual examination of the air accident scene, including the existence of striking elements.

25. Inquire aircraft crews present in the area on the day of the accident on the possible interference with on-board and ground-based navigation aids.

26. Decipher DFDR data (digital flight data recorder), paying special attention to the performance of the navigational equipment and trajectory parameters.

27. Receive all the data on the crashed aircraft including all previous possible failures and deficiencies, opened MEL items (failure or deficiency of a certain piece of equipment form the minimal equipment list), especially with regards to the navigational equipment.

28. Interrogate the crew if the flight SIA 351 Copenhagen – Singapore on the subject of possible observation of Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 crash.

The text is published as prepared by the Federal Air Transport Agency.

“In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests,” Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said in an exclusive interview with Itar-Tass.

Read the full interview with President Vladimir Putin

“First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank's decision-making system. The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this,”Putin said.

In the modern world, the factor of common borders does not play a defining role; global processes encourage countries to join efforts as challenges and problems become shared, he said.

“Another long-term common interest of the association’s members is strengthening the rule of international law and the UN’s leading role in the international system,” the president added. “To be honest, without Russia’s and China's principled position on Syria in the Security Council the events in that country would have followed the Libyan and Iraqi scenario.”

It is clear that all the BRICS economies need serious infrastructure modernization, Putin said. “Our initiative to establish the Development Bank is aimed at expanding cooperation in this sphere.”

“Another important initiative that is underway is creating a BRICS pool of foreign currency reserves. It will become a safety net to help us form a joint response to economic challenges.”

Putin emphasized that both the Development Bank and the foreign currency reserves pool are practical steps for the BRICS countries, intended to strengthen international financial architecture and make it more balanced and just.

“It is in our common interest to use the complementarity of national economies to the maximum. Cooperation opportunities are great indeed. This is the market with almost three billion consumers. The BRICS countries have unique natural resources and a substantial technological, financial and industrial potential.”

Another important question that BRICS nations are going to raise at the summit is the increasing cases of unilateral sanctions.

“Recently Russia has been exposed to a sanction attack from the United States and its allies. We are grateful to our BRICS partners who have criticised such practices in different forms,” Putin said.

“Together we should think about a system of measures that would help prevent the harassment of countries that do not agree with some foreign policy decisions made by the United States and their allies, but would promote a civilised dialogue on all points at issue based on mutual respect.”

Cooperation in setting rules of responsible behavior in the global information space is another important issue, the Russian president said.

“Such rules must be based on the principles of respect for a country's sovereignty, non-interference in domestic affairs, observance of human rights and freedoms, as well as equal rights for all countries to participate in Internet management. I think our joint efforts will ensure that the BRICS countries hold a leading position in strengthening international information security.”

“We are planning to shape a joint information policy in the international arena to support BRICS’ activity and to present a more unbiased picture of the world.”

“I believe it is time to raise the BRICS' role to a new level and to make our association an unalienable part of the global management system for sustainable development.”

Question: Russian leaders do not visit Latin America as often as they visit other parts of the world. What do you think South America and Russia can offer to each other today, not only in terms of economic benefits, but speaking more broadly?

Vladimir Putin: Relationships between countries and, more importantly, between nations can hardly be evaluated by the quantity of top-level visits. Most important of all is the reciprocal benefit that our cooperation brings. This is the most solid foundation for Russia’s varied ties with the Latin American countries.

South or, if we speak more broadly, Latin America is a unique civilisation that is close to us in spirit and culture. Paintings by Mexican muralists and Argentine tango, the Peruvian song El Cóndor Pasa and poems by Pablo Neruda became the part of world heritage long ago. We are all inspired by the work of the great Colombian writer and philosopher Gabriel García Márquez, and we admire the work of the outstanding Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer.

Latin America is a rich source of natural resources – oil and bauxites, fresh water and food. The countries of this region share the interesting experience of creating a fairly stable model of democratic development and economic growth with a considerable social component.

The history of Latin America's fight for independence, for the right to decide its own fate deserves great respect. In our country, people know well of the legendary Bolívar and Martí, Che Guevara and Salvador Allende. The Blazing Continent is not only a description of a certain period in Latin America's past. It is a symbol of striving for a better life, prosperity, progress and social justice.

Today, cooperation with Latin American states is one of the key and very promising lines of Russia’s foreign policy. We are united by our devotion to the principles of versatility in world affairs, respect for international law, strengthening the central role of the UN, and ensuring sustainable development. All this makes us natural partners on the international arena and allows us to enhance interaction on a wide range of issues. We are grateful to South Americans for the support of our international initiatives, including outer space demilitarisation, strengthening international information security, and combating the glorification of Nazism.

For us it is essential that irrespective of which political power is currently in power in a particular country in the region, there remains a continuity reflecting vital national interests in the development of relations with Russia.

If we speak about economic side of our cooperation, we try to expand trade and economic interaction, above all its investment constituent. We are interested in building fully functional projects, industrial, technological alliances with the participation of the region’s countries, in using the potential of the complementary economies to the full extent, in cooperation on such relevant fields as oil and gas, hydro- and nuclear power engineering, airplane and helicopter construction, infrastructure, and recently – biopharmaceuticals and information technologies.

We will continue to provide Latin Americans with practical assistance in tackling new challenges, including training law enforcement professionals at the regional anti-drug training courses in Managua and Lima. We will expand cooperation during relief efforts following natural disasters.

We believe it is important to expand humanitarian ties, exchanges of students, young people and tourists, and contacts between people. The mutual easing of the visa regime within the zone of our countries will undoubtedly contribute to addressing this task. The visa-free zone covers practically all South American states and a number of Central American and Caribbean countries, and the number of the zone’s member countries will increase.

Question: What do you think of new integration platforms in Latin America, such as the CELAC, UNASUR and ALBA? What relations could Russia develop with these associations?

Vladimir Putin: We are interested in strong, economically stable and politically independent, united Latin America that is becoming an important part of the emerging polycentric world order. In this region, the traditions of love of freedom and respect for other nations and cultures are strong, and there are practically no serious intergovernmental conflicts or the wish to pursue the divide and rule policy. On the contrary, nations in the region are ready for joint action to protect their shared Latin American home.

Integration processes in Latin America reflect to a large extent the worldwide regional integration tendencies and indicate the pursuit of political consolidation in the region and reinforcement of its influence on global affairs.

I would like to highlight the role of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). It is meant as a union of all the countries on the continent, and its aim is to become a major forum for dealing with regional issues without the participation and obtrusive interference of external forces. We welcome the CELAC’s readiness to establish connections outside the region, including with Russia. Last year, Moscow saw the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of Russia and the CELAC's extended troika. Now it is important to define concrete areas of cooperation. We are ready for this work.

We think that establishing contacts between CELAC and the countries taking part in the Customs Union and Common Economic Space would open up many new opportunities. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are deepening the integration process. In May, we signed the Agreement on Establishing the Eurasian Economic Union, which will come into force on January 1, 2015. This will create one of the world’s biggest common markets with a population of almost 170 million and free movement of capital, goods, services, and labour. This market operates on the basis of universal principles and WTO norms and rules. This will make it a lot easier to do business in the Eurasian region and broaden opportunities for developing mutually advantageous business contacts with foreign partners.

We are open to substantive interaction with all integration formations in the Latin American region. That includes the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Common Market of the South (Mercosur), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the Pacific Alliance, the Central American Integration System (SICA) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

It is vital that all these associations, as they develop their external relations, should work towards the unity of Latin American countries, and not for their separation, both politically and ideologically. We hope that consolidation of multilateral cooperation will be an additional factor in the successful development of our bilateral relations with Latin American partners.

Cuba

Question: Russia and Cuba have a long tradition of bilateral relations and our countries seek to develop it in the spirit of strategic partnership. What is at the core of Russian-Cuban relations today? How do you see their future?

Vladimir Putin: At the heart of Russian-Cuban relations lies a long tradition of strong friendship, as well as rich – and in many ways unique – experience of fruitful cooperation. The Russian people have sincere affinity and respect for Cubans. I am convinced that these feelings are mutual.

Our bilateral trade slowed down somewhat in the 1990s and foreign partners from various countries gained a lead on us in a number of sectors. The Canadians, for example, offered Cuba promising joint projects in the mining sector, and the Europeans have been actively developing tourism. We are ready to make up this lost ground.

Today, Cuba is one of Russia's leading partners in the region. Our cooperation is strategic and long-term oriented. We closely coordinate our foreign policy, including within multilateral organisations. Our positions coincide on many global and regional issues.

The main objective of our bilateral agenda is to expand our economic relations on the basis of the intergovernmental Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation Programme for 2012–2020. We are working on some major projects in industry and high technologies, energy, civil aviation, the peaceful use of outer space, medicine and biopharmaceuticals.

Increasing humanitarian exchanges is one of the most important areas of our cooperation. Hosting Russian music and theatre performances and large-scale exhibitions has become a good tradition in Cuba. We will continue to develop youth and scientific contacts, as well as cooperation in education and tourism.

In short, we are optimistic about the future of Russian-Cuban relations. There are excellent prospects in virtually all key areas of bilateral cooperation.

Question: The level of trade and investment between Moscow and Havana is not as high as that of political and diplomatic relations. What steps could Russia suggest to increase Russian investments in Cuba and to substantially boost trade between the two countries? Are there any major projects in Cuba that are going to involve Russian companies?

Vladimir Putin: Russian-Cuban trade and investment relations have a great potential. In order to realise it effectively and on a regular basis we have established an Intergovernmental Commission. Its twelfth meeting is scheduled to be held in autumn 2014 in Havana. We have established close cooperation between our business organisations – the Russian-Cuban and Cuban-Russian Business Councils. Our businesses traditionally take an active part in the annual Havana International Trade Fair: in 2013, 50 Russian companies presented their products.

We believe there are real opportunities to bring our cooperation to a totally new level, including by implementing major joint projects.

In particular, in August 2013, Zarubezhneft started drilling the first development well in the Boca de Jaruco oilfield.

Our short-term prospects include the development of new oilfields in the Cuban offshore area. To these ends, Zarubezhneft and Rosneft engage in active cooperation with Cupet, Cuba’s state oil company.

INTER RAO is planning to join the construction of power units for the Maximo Gomez and East Havana TPP. The supply of Russian electric power equipment to Cuba is well underway.

A substantial number of Russian companies – specialising, in particular, in the production of reinforced plastic goods, auto spare parts, tractor assembly and installation of heavy equipment for the railway industry –have shown interest in closer cooperation due to the development of the Mariel special economic zone in Cuba.

The construction of a major transport hub is another large-scale project currently under development with Russia’s and Cuba’s involvement, as well as the possibility of attracting investment from third countries. It involves upgrading the port of Mariel and building a modern international airport with a cargo terminal in San Antonio de los Banos.

We attach great importance to high technology cooperation. In particular, active work is underway to create GLONASS ground infrastructure on the island, to provide Cuba with products, services and technologies in remote sensing and satellite telecommunications.

Russia wrote off 90 percent of the Cuban debt on loans granted in the Soviet times. This unprecedented step also testifies to the strategic nature of our bilateral relations. The total debt is huge, amounting to more than $35 billion. A relevant Intergovernmental Agreement was signed in October 2013 and now it is in its final stage of ratification. In addition, the remaining 10 percent, or $3.5 billion, will be spent by Cuba itself on significant investment projects, which Russia is going to select and negotiate together with the Cuban side. These projects are aimed at social and economic development of the Republic. We expect that these investments will prove fruitful.

Question: What are the prospects for the traditional ties between our countries in the humanitarian sphere, culture and tourism?

Vladimir Putin: We consider it our priority to develop ties in these areas. Tens of thousands of Cubans have studied in Russia. Annually, we give Cuban students the opportunity to study at Russian universities with the expenses covered by the state budget. One hundred scholarships were allocated to Cuba for the 2014 2015 academic year.

Joint theatre and music projects have always been very successful. A striking example is the triumph of the Anna Karenina production by the Vakhtangov Theatre last October in Havana. It was recognised by Cubans as the best foreign performance of 2013.

Russia takes an active part in the annual Havana International Book Fair, including the 23rd fair, which was held in February. We value this opportunity to present Russian classical and modern literature to Cuban readers.

We are very pleased that after a long break Cuba has re-joined the International Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature. A group of Russian language experts was established at the Cuban Linguistic Association, and specialised courses were launched at the Havana University.

The Orthodox Church in Havana represents an authentic monument to Russian-Cuban friendship. Its construction was initiated in 2008 by Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban Revolution.

A delegation of Cuban youth visited our country less than a month ago in the framework of the New Generation Programme of study tours to Russia for young representatives of political, civil, academic and business circles from around the world. Such trips have already been organised for two years. We hope that they will continue on a regular basis.

We consider tourism cooperation to be mutually beneficial and promising. Some 70,000 Russians visited Cuba last year. Currently, we are taking steps to increase the number of carriers offering direct flights between the two countries. Thus, we are going to ensure sustainable growth of tourist flow from Russia to Cuba.

Argentina

Question: What are the priority areas for developing relations between Russia and Argentina? What are your key expectations from the visit to this country? What goals do you need to achieve in order to call it a success?

Vladimir Putin: Russia and Argentina are bound together by more than a century-long history of close ties and strong mutual attraction. They say that there is some Russian blood in every sixth Argentinian. Many people from our country found their second home in Argentina. In 2015, we will celebrate the 130th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our nations.

Today, Argentina is one of Russia's key strategic partners in Latin America, the UN and the G20. Our approaches to the key issues in global politics are either similar or identical. We share the belief that there is a need to create a new and more equitable polycentric world order based on international law with the central and coordinating role of the UN. In May 2014, the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic signed a Joint Statement on Not Being the First to Place Arms in Outer Space, which is a good example of cooperation between our countries.

I appreciate our constructive and confidential dialogue with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. I view my visit to Buenos Aires as an opportunity to discuss the full range of pressing issues of the bilateral and international agenda, as well as to continue a fruitful exchange of views on ways to strengthen relations in various fields and to outline joint and mutually beneficial cooperation projects.

Question: The current level of trade between Russia and Argentina is relatively low. What steps do you consider necessary to make a breakthrough in economic relations between our two countries?

Vladimir Putin: In 2009, our countries signed an Action Plan for Strategic Partnership, which has been a basis for our fruitful cooperation over the last years. We have made significant progress on the goals outlined in it.

When dealing with numbers, it is important to compare the right things. Over the last decade, trade between Russia and Argentina has grown six-fold and reached a stable level of $1.8 billion, making Argentina one of Russia’s leading trade partners in Latin America.

Our cooperation is mutually advantageous. For example, we buy the necessary volumes of agricultural produce, which is in high demand in our country, while Russia-produced turbines account for a quarter of the total power generation in Argentina.

However, projects implemented by Russian and Argentinian businesses over the recent years in such areas as renewable energy, power generation, oil and gas, transport machinery and a number of others, have not yielded a substantial increase in bilateral trade. We have work to do in that area.

We are planning to pay particular attention to enhancing technology and investment cooperation, particularly in such areas as energy, peaceful nuclear energy and mechanical engineering. We also see good prospects for further collaboration in the Antarctic. I plan to discuss all these issues during the talks with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Question: In March, there was information that Argentina may become the sixth BRICS member. This idea was supported by three of the five member countries – India, Brazil and South Africa. What is Russia's attitude to it? Is the expansion of BRICS advisable? What are the criteria for other countries’ possible accession to BRICS?

Vladimir Putin: Russia welcomes the Argentinean authorities' intention to work more closely with BRICS. It is quite possible for BRICS to enter into strategic partnership with Argentina, as with other big developing countries, in both politics and the economy.

However, the expansion of BRICS is not being considered in practice at the moment. First, we should work out the numerous cooperation formats already created within of our union.

There are no strict criteria for other states’ accession to BRICS. Each case is considered individually.

On the whole, today, more and more countries see the potential of this association. That is why, in the future, the issue of gradually expanding BRICS is likely to be raised.

Brazil

Question:How do you assess the status and prospects of the strategic partnership between Russia and Brazil? What key issues and specific proposals are you planning to discuss in Brasilia?

Vladimir Putin: Our bilateral cooperation is of strategic importance, as Brazil is a responsible member of the international community whose political influence is steadily increasing; it is also the largest country in Latin America and one of the leading economies in the world.It is enough to mention its active participation in BRICS, the G20 and a number of Latin American regional organisations (CELAC, MERCOSUR, UNASUR).

We support Brazil as a deserving and strong candidate for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. I am sure that this powerful and fast-developing country is destined to play an important role in the emerging polycentric world order.

I want to emphasise that Brazil is one of Russia's key partners in Latin America. We have long-standing relations of friendship, mutual respect and trust. We are actively developing political dialogue, defence, scientific, technological and humanitarian cooperation, as well as economic and investment ties.

Over the last ten years, bilateral trade has grown almost three-fold and reached $5.5 billion in 2013. Our companies maintain close contacts through the Brazil-Russia Business Council. The citizens of our countries no longer need visas to travel. Dozens of Russia's best universities that joined Brazilian educational programme Science without Borders are ready to welcome students from Brazil. Cultural exchanges have become a regular practice.

During the visit, we want to discuss areas for further developing cooperation and to outline new joint projects in energy, investment, innovation, agriculture, science and technology. We plan to sign a large package of documents relating to a variety of industries, including between specialised agencies, public and private companies, and research and educational institutions.

Question: The current level of economic and trade relations between Russia and Brazil is far below the potential that has been proclaimed by the countries' leaders. What steps do you consider necessary to accelerate the realisation of this potential? What are the obstacles that slow us down and prevent us from taking bilateral trade to a completely new level?

Vladimir Putin: Indeed, despite the good results achieved, there is still an untapped potential in trade and economic cooperation with Brazil. Moreover, there was a decrease in bilateral trade (3.3% in 2013), caused by global economic instability. In order to address the situation we need to diversify our trade ties by increasing the share of high-tech products and engineering goods, as well as by developing cooperation in aviation, energy and agriculture.

Russian companies are interested in the Brazilian market. Our countries' businesses have launched a number of successful investment projects in energy, engineering and pharmaceutical industries. For example, Russia’s Rosneft and the Brazilian HRT oil and gas company are jointly exploring and producing hydrocarbons in the Solimões river basin. In the state of Santa Catarina, the Power Machines corporation is setting up production of hydro turbines of up to 100 MW for their subsequent delivery to the markets of Brazil and other MERCOSUR countries. BIOCAD is developing a research, education and training centre in Brazil, designed to produce modern innovative medicines for the treatment of cancer.

I am sure that such projects will help bring our bilateral trade and economic cooperation to a more mature level, which meets the current and future capabilities of our developing countries.

Question: Brazil will pass the baton of hosting a world football championship to Russia. Are you following the FIFA World Cup? Which part of Brazil's experience in preparing and hosting the event has attracted your attention and can be taken on board while organising the 2018 World Cup?

Vladimir Putin: I try to follow the World Cup as far as my work schedule allows. The Latin American countries’ teams have put on a display of football that has real flare and talent. Unfortunately, our team did not leave the group, but, in my opinion, they tried their best.

At the invitation of Brazil and FIFA Presidents, I am going to visit the final match of the Championship to attend the ceremony of passing the baton from Brazil to Russia. In 2018, Russia will host this most popular global sporting event for the first time in its history.

In February-March, we successfully hosted the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Sochi and know exactly what a challenge it is to organise such a huge event. We are analysing Brazil’s experience very carefully. Your country is yet to host the Olympic Games in 2016. Representatives of several ministries and organisations, including the Ministry of Sports and the Russia-2018 Organising Committee, are in constant contact with Brazilian colleagues. They have already visited Brazil and I am sure they will go there again more than once.

It is worth noting that Russia plans to take the FIFA World Cup a step further in some areas. For example, we passed a federal law establishing a special visa regime for foreigners who help organise the 2018 Championship, and enabling not only the official participants, such as the athletes, referees, coaches and others, but also the fans to visit Russia without visas right before and during the competition. The history of football championships has never seen anything like this before.

I am sure that the World Cup in Brazil will be a bright page in the history of football. I wish the Brazilian organisers every success in completing it. As for us, in 2018, we will do everything possible to give the world an unforgettable football celebration and show genuine Russian hospitality.

Question: How much attention will be paid during the talks in Latin America to the issues of the modern world order, which enables some players on the international arena to unilaterally claim significantly more extensive rights, including to spy even on those leaders that they call partners and to hack their phones?

Vladimir Putin: The 21st century world is globalised and interdependent. Therefore, no state or group of countries can unilaterally tackle major international problems and any attempts to build a separate “oasis of stability and security” are doomed to failure.

In order to meet numerous challenges and threats we have to stop trying to impose development models on other countries. This approach has repeatedly proven its ineffectiveness. It does not just fail to facilitate conflict resolution, but leads to instability and chaos in international affairs.

Today, it is especially important to consolidate the international community’s efforts to ensure equal and indivisible security, as well as to resolve disputes trough the application of international law and with the central coordinating role of the UN.

As for the facts of cyber espionage that you mentioned, it not only amounts to overt hypocrisy in relationships between allies and partners, but also a direct violation of the state's sovereignty, an infringement on human rights and an invasion of privacy. We are looking forward to jointly developing an international information security system.

Putin voiced his stance on many issues that have been in the center of international attention for the past months in an exclusive interview to Radio Europe 1 and TF1 TV at his Sochi residence. They included Russia’s stance on Ukraine’s sovereignty and the ongoing crisis, and on Crimea, its referendum and its historical ties to Russia. Putin also discussed the political tensions between Moscow and Washington, Syria and its recent presidential elections, Russia and its domestic policies.

Question: Good afternoon Mr President. Good afternoon, President Putin. Thank you very much for agreeing to give this exclusive interview to Radio Europe 1 and the TF1 TV channel at your Sochi residence. On Thursday evening you will meet with President Francois Hollande in the Elysee Palace, and the next day you will attend the D-Day 70th Anniversary Commemoration. This will be your first trip to the beaches of Normandy, and you will be the first Russian President to attend the ceremony. What do you as a Russian citizen think about being invited to this exceptional ceremony?

Vladimir Putin: This will be an important event for Europe and the rest of the world. We will pay tribute to those who prevented Nazism from enslaving Europe, and I believe that Russia’s attendance is a momentous event. The thing is that Russia and the anti-Hitler coalition countries, including France, were allies in that struggle for freedom, and my country played a vital and maybe even the decisive role in defeating Nazism. But we’ll never forget the French Resistance fighters and the French soldiers who fought side by side with us on the Soviet-German front, which is also called the Eastern front. I believe that this should not only remind us about our history, but also help to promote our relations now and in the future.

Q: Of course, you and Russia will take your rightful place on the beaches of Normandy. You lived in the Soviet Union until you were 40, you saw its collapse, and now you are actively contributing to Russia’s revival. What would you like to see happen now? What are your goals? Is Russia’s strategy a path of dialogue or expansion and conquest?

VP: Well, a policy of expansionism and conquest has no future in the modern world. We’re confident that Russia can and should be a partner with its traditional allies, in the broad sense, now and also in the future.

This is what we want, and this is what we will keep working towards. We see no other way to develop relations with our neighbours and all other countries.

Q: Do you want to defend the Russian nation or to become the symbol of Russian nationalism and the Russian Empire? We remember what you said about the Soviet Union’s dissolution. You said that it was the worst geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. You also said that those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet Union have no heart, and those who want to restore it have no brains. You have brains. What do you propose: Russian nationalism, or the restoration of the Russian Empire to its previous borders?

VP: We will not promote Russian nationalism, and we do not intend to revive the Russian Empire. What did I mean when I said that the Soviet Union’s collapse was one of the largest humanitarian – above all humanitarian – disasters of the 20th century? I meant that all the citizens of the Soviet Union lived in a union state irrespective of their ethnicity, and after its collapse 25 million Russians suddenly became foreign citizens. It was a huge humanitarian disaster. Not a political or ideological disaster, but a purely humanitarian upheaval. Families were divided; people lost their jobs and means of subsistence, and had no means to communicate with each other normally. This was the problem.

Q: And what about the future? Do you want to restore the empire within the former borders or do you want to continue developing your country within your own borders?

VP: We want to develop our country within our own borders, of course. But – and this is very important – like other countries in other parts of the world, we want to use modern policies to improve our competitive advantage, including economic integration. This is what we are doing in the post-Soviet space within the Customs Union and now also within the Eurasian Union.

Q: Mr Putin, we are now talking about why a neighbouring country, Ukraine, is being torn apart by war. There is no other word for it. Now pro-Russian forces want to breach Ukraine’s borders. Who can stop them and what is your policy?

VP: I wouldn’t call them either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian. They are people who have certain rights, political, humanitarian rights, and they must have a chance to exercise those rights.

For example, in Ukraine governors are still appointed by Kiev. After the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev last February, the first thing the new authorities tried to do was deprive the ethnic minorities of the right to use their native language. This caused great concern among the people living in eastern Ukraine.

Q: You did not let this happen but are you saying that we are on the verge of another Cold War?

VP: I hope we are not on the verge of any war. Second, I insist that people – wherever they live – have their rights and they must be able to fight for them. That’s the point.

Q: Is there any risk of a war? Now, as we see tanks on their way from Kiev, many people in France are asking this question. Were you tempted to send troops to eastern Ukraine?

VP: This is an interview, which implies short questions and short answers. But if you have patience and give me a minute, I will tell you how we see it. Here’s our position. What actually happened there? There was a conflict and that conflict arose because the former Ukrainian president refused to sign an association agreement with the EU. Russia had a certain stance on this issue. We believed it was indeed unreasonable to sign that agreement because it would have a grave impact on the economy, including the Russian economy. We have 390 economic agreements with Ukraine and Ukraine is a member of the free trade zone within the CIS. And we wouldn’t be able to continue this economic relationship with Ukraine as a member of the free trade zone. We discussed this with our European partners. Instead of continuing the debates by legitimate and diplomatic means, our European friends and our friends from the United States supported the anti-constitutional armed coup. This is what happened. We did not cause this crisis to happen. We were against this course of events but after the anti-constitutional coup – let’s face it, after all…

Q: But now we see so much tension in politics. Yet despite this, you will be in Normandy speaking about peace while Barack Obama keeps urging Europe to arm itself.

VP: Well, we must always talk about peace but we should understand the causes and nature of the crisis. The point is no one should be brought to power through an armed anti-constitutional coup, and this is especially true of the post-Soviet space where government institutions are not fully mature. When it happened some people accepted this regime and were happy about it while other people, say, in eastern and southern Ukraine just won’t accept it. And it is vital to talk with those people who didn’t accept this change of power instead of sending tanks there, as you said yourself, instead of firing missiles at civilians from the air and bombing non-military targets.

Q: But, Mr President, the United States and the White House claim they have evidence that Russia intervened in the conflict, sent its troops and supplied weapons. They claim they have proof. Do you believe that?

VP: Proof? Why don’t they show it? The entire world remembers the US Secretary of State demonstrating the evidence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, waving around some test tube with washing powder in the UN Security Council. Eventually, the US troops invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was hanged and later it turned out there had never been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You know, it’s one thing to say things and another to actually have evidence. I will tell you again:no Russian troops…

Q: Are you saying the US is lying?

VP: There are no armed forces, no Russian ‘instructors’ in southeastern Ukraine. And there never were any.

Q: So you do not want to annex Ukraine and you never tried to destabilise the situation there?

VP: We never did that. The Ukrainian government must now sit down and talk with their own people instead of using weapons, tanks, planes and helicopters. They must start the negotiating process.

Q: The new Ukrainian president was elected on May 25 through a democratic vote. Do you recognise Mr Poroshenko as a legitimate president?

VP: I’ve already told you and will say it again: we will respect the choice of the Ukrainian people and we will cooperate with Ukrainian authorities.

Q: In other words, if you meet him on 6 June on the beaches of Normandy, and if President Hollande helps to make this meeting possible, will you shake hands with him? Will you talk with him?

VP: You know, I don’t plan to evade anyone. President Hollande kindly invited me as the representative of Russia to attend this commemoration, even though the event it will commemorate was tragic. I was pleased to accept his invitation, and I’m grateful to the President for inviting me. There will be other guests, and I’m not going to avoid any of them. I will talk with all of them.

Q: But will you meet with Poroshenko? You said you would only work with him on the condition that he would not totally yield to US influence.

VP: I didn’t say that he shouldn’t yield to US influence. He is free to accept any influence he wants. Ukrainians voted for him, and he is free to develop a policy. If he chooses to accept anyone’s strong influence, let him. But I wouldn’t…

Q: Do you recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty and its neutral stance with respect to relations between Russia and the West?

VP: Yes, we recognize its sovereignty. Moreover, we’d like Ukraine to act as a sovereign state. Joining any military bloc or any other rigid integration alliance amounts to a partial loss of sovereignty. But if a country opts for this and wants to cede part of its sovereignty, it’s free to do so. Regarding Ukraine and military blocs, this is what worries us, because if Ukraine joins, say, NATO, NATO’s infrastructure will move directly towards the Russian border, which cannot leave us indifferent.

Q: Mr President, Russian troops annexed Crimea recently. Will you ever give it back?

VP: It’s a delusion that Russian troops annexed Crimea. Russian troops did nothing of the kind. Frankly...

Q: But Crimea has been included on the map of Russia, the kind of maps we used in school. It’s part of Russia now. What was it, annexation or reunification? Which word should we use?

VP: If you’ll let me finish, I think you’ll see what I mean.

Russian troops were in Crimea under the international treaty on the deployment of the Russian military base. It’s true that Russian troops helped Crimeans hold a referendum on their (a) independence and (b) desire to join the Russian Federation. No one can prevent these people from exercising a right that is stipulated in Article 1 of the UN Charter, the right of nations to self-determination.

Q: In other words, you will not return Crimea [to Ukraine]?Crimea is Russia, is that it?

VP: In accordance with the expression of the will of people who live there, Crimea is part of the Russian Federation and its constituent entity.

I want everyone to understand this clearly. We conducted an exclusively diplomatic and peaceful dialogue – I want to stress this – with our partners in Europe and the United States. In response to our attempts to hold such a dialogue and to negotiate an acceptable solution, they supported the anti-constitutional state coup in Ukraine, and following that we could not be sure that Ukraine would not become part of the North Atlantic military bloc. In that situation, we could not allow a historical part of the Russian territory with a predominantly ethnic Russian population to be incorporated into an international military alliance, especially because Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia. I am sorry, but we couldn’t act differently.

Q: So, Francois Hollande has invited you to France, to Paris and Normandy. You know him very well. Can you move further forward, and can you describe your relations as confidential?

VP: Yes, I think so.

Q: Do you think so, or are you sure?

VP: I’ve always thought so. I see no reasons to think otherwise. We have very good interstate relations, but we have much to do yet to promote our economic ties.

But our personal relations have always been trust-based, which helps in work as well. I hope it will stay this way.

Q: You are talking about trust-based relations – both in defense and the economy. You have paid over a billion euros for two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, and Russian naval officials are to visit Saint-Nazaire in a few days. Have you given them special permission to go to France?

VP: I believe we are living in a civilized world and we will all continue to fulfill our obligations and contractual commitments. I’ve heard a lot of talk about these ships going to Russia and some people believe that Russia shouldn’t get them. You know, here in Russia we had a lot of opposition to this contract. France is entitled to decide against selling the ships, but in that case we should get out money back. This would mean that out countries won’t have an opportunity to develop ties in the defense sector – but overall we are ready to expand our cooperation and even to place new orders, if our French partners are interested.

Q: Despite external pressure, you have asked France to supply these assault ships – and if France does it you may place other orders as well, right?

VP: We expect our French partners to fulfill their contractual obligations, and if everything goes as we agreed, we will not rule out the possibility of further orders – and not necessarily in naval shipbuilding; they may concern other sectors as well. Overall, our relations in this area are developing well, and we would like to continue strengthening them – in aviation, shipbuilding, and other sectors. We have successful cooperation experience in space exploration, at the Guiana Space Centre near Kourou.

Q: Do you think France is a sovereign and independent state whose opinion is respected? What do you think of Germany? You speak with Angela Merkel in both Russian and German, while François Hollande doesn’t speak Russian and you don’t speak French. Do you have a common language of communication?

VP: The fact that I don’t speak French and Mr Hollande doesn’t speak Russian is not a barrier for us. It does not prevent us from speaking a common language, and we understand each other well even via an interpreter.

Speaking of the level of sovereignty, I will say it again – any country that becomes a member of a military alliance gives away some of its sovereignty to a supranational body. For Russia, this would be unacceptable. As for other countries, it has nothing to do with us. They have to decide such matters for themselves. In this regard, I think of the Gaullist tradition and General Charles de Gaulle, who protected France’s sovereignty. I think this deserves respect. And there’s another example: François Mitterrand, who spoke of European confederation, with Russia as its member. I think this opportunity still exists and we will have it in the future.

Q: My next question concerns the United States. You will meet with Barack Obama in a few days, you will sit a few metres away from him. But he doesn’t seem to be willing to speak to you. What will this meeting be like and how will relations develop between the world’s richest country and its largest country? How can you avoid speaking to each other when there’s a real need for this since the war is not too far off?

VP: Well, you’re exaggerating about the war being not far off. You seem to be feeling aggressive. Whatever gave you this idea, and why are you determined to frighten us all? As for...

Q: Because Ukraine is near Russia.

VP: So what?

Q: And this is where the war is going on. When he mentioned the war, he said it is not far off.

VP: There is a punitive operation launched by Kiev’s government against the country’s own citizens. It is not a war between states, it is something entirely different. As for...

Q: Do you think it should be stopped immediately?

VP: I think Mr Poroshenko, who has no blood on his hands so far, has a unique chance to halt this punitive operation now and start a dialogue with people in southeastern Ukraine.

As for my relations with Barack Obama, I have no reason whatsoever to believe he is not willing to talk to the President of Russia. But ultimately, it is his choice. I am always ready for dialogue, and I think that dialogue is the best way to bridge any gaps. We have been in contact until now, we have talked on the telephone regularly.

Q: Russia and the United States are experiencing some problems. Are these problems between two powers or between two people, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin?

VP: Problems between countries always exist, especially between such big countries as Russia and the United States. There have always been some issues, but I don’t think we should go to extremes. At any rate, it wouldn’t be our choice. I’m always willing to talk to any of my partners, including President Obama.

Q: So you are willing to talk and you regret what is happening? But don’t you think the United States is trying to surround Russia, to make you weaker as a leader and perhaps isolate you from the world? You are being very diplomatic now but you know the facts.

VP: Facts? You’ve said it yourself: Russia is the biggest country in the world. It would be very difficult to surround it, and the world is changing so fast that it would basically be impossible, even in theory.

Of course, we can see attempts by the United States to pressure their allies by employing their obvious leadership in the Western community, in order to influence Russia’s policy.

Russia’s policy is based solely on its national interests. Of course, we take the opinions of our partners into account but we are guided by the interests of the Russian people.

Q: Mr President, it is very convenient that you are meeting with Mr Obama on June 6. Perhaps, it would be worse if you were meeting with Hillary Clinton. Only a few days ago, she said that what Russia is doing in Eastern Europe resembles what Hitler was doing in the 1930s.

VP: It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements. Still, we always met afterwards and had cordial conversations at various international events. I think even in this case we could reach an agreement. When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.

Q: Women must be respected, of course, and I’m sure you respect them. Do you think she went too far? There is a lot of mockery and cartoons in the media – including those showing you. What was your first reaction? Were you angry? Did you want to get back at her or laugh? We have never seen you laugh.

VP: Someday I will indulge myself and we will laugh together at some good joke. But when I hear such extreme statements, to me it only means that they don’t have any valid arguments. Speaking of US policy, it’s clear that the United States is pursuing the most aggressive and toughest policy to defend their own interests – at least, this is how the American leaders see it – and they do it persistently.

There are basically no Russian troops abroad while US troops are everywhere. There are US military bases everywhere around the world and they are always involved in the fates of other countries even though they are thousands of kilometres away from US borders. So it is ironic that our US partners accuse us of breaching some of these rules.

Q: But you have taken some decisions regarding your defense budget. Are you as President taking any special decisions on security and defense now, because the general environment is more risky?

VP: Regarding the defense budget. I’d like to say, for reference’ sake, because only the analysts know this, that the defence budget of the United States, which we talked about only yesterday, is larger than the combined military budgets of every country in the world – every country – combined. So who’s pursuing an aggressive policy?

As for our [defense] budget, it has hardly grown in terms of percent of GDP, barely by one-tenth of a percent. But we want to rearm our army and navy based on modern, advanced technology, by reducing quantity and improving quality. We have a relevant rearmament programme, and it was not adopted yesterday or in response to the Ukrainian crisis. It has been our policy, which we will continue to implement.

Q: Mr President, Syrian leader Bashar Assad has been re-elected president without much effort. Can you influence him? Can you ask him to order his army to stop its atrocities, to stop fighting their own people?

VP: All sides are guilty of atrocities there, but primarily the extremist organizations that are thriving in Syria. We are mostly worried about…

Q: Religious, Islamic [organizations]…

VP: …those organizations that are directly connected with Al Qaeda. There are many of them there, which no one tries to deny any longer. It’s a general fact. But we are mostly worried that the wrong action could turn Syria into another Afghanistan, a completely uncontrollable spawning ground for the terrorist threat, including for European countries. All the terrorists who are operating there now would eventually move to other countries, including in Europe.

Q: We don’t quite understand why you, Vladimir Putin, the man who wants to modernize Russia, support a person who is killing his own people, who is covered in their blood. How can this be?

VP: I’ll explain very simply and clearly, and I hope that the majority of the French people who are watching and listening to this interview will understand me. We very much fear that Syria will fall apart like Sudan. We very much fear that Syria will follow in the footsteps of Iraq or Afghanistan. This is why we would like the legal authority to remain in power in Syria, so that Russia can cooperate with Syria and with ours partners in Europe and the United States to consider possible methods to change Syrian society, to modernize the regime and make it more viable and humane.

Q: I’d like to ask you about your country, Russia. How would you describe its current political regime? Some describe it as a democracy, while others argue that Russia is so huge that it needs an iron hand. How does Vladimir Putin define the Putin regime?

VP: The current regime is not connected to any particular person, including the incumbent President. We have common democratic state institutions, although they reflect Russia’s needs. What are they? The overwhelming majority of Russian citizens tend to rely on their traditions, their history and, if I may say so, their traditional values. I see this as the foundation and a factor of stability in the Russian state, but none of this is associated with the President as an individual. Moreover, it should be remembered that we only started introducing standard democratic institutions recently. They are still in the process of evolving.

Q: Can a person stand in opposition to the authorities in Russia without fear of losing his ties and reputation, without being punished?

VP: We have many opposition parties, and we have recently liberalized the procedure for registering political parties. We have dozens of parties that participate in municipal and regional elections.

Q: But is it possible to be a personal opponent of Vladimir Putin without exposing oneself to risks?

VP: If you listen to some of our radio stations and watch some TV shows, I assure you, you are unlikely to find anything similar to this kind of opposition in France.

Q: There have always been periods of strict order and authoritarian power in Russia. But in the age of the Internet, can a country develop by restricting freedoms?

VP: It is impossible and we are not restricting the Internet. We have certain… You know, whatever we do, someone tries to find something that goes against democratic principles, including the Internet. Are there any restrictions in Russia? I don’t believe so. Some of our opponents say there are unacceptable restrictions. What kind of restrictions do we have? For example, we have banned the promotion of suicide, drugs and pedophilia. These are our restrictions. What’s wrong with that?

Q: And homosexuality. It is not pedophilia, it’s a different story.

VP: That’s not true, we did not ban homosexuality. We banned the promotion of homosexuality among minors. You see, these are two different things. In the United States, since we talked about it, homosexuality is illegal in some states. We impose no criminal liability whatsoever. We banned only promoting homosexuality among minors. It is our right to protect our children and we will do it.

Q: We would like to talk about the end of your term in 2018. We would like to talk about labor camps. We find such things surprising in the West. For example, Pussy Riot were sentenced to a term in labor camps, and it wasn’t just an ordinary prison. Will you close those camps by the end of your term?

VP: These are not camps. These are places where the inmates’ freedom is limited but they can live a more or less normal life. These are not prisons where people are not allowed to work.

Prisons where people can’t even work is the worst punishment you can think of. And I don’t think we should put all convicts in such facilities where people are deprived of their freedom. I think it is much worse than what you are describing.

Q: Who convinced you that you are carrying out a special mission for Russia?

VP: Why do you think that I believe I’m carrying out a special mission? I have the trust of my voters. Over 63% of Russian citizens voted for me. I believe I hold a national mandate to carry out domestic and foreign policy, and I will fulfill my obligations under this mandate.

Q: Do you have a role model in the Russian history? Are you guided by Soviet or Russian politics?

VP: I have great love and respect for Russian history and culture. But the world is changing and Russia is too. Russia is part of the modern world, not the world of the past but the modern world. And I believe it has an even greater future than some other countries that can’t take care of their young people, of the new generations, of their children, and believe that they can just let things slide.

Q: And the last question, Mr President. In 2013, Forbes rated you as the most powerful person in the world. Were you flattered by this title?

VP: You know, I’m an adult and I know what power means in the modern world. In the modern world, power is mainly defined by such factors as the economy, defense and cultural influence. I believe that in terms of defense, Russia is without any doubt one of the leaders because we are a nuclear power and our nuclear weapons are perhaps the best in the world.

With regard to cultural influence, we are proud of the Russian culture – literature, the arts and so on.

As for the economy, we are aware that we still have a lot to do before we reach the top. Although lately, we have made major strides forward and are now the fifth largest economy in the world. It is a success but we can do more.

Q: We don’t know yet how Vladimir Putin’s era will go down in history. What would you like to be remembered for? And would you like to be seen as a democrat or an authoritarian leader?

VP: I would like to be remembered as a person who did his best for the happiness and prosperity of his country and his people.

Q: Thank you very much. Have a good trip to France, Mr President. Good-bye.

VP: Thank you.

To Her Excellency M-me Anne Brasseur,

President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

On the day you receive this letter I plan to publish it in the media. This is the first time I have done such a thing, but am forced to act this way in order to be heard.

This speaks volumes in itself. It tells us the media hysteria in Europe has reached a peak, and we have no more confidence in the formal means for exchanging opinions (nor in PACE debating procedures). As President of an assembly that is supposed to elicit truth by discussion, I’m sure you cannot but feel concerned about it. I am certain you wouldn’t want to go down in history as someone whose presidency saw PACE cease to exist as a representative body. And I doubt the present PACE members crave Herostratic fame as they undermine the efforts of the millions of Europeans who spent two decades forging a better future for our continent. It is obvious to me that their motives are sincere, and there is still some hope for them.

Yet now is a moment of truth for all the people of Europe. I hope you take it for a fact that both Russia and Ukraine are European nations. But by now, it has also been established as a fact that it wasn’t Russia, but an ill-administered “EU integration” that has triggered mass human rights violations in Ukraine, and sparked unprecedented civil unrest in that country. It was the inept integration policies that have helped propel in Ukraine’s offices of power individuals who openly call for Nazism and segregation. I refuse to believe that you can consider those people “democrats,” or regard the Molotov cocktails dispatched across many of Ukraine’s regions as an indispensable part of EU integration.

We don’t like this kind of integration. Neither do we like the crude anti-Russian campaign imposed from the outside, which the Russian delegation members have tried to convey to the Assembly. But their opinion was ignored, and you joined the side of those who hid their heads in the sand avoiding the truth and chose not to hear our arguments. However, it surprised me just as much that you didn’t support the European parliamentary system when so-called sanctions were imposed on the chosen representatives of an entire nation.

Moreover, having silenced thirty Russian MPs at once, PACE not only fulfilled the ‘requirements on sanctions’, but exceeded them. In doing so, it punished itself, rejecting the opportunity to have at least one alternative point of view in the discussion of the complex Ukrainian problem. As Gogol put it [in his play The Government Inspector], “the sergeant’s wife flogged herself.”

As the Duma Chairman, I find one other thing strange. It’s well-known that no democratic parliament ignores the violations of journalists’ rights. Freedom of speech, veracity of information, providing journalists with access to war zones were always one of the criteria of a government’s democratic or antidemocratic nature. They were used in PACE on numerous occasions, by the way, to throw mud at Russia during the North Caucasus conflict.

I don’t believe you are unaware of that and I don’t believe you are unaware of the blatant violations of journalists’ rights in Ukraine and the ban imposed on Russian media workers trying to enter the country. Tell me, why is such a burning issue swept under the carpet in PACE and the lying anti-Russian propaganda is spread in the European media instead? Who is being intimidated and for what purpose? Surely not to create new confrontation zones?

You have to be not only deaf (which the Assembly has successfully been doing), but also absolutely blind not to see the similarities between the Kiev ‘Euromaidan’ and the destructive events that took place on the squares of Arab countries during the notorious Arab Spring. I assume you know that ‘maidan’ is Arabic for ‘square’. How many European squares, do you think, can be chosen as testing areas for ideological diversions by external forces? Or do you not consider Kiev a European city?

I strongly urge you not to generate tension right on the EU borders. It’s a dangerous game, especially if you use only the convenient facts and disinformation. Instead, you should have brought the nationalists in Kiev to heel and demanded Maidan be cleared of bandits back in January and February. In March, you should have spent less time with the new Kiev authorities, and more in south-eastern Ukraine to study the situation thoroughly and meet the people, not to mention personally attend the referendum in Crimea.

I am sorry you didn’t want to see the people’s joy and happiness for yourself, both when whole families came to the polling stations and when the results were announced. I’m convinced that if you and other members of PACE had been there, the PACE resolution on the subject wouldn’t characterize the outcome as “implausible”. The truth cannot be bent, it’s either there or it’s not. There’s no third option.

And lastly, you can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that the Ukrainian authorities allow Nazi followers to openly march in the streets. The explosives and guns that the protesters started using in Maidan are now pretty much common in Ukraine. The country’s economy is ravaged, and the number of robberies and other crimes is steadily growing. I’m afraid that by now not only individuals, but whole families stock up on arms for self-defense. And the only reason for that is because the current Ukrainian authorities are unable to maintain law and order and protect civilians. I think you understand very well what this might lead to, just like you understand who was really responsible for murdering and burning alive the people in Odessa. The Ukrainians themselves started calling this heinous neo-Nazi crime ‘the Odessa Khatyn’. Will you really look the other way now, when the entire world is shocked by this tragedy? I believe urgent inter-parliamentary consultations on the Ukrainian problem are needed, with Russia as one of the participants. I am very sorry that these terrible events unfold during your presidency. I realize you’re having a difficult time right now, but PACE and the Council of Europe should safeguard human rights and help protect people’s lives and interests.

***

Of course, I would like to tell you a great deal more. My letter is addressed not only to you but to all the honest members of the Assembly. However, you personally have considerable power and political experience and you know how important the President’s position is in terms of ensuring a comprehensive dialogue. I’m convinced that even with the mistakes already made there’s still a chance to restore peace in Ukraine. We can’t pass it up. But I will say this again: it will be impossible to achieve without Russia.

Dear Madame President, restoring trust is of vital importance to all of us. We need to listen to each other, no matter how difficult a task that might seem. So again, I urge all of our PACE colleagues to listen to the voice of reason. We, as parliament members, can’t cross the line and cause irreversible consequences for the future of the entire Europe, and maybe even the entire world.

And so I ask you and all the Assembly members who really want to resolve the Ukrainian crisis not to make any more mistakes. I hope that the Russian delegation’s rights in PACE will be fully restored. After such a decision is made, I am willing to personally attend a PACE session and address its members.

Sergey Naryshkin,
Chairman of the State Duma
of the Federal Assembly
of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President,

We understand the motives of many delegations who supported or co-sponsored today the draft resolution referring the Syrian file to the ICC. We share their emotions caused by the crisis in Syria, which has been dragging on for way too long. It is hard to see the destruction, loss of life and suffering of people.

It is more difficult to figure out the motives of France which initiated this draft and put it to vote, being fully aware in advance of the fate it will meet. One can hear many complaints about the lack of unity on Syria within the Security Council, among P5. Indeed, when that unity is present we manage to achieve concrete positive results. Among them is undoubtedly the Security Council Resolution 2118 on the destruction of the Syrian chemical stockpile – that program is about to be successfully completed. Another important benchmark was the Security Council Resolution 2139 on humanitarian issues. P5 unity is important. After all, it is for a reason that France has been pushing for P5’s engagement in the political settlement of the crisis, having failed however to advance any positive substantive ideas.

Then why deal such a blow to P5 unity at this stage? Is it just to try once again to create a pretext for armed intervention in the Syrian conflict?

One could not overlook that the head of the French diplomacy saw it fit to take advantage of his recent visit to Washington to publicly criticize the United States for refusing to shower missiles and bombs on Syria last fall.

It should be pointed out that this damage to P5 unity is inflicted at a critical point in the efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

An involuntary hiatus created by the resignation of Lakhdar Brahimi should be used for an in-depth, fair and collective analysis of the situation, for seeking out any possible reserves with the view to break the vicious circle of violence. Useful food for thought in this regard is contained in the “political testament” left by Lakhdar Brahimi to the Security Council on May 13.

This is exactly what the draft Security Council resolution tabled by Russia aims at – to foster the process of “local truces”. The draft is not to the liking of our western colleagues who claim that the settlements already achieved do not care standards. One cannot but recall a Russian saying: A bad peace is better than a good quarrel.

And what are our Western colleagues proposing instead? Talk good for naïve people that they will be supplying new types of weapons to “good” opposition groups only? Their list of the “good guys” now includes the “Islamic Front”, which has openly confessed to a series of brutal terrorist acts, including a recent one in Aleppo that claimed the lives of dozens of civilians. I would note that our western colleagues are demanding that cross-border humanitarian deliveries to Syria be conducted through border-crossings controlled by the Islamic Front. At the same time, they have blocked for a long time any condemnation by the Security Council of numerous terrorist acts committed in Syria.

It is pursuing the regime change by force in Syria at all costs that precipitated the drawing out of the crisis and undermines the Geneva negotiations. It is indicative that Ahmad Jarba, leader of the National Coalition, did not make the effort to show up during the Geneva negotiations and instead travels the world in search of weapons. And Ahmad Al-Khateeb, his predecessor, was removed from office just for attempting to launch talks with Damascus to stop the bloodshed.

In this context it leaps into the eye that there is not a single word on the political settlement and the negotiations process among Syrians in the communiqué of the latest May 15 meeting of the so-called “London 11”. And the western “troika” was taking great pains to dissuade the Secretary General and his Special Envoy from calling another round of Geneva negotiations.

What justice can one talk about when the overriding policy aims at escalating the conflict? The draft resolution rejected today reveals an attempt to use the ICC to further inflame the political passions and lay the groundwork for eventual outside military intervention.

It should be noted that the so-called “Caesar Report” used to build up tension ahead of the introduction of this draft was based on unconfirmed information obtained from unverifiable sources and therefore cannot serve as a platform for taking such a serious decision.

One cannot ignore the fact that the last time the Security Council referred a case to the ICC – the Libyan file by its Resolution 1970 – it did not help to resolve the crisis, but instead added fuel to the flames of conflict. And after the cessation of hostilities the ICC – to put it mildly – did not rise to the occasion. The ICC does not contribute to a return to normalcy or justice in Libya, evading the most burning issues. The death of civilians as a result of NATO bombardments was somehow left outside its scope. Our colleagues from NATO countries arrogantly refused to address this issue alltogether. They even refused to apologize. And they wax eloquent about shame! They advocate fighting impunity, but are themselves practicing the policy of all-permissiveness.

The United States frequently shows the path towards the ICC to these or those, but it is reluctant to accede to the Rome Statute itself. And in today’s draft the United States insisted on an exemption for itself and its citizens.
Great Britain is a party to the ICC, but it is for some reason unenthusiastic about the exploration that began there of the issue of crimes committed by the British nationals during the Iraq war.

If the United States and the United Kingdom were to refer their Iraqi file to the ICC together, the world would see that they are truly against impunity.

Mr. President, we proceed from the premise that the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2012 remains at the core of efforts to settle the Syrian crisis. The Communiqué interprets the principle of accountability and national reconciliation as interrelated, leaving the leading role in this process to the Syrians themselves,

We are convinced that justice in Syria will eventually prevail. Those culpable of perpetrating grave crimes will be punished. But in order for this to happen, peace is needed first and foremost. Russia will continue to exert every effort to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible. We call upon our Western colleagues to abandon their futile dead-end policy of endlessly heating up the Syrian crisis. We invite everyone who really values the interests of the Syrian people to join us in the efforts aimed at a Syrian political settlement.

To state as the Permanent Representative of France has done today – that the political process does not exist any longer – is simply irresponsible. This is truly – betrayal of the Syrian people.

Dear Colleagues,

In early April we suggested immediate consultations in order to work out a coordinated approach to stabilize the Ukrainian economy and ensure stable deliveries and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with contractual terms.

Over a month has passed. Consultations with the representatives of a number of non-EU countries have taken place in Moscow, in which our partners told us they completely shared our concerns over the situation with Ukrainian payments for gas deliveries from the Russian Federation, and risks arising from insufficient amounts of gas being kept in Ukrainian underground storage.

As regards EU countries, we have only had one meeting in Warsaw with a delegation led by European Commissioner for Energy Günther Oettinger, attended also by Ukrainian representative Yuri Prodan. Unfortunately, we have to say that we have not received any specific proposals from our partners about how to correct the situation with the Ukrainian buying company, so that it can meet its contractual obligations and ensure reliable transit.

Moreover, the situation with payments for Russian gas has only worsened over this period of time. Gazprom has not received a single payment for gas supplied to Ukraine, and the total debt has grown from $2.237 billion to $3.508 billion.

And this despite the fact that Ukraine is in receipt of the first tranche of the IMF loan, a sum totaling $3.2 billion.
Given the circumstances, the Russian company has issued an advance invoice for gas deliveries to Ukraine, which is completely in accordance with the contract, and after June 1 gas deliveries will be limited to the amount prepaid by the Ukrainian company.

I would like to emphasize once again that we were forced to make this decision. The Russian Federation is still open to continue consultations and work together with European countries in order to normalize the situation. We also hope that the European Commission will engage in the dialogue more actively in order to work out specific and fair solutions that will help steady the Ukrainian economy.

Full text of the letter published by Kremlin.ru:

Ukraine’s economy in the past several months has been plummeting. Its industrial and construction sectors have also been declining sharply. Its budget deficit is mounting. The condition of its currency system is becoming more and more deplorable. The negative trade balance is accompanied by the flight of capital from the country. Ukraine’s economy is steadfastly heading towards a default, a halt in production and skyrocketing unemployment.

Russia and the EU member states are Ukraine’s major trading partners. Proceeding from this, at the Russia-EU Summit at the end of January, we came to an agreement with our European partners to hold consultations on the subject of developing Ukraine’s economy, bearing in mind the interests of Ukraine and our countries while forming integration alliances with Ukraine’s participation. However, all attempts on Russia’s part to begin real consultations failed to produce any results.

Instead of consultations, we hear appeals to lower contractual prices on Russian natural gas – prices which are allegedly of a “political” nature. One gets the impression that the European partners want to unilaterally blame Russia for the consequences of Ukraine’s economic crisis.

Right from day one of Ukraine’s existence as an independent state, Russia has supported the stability of the Ukrainian economy by supplying it with natural gas at cut-rate prices. In January 2009, with the participation of the then-premier Yulia Tymoshenko, a purchase-and-sale contract on supplying natural gas for the period of 2009-2019 was signed. That contract regulated questions concerning the delivery of and payment for the product, and it also provided guarantees for its uninterrupted transit through the territory of Ukraine. What is more, Russia has been fulfilling the contract according to the letter and spirit of the document. Incidentally, Ukrainian Minister of Fuel and Energy at that time was Yury Prodan, who today holds a similar post in Kiev’s government.

The total volume of natural gas delivered to Ukraine as was stipulated in that contract during the period of 2009-2014 (first quarter) stands at 147.2 billion cubic meters. Here, I would like to emphasize that the price formula that had been set down in the contract had NOT been altered since that moment. And Ukraine, right up till August 2013, made regular payments for the natural gas in accordance with that formula.

However, the fact that after signing that contract, Russia granted Ukraine a whole string of unprecedented privileges and discounts on the price of natural gas is quite another matter. This applies to the discount stemming from the 2010 Kharkov Agreement, which was provided as advance payment for the future lease payments for the presence of the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet after 2017. This also refers to discounts on the prices for natural gas purchased by Ukraine’s chemical companies. This also concerns the discount granted in December 2013 for the duration of three months due to the critical state of Ukraine’s economy. Beginning with 2009, the sum total of these discounts stands at 17 billion US dollars. To this, we should add another 18.4 billion US dollars incurred by the Ukrainian side as a minimal take-or-pay fine.

In this manner, during the past four years Russia has been subsidizing Ukraine’s economy by offering slashed natural gas prices worth 35.4 billion US dollars. In addition, in December 2013, Russia granted Ukraine a loan of 3 billion US dollars. These very significant sums were directed towards maintaining the stability and creditability of the Ukrainian economy and preservation of jobs. No other country provided such support except Russia.

What about the European partners? Instead of offering Ukraine real support, there is talk about a declaration of intent. There are only promises that are not backed up by any real actions. The European Union is using Ukraine’s economy as a source of raw foodstuffs, metal and mineral resources, and at the same time, as a market for selling its highly-processed ready-made commodities (machine engineering and chemicals), thereby creating a deficit in Ukraine’s trade balance amounting to more than 10 billion US dollars. This comes to almost two-thirds of Ukraine’s overall deficit for 2013.

To a large extent, the crisis in Ukraine’s economy has been precipitated by the unbalanced trade with the EU member states, and this, in turn has had a sharply negative impact on Ukraine’s fulfillment of its contractual obligations to pay for deliveries of natural gas supplied by Russia. Gazprom has no intentions except for those stipulated in the 2009 contract, nor does it plan to set any additional conditions. This also concerns the contractual price for natural gas, which is calculated in strict accordance with the agreed formula. However, Russia cannot and should not unilaterally bear the burden of supporting Ukraine’s economy by way of providing discounts and forgiving debts, and in fact, using these subsidies to cover Ukraine’s deficit in its trade with the EU member states.

The debt of NAK Naftogaz Ukraine for delivered gas has been growing monthly this year. In November-December 2013 this debt stood at 1.451,5 billion US dollars; in February 2014 it increased by a further 260.3 million and in March by another 526.1 million US dollars. Here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that in March there was still a discount price applied, i.e., 268.5 US dollars per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. And even at that price, Ukraine did not pay a single dollar.

In such conditions, in accordance with Articles 5.15, 5.8 and 5.3 of the contract, Gazprom is compelled to switch over to advance payment for gas deliveries, and in the event of further violation of the conditions of payment, will completely or partially cease gas deliveries. In other words, only the volume of natural gas will be delivered to Ukraine as was paid for one month in advance of delivery.

Undoubtedly, this is an extreme measure. We fully realize that this increases the risk of siphoning off natural gas passing through Ukraine’s territory and heading to European consumers. We also realize that this may make it difficult for Ukraine to accumulate sufficient gas reserves for use in the autumn and winter period. In order to guarantee uninterrupted transit, it will be necessary, in the nearest future, to supply 11.5 billion cubic meters of gas that will be pumped into Ukraine’s underground storage facilities, and this will require a payment of about 5 billion US dollars.

However, the fact that our European partners have unilaterally withdrawn from the concerted efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and even from holding consultations with the Russian side, leaves Russia no alternative.

There can be only one way out of the situation that has developed. We believe it is vital to hold, without delay, consultations at the level of ministers of economics, finances and energy in order to work out concerted actions to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and to ensure delivery and transit of Russian natural gas in accordance with the terms and conditions set down in the contract. We must lose no time in beginning to coordinate concrete steps. It is towards this end that we appeal to our European partners.

It goes without saying that Russia is prepared to participate in the effort to stabilize and restore Ukraine’s economy. However, not in a unilateral way, but on equal conditions with our European partners. It is also essential to take into account the actual investments, contributions and expenditures that Russia has shouldered by itself alone for such a long time in supporting Ukraine. As we see it, only such an approach would be fair and balanced, and only such an approach can lead to success.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon. Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!

Dear friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.

More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.

To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour.

Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.

Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.

True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.

Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.

We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a city of union subordination. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.

Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis. Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us. (Applause)

Today we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was practically at a standstill. Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.

We accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights in line with the norms of international law.

However, this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20 years.

I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence. Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.

Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement. True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.

Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that?

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

I will state clearly - if the Crimean local self-defence units had not taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so? The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.

Other thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.

Colleagues,

Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolutionof bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20thcentury, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.

There was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.

A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.

We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues; we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.

On the contrary, they have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact.This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: “Well, this does not concern you.” That’s easy to say.

It happened with the deployment of a missile defence system. In spite of all our apprehensions, the project is working and moving forward. It happened with the endless foot-dragging in the talks on visa issues, promises of fair competition and free access to global markets.

Today, we are being threatened with sanctions, but we already experiencemany limitations, ones that are quite significant for us, our economy and our nation. For example, still during the times of the Cold War, the US and subsequently other nations restricted a large list of technologies and equipment from being sold to the USSR, creating the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls list. Today, they have formally been eliminated, but only formally; and in reality, many limitations are still in effect.

In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a cornerbecause we have an independent position, because we maintain it and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our western partners have crossed the line, playing the bear and acting irresponsibly and unprofessionally.

After all, they were fully aware that there are millions of Russians living in Ukraine and in Crimea. They must have really lacked political instinct and common sense not to foresee all the consequences of their actions. Russia found itself in a position it could not retreat from. If you compress the spring all the way to its limit, it will snap back hard. You must always remember this.

Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the cold war and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs; like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.

At the same time, we are grateful to all those who understood our actions in Crimea; we are grateful to the people of China, whose leaders have always consideredthe situation in Ukraine and Crimea taking into account the full historical and political context, and greatly appreciate India’s reserve and objectivity.

Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value? Please understand us.

I believe that the Europeans, first and foremost, the Germans, will also understand me. Let me remind you that in the course of political consultations on the unification of East and West Germany, at the expert, though very high level, some nations that were then and are now Germany’s allies did not support the idea of unification. Our nation, however, unequivocally supported the sincere, unstoppable desire of the Germans for national unity. I am confident that you have not forgotten this, and I expect that the citizens of Germany will also support the aspiration of the Russians, of historical Russia, to restore unity.

I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings. We have always respected the territorial integrity of the Ukrainian state, incidentally, unlike those who sacrificed Ukraine’s unity for their political ambitions. They flaunt slogans about Ukraine’s greatness, but they are the ones who did everything to divide the nation. Today’s civil standoff is entirely on their conscience. I want you to hear me, my dear friends. Do not believe those who want you to fear Russia, shouting that other regions will follow Crimea. We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

I repeat, just as it has been for centuries, it will be a home to all the peoples living there. What it will never be and do is follow in Bandera’s footsteps!

Crimea is our common historical legacy and a very important factor in regional stability. And this strategic territory should be part of a strong and stable sovereignty, which today can only be Russian. Otherwise, dear friends (I am addressing both Ukraine and Russia), you and we – the Russians and the Ukrainians – could lose Crimea completely, and that could happen in the near historical perspective. Please think about it.

Let me note too that we have already heard declarations from Kiev about Ukraine soon joining NATO. What would this have meant for Crimea and Sevastopol in the future? It would have meant that NATO’s navy would be right there in this city of Russia’s military glory, and this would create not an illusory but a perfectly real threat to the whole of southern Russia. These are things that could have become reality were it not for the choice the Crimean people made, and I want to say thank you to them for this.

But let me say too that we are not opposed to cooperation with NATO, for this is certainly not the case. For all the internal processes within the organisation, NATO remains a military alliance, and we are against having a military alliance making itself at home right in our backyard or in our historic territory. I simply cannot imagine that we would travel to Sevastopol to visit NATO sailors. Of course, most of them are wonderful guys, but it would be better to have them come and visit us, be our guests, rather than the other way round.

Let me say quite frankly that it pains our hearts to see what is happening in Ukraine at the moment, see the people’s suffering and their uncertainty about how to get through today and what awaits them tomorrow. Our concerns are understandable because we are not simply close neighbours but, as I have said many times already, we are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.

Let me say one other thing too. Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means. But it should be above all in Ukraine’s own interest to ensure that these people’s rights and interests are fully protected. This is the guarantee of Ukraine’s state stability and territorial integrity.

We want to be friends with Ukraine and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country. Ukraine is one of our biggest partners after all. We have many joint projects and I believe in their success no matter what the current difficulties. Most importantly, we want peace and harmony to reign in Ukraine, and we are ready to work together with other countries to do everything possible to facilitate and support this. But as I said, only Ukraine’s own people can put their own house in order.

Residents of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, the whole of Russia admired your courage, dignity and bravery. It was you who decided Crimea’s future. We were closer than ever over these days, supporting each other. These were sincere feelings of solidarity. It is at historic turning points such as these that a nation demonstrates its maturity and strength of spirit. The Russian people showed this maturity and strength through their united support for their compatriots.

Russia’s foreign policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our country’s main political and public forces. I want to thank everyone for this patriotic spirit, everyone without exception. Now, we need to continue and maintain this kind of consolidation so as to resolve the tasks our country faces on its road ahead.

Obviously, we will encounter external opposition, but this is a decision that we need to make for ourselves. Are we ready to consistently defend our national interests, or will we forever give in, retreat to who knows where? Some Western politicians are already threatening us with not just sanctions but also the prospect of increasingly serious problems on the domestic front. I would like to know what it is they have in mind exactly: action by a fifth column, this disparate bunch of ‘national traitors’, or are they hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent? We consider such statements irresponsible and clearly aggressive in tone, and we will respond to them accordingly. At the same time, we will never seek confrontation with our partners, whether in the East or the West, but on the contrary, will do everything we can to build civilised and good-neighbourly relations as one is supposed to in the modern world.

Colleagues,

I understand the people of Crimea, who put the question in the clearest possible terms in the referendum: should Crimea be with Ukraine or with Russia? We can be sure in saying that the authorities in Crimea and Sevastopol, the legislative authorities, when they formulated the question, set aside group and political interests and made the people’s fundamental interests alone the cornerstone of their work. The particular historic, population, political and economic circumstances of Crimea would have made any other proposed option only temporary and fragile and would have inevitably led to further worsening of the situation there, which would have had disastrous effects on people’s lives. The people of Crimea thus decided to put the question in firm and uncompromising form, with no grey areas. The referendum was fair and transparent, and the people of Crimea clearly and convincingly expressed their will and stated that they want to be with Russia.

Russia will also have to make a difficult decision now, taking into account the various domestic and external considerations. What do people here in Russia think? Here, like in any democratic country, people have different points of view, but I want to make the point that the absolute majority of our people clearly do support what is happening.

The most recent public opinion surveys conducted here in Russia show that 95 percent of people think that Russia should protect the interests of Russians and members of other ethnic groups living in Crimea – 95 percent of our citizens. More than 83 percent think that Russia should do this even if it will complicate our relations with some other countries. A total of 86 percent of our people see Crimea as still being Russian territory and part of our country’s lands. And one particularly important figure, which corresponds exactly with the result in Crimea’s referendum: almost 92 percent of our people support Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

Thus we see that the overwhelming majority of people in Crimea and the absolute majority of the Russian Federation’s people support the reunification of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol with Russia.

Now this is a matter for Russia’s own political decision, and any decision here can be based only on the people’s will, because the people is the ultimate source of all authority.

Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.

Translation by Kremlin.ru

This expectation was voiced by Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview to Russian media ahead of the Paralympics in Sochi.

VGTRK: Mr. President, we have here large screens showing the Paralympians competing, and in a matter of days, such broadcasts will be shown across the country, with our logos, the logo of the VGTRK, and that of RBC which is the general partner of the Games, isn’t that right, Alexander?

RBC: Yes, we as a privately-owned channel decided to give every support to the Games, and to promote the Paralympic ideas among the political and business elite.

Vladimir Putin: And I had meant to tell you I think it's great.

VGTRK: And so now that the Paralympic Games which will be widely covered are only a few days away, and also acknowledging the fact that there is no way to talk about the Olympics and the Paralympics in terms of comparison, what are your expectations of these Paralympic Games that are in fact a logical continuation of the Olympic Games?

VP: First of all, I would like to agree with what you just said. The Paralympic Games are a logical continuation of the Olympic Games. If we look back at history, the precursor to the Paralympics was the Games that took place in 1948 in Great Britain. Originally, the Games were held for the veterans of WWII who were confined to wheelchairs. This movement gradually evolved into the Paralympic Games as we now know them. The first Summer Paralympic Games were held in 1960, and the first Winter Paralympic Games were held in 1976.

And in this sense, the Paralympics are indeed a logical continuation of the Olympic Games. And speaking for myself, I should say I have some quite serious expectations. First of all, the audience of the Paralympics has grown significantly over the last years, and it is very important to us, we want people to follow these Games and see that there is no limit to what people can do even with the limited abilities. It is a good educational experience for society, something which teaches the right values, and it also gives impetus to the authorities at all levels in their work on creating a barrier-free environment.

VGTRK: And not only in sports, right?

VP: And not only in sports, but everywhere, because it keeps everyone aware of the problem. By the way, Sochi was the very first project in Russia where a barrier-free environment was fully implemented. And I expect the regions to continue working along this track in order to create a barrier-free environment nation-wide. We have signed an international convention to this effect, we have also developed a comprehensive program, and another thing - this needs the full focus of the administrations at all levels. My other expectation is the victories of our national Paralympic team.

VGTRK: So you're no longer cautious about speaking about victories, after the Olympic triumph?

VP: But I am. I am quite cautious; I'm not saying things like how many wins or in which sports. But of course we are all hoping for some medals, especially since we know what our Paralympians are capable of. They performed very well at the previous Games, as you know, they ranked first in the total count. And the International Paralympic Committee officials say it quite openly that they are expecting the highlights of the Games to come from the Russian athletes. And so do we.

Q: Mr. Putin, when we met before the Olympics, you said you still had to take care of your regular duties as president, but you would attend Olympic events whenever you got the chance to get away from work. We saw you in the stands a lot – ice hockey, figure skating… What about now? Do you have plans to attend Paralympic events?

VP: Yes, I would very much like to attend some events. For example, we just saw sledge hockey on the screen here. I guess you know that I’ve been kind of a hockey buff lately. See how passionate this sport is? It’s in no way inferior to the Olympics. So, of course, I would love to see some games. But I’m not sure about my schedule, and in fact I don’t even know what the schedule of the Paralympic events will be. Of course, I will definitely attend the Opening Ceremony. Cross-country skiing events are very interesting. And Paralympians competing in alpine skiing – this is just incredible! I just don’t know at this point which events I will be able to attend.

Q: Let’s say you can’t make it to a certain event, say, sledge hockey – do you watch them on TV?

VP: Yes, I watch them on TV. I watched the Olympics as much as I could, and I will certainly do my best to watch the Paralympics.

Q: From the moral point of view, this event will be just as important as the 17 days of the Olympic Games. To people who are coming here, sport is not just a part of their lives; sport is an integral part of their lives. Their life quite often depends on their athletic achievements. And they are grateful to sport for that. So here is my question. We had 112 candidates for the national team. Only 64 will make the cut. What would you say to those left out?

VP: I don’t think they need my recommendations. If they were candidates for the national team, this means they are excellent athletes. This means they’re very strong psychologically, and I’m sure they don’t need me to comfort them. They will keep working; they will take part in other sporting events; and if they are still young, they will one day make it into the national Paralympic team, and will perform well. All they need to do is keep working, and they will get there. I have no doubt about that.

Q: Like you said, these are not people with disabilities; these are people with immense abilities! In fact, the reason we decided to support the Paralympic Games was precisely because this is an excellent role model for all us, an excellent example of courage and character. This is precisely why we have decided to broadcast these Games. The only question I have is this. I don’t know, maybe it’s just Russia… You said, this movement has been growing since 1948. But in our country, the level of awareness is not that high. There are three million people with disabilities in Russia. I don’t know, maybe after watching these Games, somebody will decide to hire a disabled person, for example. Or maybe help a disabled person when you see one in the street. It seems to me, we are still somewhat short in this respect. We don’t promote these things enough.

VP: I agree. A lot depends in this respect on all of us, including mass media, especially electronic media. Now, we have people with us who do sports coverage for a living, as well as those who have chosen a different area of reporting. But, as you all know, sports journalism, especially broadcast sports journalism is a very peculiar line of business. In sports reporting, it is crucial to be able to capture the passion and excitement of competition, the beauty of motion, the determination of athletes. It requires a special set of skills, and a level of proficiency where it isn’t enough to merely film athletes with a single camera as they ski, skate, or play hockey. Capturing the beauty of sports is an art. And I suppose capturing the beauty of a Paralympic sport is an even greater artistic challenge. That is why the efficiency of our sports promotion will largely depend on the people in charge of the coverage. Of course, this is primarily the task of the government, but we cannot do without your skillful contribution.

Q: Mr. Putin, Olympic broadcasts on Channel One enjoyed fantastic, record-breaking viewer ratings. People love to watch the Olympics, because it is about energy and happiness, it is a celebration that we all need. But with regard to the Paralympics, how do we change the predominant public attitude vis-à-vis those [disabled] people? After all, those are super heroes with unlimited abilities. How do we change the public attitude, so that this celebration does not vanish as soon as the Paralympics is over, so that the public would constantly think about people who are confined to this kind of life?

VP: The government must do more for people with disabilities, providing a barrier-free environment for them in every locality all over the country. One key aspect that we absolutely need to ensure is employment opportunities for the disabled. I won’t go into detail, listing all of the government’s policies aimed at encouraging businesses to create jobs for people with disabilities. We provide special incentives for companies, but so far, all of it is dramatically insufficient.

That is why our task and the purpose of the Paralympics is to make sure the public, as well as officials in every tier of authority, will not forget it once it’s over. And I absolutely agree with you on this. That will require government policies, special-purpose programs, as well as support from media organizations. And if you see that public authorities are underperforming in this regard (whether it’s municipal or federal agencies, whatever), it is worth pointing that out. But I know you don’t need me to tell you that – you are always willing to do that.

Q: Mr. Putin, I imagine that, during the Olympics, many Russians did not only root for Russian champions and medal-winning athletes (whom you have recently awarded for their achievements). They also supported contestants from neighboring countries. I personally saw Russian spectators give a warm welcome to Georgian athletes in figure skating and downhill skiing – and it was truly heartwarming. All Russians rooted for Darya Domracheva of Belarus. And there was a lot of cheering for the Ukrainian biathletes. So it’s no secret that many Russians root for our brotherly nations and neighboring countries as well as for Russia. But what is your idea of “our people”? Who do you cheer for, besides Russians?

VP: In my opinion, when we host a large international sporting event, all of our guests are “our people.” They should all be equal in our perception.

[The text of the interview comes as published at http://kremlin.ru]

Vladimir Putin: I believe that you know everything about the coming Olympics and I am wondering what else I can tell you. Or, maybe, you do believe that you know everything so I could hardly make you change your mind. But a chance still exists and I am taking this opportunity to talk to you with great pleasure.

Ed Hula: I have been traveling to this city for eight years and I am witnessing sweeping changes here – a whole new cluster has been constructed in the mountains with sports arenas, stadiums, various trails, including a biathlon range. A great deal of money has been put into Sochi to host the Olympic Games; according to the estimate, 50 billion dollars. But we have not had a chance to know the exact amount yet and to understand how much the Olympics cost. Well, how much are they? And are they worth that money? What benefits will these Games bring?

Vladimir Putin: The overall cost of the Olympics has been announced; it is 214 billion rubles. You can calculate the dollar amount dividing this figure by 33 which is a current exchange rate.

But that is not what I want to tell you here. I want to begin with what we scheduled to do before the Olympics in 2006/07 when we adopted the Sochi Development Master Plan. Looking at the map of the Russian Federation, one can see a country covering mostly northern areas; today more than 70 percent of our territory is or can be referred to as northern, if not the Far North. We have a rather small warm Black sea strip in the South and – to tell the truth – quite a few regions with a hospitable warm climate. And so far we have had no contemporary resorts the Russian people could enjoy throughout that huge area. Today we are at the top of the list of those traveling on holiday abroad. As far as I know, Russians are the first among tourists going to Turkey; last year three million Russians visited that country, although its climate zone is almost the same as the one of the Black sea region. Therefore, we have had an important task to develop an infrastructure in this region of the Russian Federation. And again, to this end we have adopted a special program. But as usual there is not enough money to deal with what seems to be of the first importance; however, it is true both for Russia and any other country in the world. And when it comes to the resort development activity which is never seen as a priority, there is never enough money. Therefore, in fact our goal was to address a few tasks at one time.

The first and the most important one was to develop the South of the country, and primarily its infrastructure. And – to my mind – we have made real progress here since a completely new transport, energy and environment infrastructure has been set up. In terms of current emissions into atmosphere and those of 2007, today when the project is nearly over the amount of air pollutants is half its 2007 amount. We have achieved that result due to the use of a more eco-friendly fuel in electric power sector, two new gas pipelines and eight or nine electrical substations, as well as a cleanup of two constantly fuming dumps in the area of greater Sochi and a new transport infrastructure. All those measures helped to ease the environmental burden. Let’s admit that it is crucial for a resort.

The second task we were focused on was to re-establish training bases for high-ranking athletes. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia lost nearly all its training facilities in middle-altitude mountains. All of them are not ours anymore; they are either Georgian or Armenian, or Kazakhstani, I mean the Medeu skating rink. It is shameful and embarrassing but our ice skating professionals had to hold the Russian national championship in Berlin due to the lack of appropriate skating rinks. Then, we also lost all facilities related to ski jumping. Today we have built a few centers, some of them beyond Sochi. But two new Sochi ski jumps are totally unique in a technical sense; for the purposes of Olympic training we have also constructed the most sophisticated ski jumps in some other regions.

Finally, the third task was to create a new mountain cluster in order to transform this part of the Russian Federation into a resort which can be used in any season, in winter and in summer. I think that we have accomplished this task as well. Therefore, if we consider only the preparations for the Olympics, they cost 214 billion, as just 15 sport facilities have been built, while most of the money was spent on infrastructure. If we take into account some expenses associated with the development of relevant infrastructure, the sum may be larger, but those expenses are not directly related to the Olympic Games.

Sergey Brilev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, you have just called the ski jump a unique facility. But it is unique not only from the sports and technical point of view. The foreigners are very unlikely to know about the question: Where is Mr. Bilalov? Your visit to the jumping facility and request to get explanation of how various parts of the mechanism function. Mr. Bilalov was severely punished in front of the entire nation. Did it frighten the others so as to push them to fulfill their promises? And in general how do you feel about it?

Vladimir Putin: First, let me finish the answer to Ed's question. Public investments make up 100 out of 214 billion, the rest is provided by private companies. This money is primarily put in hotel infrastructure. By the way, we have built more than 40,000 (between 41,000-43,000, as far as I know) brand new hotel rooms, which is a crucial component of resort development. That is where private investments of our companies have been allocated.

As for the missed deadlines, well, we both understand that over the past several years the Sochi Olympic project has been the largest construction site in the world. Without exaggeration, the biggest building site on the planet. And it is only natural that some problems would come up given the scale of the project and, frankly, lack of experience of such large-scale construction projects in our country, in modern Russia. Certainly, we had to enter into unpleasant discussions on prices, deadlines and quality of work. It could not be otherwise. Absolutely impossible! Constant praise would have brought us nowhere. My job is not only to give medals, you know, which certainly is part of my function. First and foremost, though, my job is about ensuring success of the work in various spheres. It is a kind of day-to-day spadework. In which part of the world have you ever seen builders who meet all the deadlines and provide high-quality work at the lowest price? Just give me at least one country. Not a single country in the entire world. We see the attempts to overvalue facility prices everywhere – in Europe, North America, Asia. Same story everywhere.

However, this struggle between the customer (in this case, it is either the state or the private sector that has build hotels here) and the executing agency, the contractor, is quite common. Contractors always pursue large profit, the customer – a high-quality end product in due time and at a lower cost. This struggle never ends, but this is natural. Obviously, there is the limit beyond which the struggle is criminalized, but it is under the mandate of the law enforcement bodies to control that, and they have shown tough and good work here. We have tried to prevent anyone from crossing this limit. All in all, I think we have managed it.

As for this specific case, yes, the Russian Sberbank has taken up this project and accomplished it providing excellent quality and modern solutions. There are no other jumping facilities like that in the world.

George Stephanopoulos: It was said that the issue of corruption is really serious: 18 billion dollars were plundered, the Swiss said, is it true or not?

Vladimir Putin: First, the Swiss did not say that. Of course, we are not uninterested in what our partners say in the world, especially, in the Olympic movement. I have seen the verbatim report of his meeting with some journalists, your colleagues tried to drag him to this topic, and I understand journalists, it is their work – always drag out “hot” topics. But the Swiss specialist, the President, as I understand, of the International Ski Federation, he did not say that, as it seemed to me in the report, this is the first.

Second, if anyone has concrete data on instances of corruption related to the implementation of the Sochi Olympics Project, we ask to furnish us with objective data. We will be glad and grateful and we will use this information to put things right in this sphere.

What are instances of corruption? In this case they mean theft of public funds with the help of state officials, in whose hands these funds fall. If anyone has such information, give these findings to us, please. I repeat once again, we will be grateful. But besides talk, no one furnishes us with anything. We understand and know and are even used to it, there are always some forces which are always against everything, even the Olympics project. I do not know why, but, probably, it is their job, probably they are inclined to it, somebody offended them in their life. But if there is objective data, give it to us, please, as soon as possible. For the moment we do not have it, nobody gives it. Our law-enforcement bodies work on this issue. There were cases, I have already talked about it, some years ago local officials tried to trade land designated for Olympics venues. An investigation was conducted; people were convicted by the Russian court and are serving the sentence. We have not seen any big, large-scale instances of corruption in the framework of the Sochi Project implementation. There are things I have already talked about, there are attempts of executives, contractors to drive up the price. But this, I repeat, is going on in all countries of the world, and our task is to decrease it and achieve good quality of the project and compliance with the deadlines of construction. Combat always goes on, you understand, we always speak about it in public, and always in this regard even fuel rumors about corruption. What should we do? Either always keep silent about it, or not to be afraid of such reaction and work openly. We chose the second way. If we see that there are some problems anywhere, we speak about it in public.

Well, that is my comment on this issue. I do not see serious corruption for the moment, but the question related to the overstatement of the construction volume exists. You know, I can give another comment on that. What are the reasons of construction overstatement?During tenders and competitions bidders for this or that project often lower the cost of the project on purpose, in order to win the project. As soon as they win, they understand that they cannot manage with these prices and start to increase them. It happens almost everywhere as well. Our case is not unique. In this regard we can speak about the level of holding tenders, probably. But this price increase, it is sometimes connected with deliberate acts of contractors, and sometimes with the lack of efficient professional estimates of necessary investments, especially in mountain conditions, in conditions of a mountain cluster.

The Caucasus Mountains are young mountains, and there are a lot of problems related to seismic activity, a lot of problems with landslides, etc. All these things sometimes have not been estimated expertly and promptly at the initial project price evaluation. There are such moments, but this is not corruption.

Andrew Marr: Mr. President, now the British people are thinking of going to France or Switzerland to ski, and you want to persuade them to go to Russia to ski. If they go, how difficult it would be to get visa? Unilaterally, can you without any agreement with the European Union, without negotiations with the EU, undertake steps to relax the visa regime, simplify visa receiving and entry?

Vladimir Putin: As far as the Sochi Olympiad guests are concerned we took a unique decision and its unique character is in the situation that the Olympiad guests, the tourists coming to the Olympiad can come to the Sochi Olympic games without visas, just on the basis of accreditation. And they can get this accreditation at special windows open in all our diplomatic missions. But they don't need any visa first.

Secondly, we consider that in recent years we have built a unique site from the point of view of its ski piste mileage (150 kilometres) and as I mentioned more than 40 thousand hotel vacancies. Look, may be it is necessary to upgrade more the service quality, but in general the material base created here is very good for a big tourist centre of world class. I think that it will be very interesting to see - even for those who will not be able to come to the Olympiad - what is Sochi where the Olympiad took place. People over the world always show this interest in the Olympic games sites and we will be glad to see the winter sports fans coming to Sochi to look what Russia did here, how it put into practice this project. And if anyone likes it, this place may become a favourite resort for our friends from the United States or Europe, or Asian countries, including China, why not? We should not forget that people who love winter sports like to see different places, they go with pleasure to Canada, the United States, Switzerland, Italy or France and I hope will come to Sochi.

Now, let me say two words about visas. We offer exclusions for some tourist routes. For example, tourists coming by water transport may enter Saint-Petersburg without visa. We offer other exclusions as well. But we are talking about exclusions anyway while the general regime is as follows: all visa and visa-free access matters are regulated in the world on the basis of reciprocity. And we would like very much to reach an agreement on this visa-free access regime with our colleagues from the European Union. On many occasions I have already mentioned that the European Union has a visa-free access regime with a number of Latin America countries where the criminal situation is not better - and in many cases is worse - than in the Russian Federation. And where is Latin America, and where is Europe? If we look at Russia and Europe, they are too close from my point of view. Are not they?

That is why it seems to me that we should agree on a visa-free access regime in general. And as far as some exclusions are concerned, we may talk about some separate events.

Irada Zeynalova: Vladimir Vladimirovich, at the beginning of December you paid a three-days visit to Sochi with an inspection of Olympic sites. And you mentioned then that we should speak now not about the work done, but about the work that should be done, about the unfinished work, you stressed that it needed polish. Can we say that now everything is ready, what do they report to you? Where the difficulties were the most serious and what still has to be done if there is still such a case?

Vladimir Putin: Everything is already done and now we have to put it in order. We have to get hotels functioning well, we have to evacuate the construction equipment, we have to remove the construction waste that is to get ready to receive guests as any landlords and landladies do before receiving visitors. We have to get ready to receive guests in such a way that everything becomes beautiful and reflects the spirit of the event itself, that all sites become ready. As you know, they have already accepted many test competitions: some stages of the World Cup and other big international events. Competitors, our guests, specialists in general were satisfied and stressed the high degree of readiness a year ago - now all sites are finished.

Junyi Shui: Mr. President, before I put my question I would like to say this is the fifth interview in 14 years, sometimes I did it face to face, sometimes together with my colleagues. You are very popular in China. Before my coming here I said to our Internet users at Central TV that I was going to Russia to interview you. And as soon as I published this message two million users put an "I like it" mark next to it and sent many questions.

You have just mentioned that you invite tourists from different countries to come to Sochi. And what do you think about the Chinese investors coming after the Olympic Games to build hotels? What opportunities are there for Chinese investors in this situation?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would like to convey my best wishes to all my friends in China both through social networks and through other media. I know that I have many friends in China. It is not surprising, because we have a special relationship with China. And I have special feelings for China. China is a great country with a great culture, with very interesting, hard-working and talented people.

Give them a big thanks for such an attitude. This is a mutual feeling.

As far as investors are concerned, we will welcome investors from all countries, including from China. China has great investment potential. China is a country with the largest gold reserves. There are very good tools for investment in China, including a whole network of major funds. The Russian investment fund, the RDIF, works with some of these funds, with the largest Chinese investment funds. They already have joint projects.

Generally, it is quite difficult for foreign investors to find the most effective ways of investing their capital, which are efficient and well-protected at the same time. They often do it together with the relevant national bodies. Such a body, I have just talked about it, the RDIF, works with our Chinese partners, it can work in any region of the Russian Federation and in all areas.

If the Chinese partners will be interested in the tourism cluster in the south of the country or, say, the agriculture cluster, we have it here, near the Krasnodar and Stavropol regions: these are the neighbouring regions, for example, the Rostov region – this is our breadbasket, as we call it, these are the regions where agricultural production is particularly well developed, the climate here is very good. But in some regions, for example, in the Rostov region, which borders the Krasnodar region, the machine-building industry is also well-developed, the aviation cluster is developing, and in many of these areas we have promising, very interesting joint plans with our Chinese friends. That is why we invite them not only to Sochi and the Krasnodar region, but also to the southern part of the Russian Federation as a whole.

Irada Zeynalova: Mr. Putin, at all times and in all countries the Olympic Games have attracted extremists wishing to make a global name for themselves. Unfortunately, in the context of the recent terrorist attacks and threats in the south of Russia, we have to discuss that in relation to Sochi. Several agencies are working to ensure security of the Games, and European and American experts have offered their assistance. What reports do you receive regarding the scope of the threats, regarding what we are already confronting and what we will have to confront?

Vladimir Putin: You are right, extremists are always trying to make a name for themselves, especially in the run-up to some major event, and not only sports events, but also political ones. You know very well what security measures were taken during the meetings of the Heads of State within the framework of the Group of Twenty, the G8 or other forums, for example, APEC in the Asia- Pacific region. The same applies to major sports events. I have already spoken about this, and I want to repeat that extremists are usually narrow-minded people who do not realize that even if they, as they think, set themselves noble goals, by committing terrorist acts they are drifting further and further away from achieving those seemingly noble goals to the extent that these goals stop being relevant. The whole world considers them criminals, criminals in the worst sense of this word, bloodthirsty people who not only disregard human rights and freedoms, but also set a person's life at naught. No matter what motives they have for committing such acts, there will never be excuses for them, and in the eyes of all sensible people in the world they will always remain criminals. Therefore, they immediately cast a criminal shadow on the goals they set for themselves. But the world is what it is, we remember well the tragic events during the Olympic Games in Munich, when the Israeli sports delegation was killed almost in its entirety. And of course, since that time all countries in the world without exception make special, extraordinary security efforts.

We do everything with the understanding, with a clear understanding of the operational situation developing around Sochi and in the region as a whole, we have a perfect understanding of what it is, what is that threat, how to stop it, how to combat it. I hope that our law enforcement agencies will deal with it with honor and dignity, just as it was during other major sports and political events.

Irada Zeynalova: I worked as a correspondent at several Olympic Games, including the London ones, the last Olympic Games. And when we got there, we found out that Patriot missile launchers had been deployed on the roofs of houses in the North and East London. At first it certainly came as a shock like military ships anchored in the bay near Greenwich. But the British government explained: "The threat is massive, we will resist it, and it is a necessity." So that is exactly what happened – Patriot missile launchers were in place. Are we going to see something like that in Sochi?

Vladimir Putin: I hope you will not see anything, but we will do our best. As for London, we remember that one of the G8 summits there saw a number of terrorist attacks, including in the tube. I remember the painful reaction of the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the attacks, and I remember how we all provided him moral and, if necessary, special support. As an aside, now I also want to thank all our partners from North America, the United States, Europe, and Asia which engage in very active cooperation with their Russian counterparts in the law enforcement bodies and special services. Such joint work is ongoing.

Junyi Shui: Mr. President, Volgograd saw two terrorist attacks a month before the opening of the Sochi Olympics, and many people have some concerns about the sport event. We are convinced that Russia will be able to take even more serious security measures. But might they affect athletes and other participants?

Vladimir Putin: I would not want these acts of terrorism – crimes of the kind aimed at undermining international cooperation in the political, as well as, so to say, in the humanitarian area, including sports – to affect the upcoming activities. For if we allow ourselves to show weakness or fear, then we will assist terrorists in achieving their goals. I believe that the international community working in all areas – humanitarian, political, as well as economic – should unite to fight such inhuman phenomena as terror attacks and the murder of totally innocent people. We are the organizers, so our task, of course, is to ensure the safety of participants in the Olympic Games and its guests, and we will do our best.

Ed Hula: Mr. President, how do you plan to ensure an adequate level of security at the Olympics, and yet make it a happy and joyous occasion?

Vladimir Putin: Answering your colleagues’ question I have already said that we will try to make sure that security measures do not seem an imposition, are not too conspicuous and do not put pressure on the athletes taking part in the Olympic Games and the guests and journalists present there. But at the same time we will do our best to make these measures effective.

Security is to be ensured by some 40 thousand law enforcement and special services officers. Of course, we will draw on the experience acquired during similar events in other regions of the world and in other countries. It means that we will protect our air and sea space, as well as the mountain cluster. I hope that it will be arranged so that it will not be evident and, as I have already said, will not, so to say, depress the participants in the Olympic Games.

I would also like to note that a special regime for movement of people and goods was introduced in the Greater Sochi area on 7 January 2014. We have round-the-clock headquarters to ensure security – I want to emphasize that it is round-the-clock – which coordinates the work of our law enforcement agencies and special bodies and maintains contacts with its counterparts abroad.

George Stephanopoulos: Mr. President, let me change the subject. I apologize. Some Americans going to Sochi have even developed their own plans for evacuation in case something happens. Are not you concerned that if something similar happens in other parts of Russia, these plans will be implemented?

Vladimir Putin: Russia is a big country, and, like in any other country, different things happen. We are working towards ensuring security in Sochi, using a lot of forces and means, but mostly those not employed in guaranteeing security in other regions of the Russian Federation. We have enough of such means provided by the Federal Security Service, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and army units, which will be used in ensuring security too, as I have already said, in the maritime area and airspace. If anybody feels it is necessary for them to design separate plans for guaranteeing their own security, it is okay as well, but, of course, it needs to be done keeping in touch with the Olympic Games organizers and our intelligence agencies. As I have already said, we have permanent round-the-clock headquarters maintaining contact with colleagues from the foreign countries’ corresponding services and army units. By the way, these colleagues are represented in the headquarters, there is, I repeat, a direct professional interaction. If necessary, all these mechanisms can be used. I hope that it won’t come to that. I have also already mentioned the way we performed quite well, say, holding important political events, including both G20 and G8 summits, and hosting major international competitions, like, for example, the recent World Championships in Athletics in Moscow. Understanding the full scope of our security sphere problems, we still have great experience in staging events of the kind, and we use it.

Andrew Marr: A lot of British politicians and celebrities, including Elton John, express concerns over the attitude towards homosexuals in Russia. I would like to ask you, do you think there are fundamental differences between the attitude towards homosexuals in the West and in Russia? Do you think homosexuals are born or made? And what does the concept of propaganda imply, is it philosophical?

Vladimir Putin: You know, I am not in a position to answer the part of your question concerning homosexuals being born or made. This is beyond my professional interest, and I just can’t give you a qualified reply. And as I can’t give you a qualified reply, I would just prefer to leave it at that. And as for the attitude towards individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation, yes, I can give you quite a detailed reply. I would like to draw your attention to the fact, that in Russia, as opposed to one third of the world’s countries, there is no criminal liability for homosexuality. 70 countries in the world have criminal liability for homosexuality, and seven countries out of these 70 enforce the death penalty for homosexuality. And what does that mean? Does it mean that we should cancel all major sport events in those countries? I guess not.

The Soviet Union had criminal liability for homosexuality, today’s Russia doesn’t have such criminal liability. In our country, all people are absolutely equal regardless of their religion, sex, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. Everybody is equal. We have recently only passed a law prohibiting propaganda, and not of homosexuality only, but of homosexuality and child abuse, child sexual abuse. But this has nothing in common with persecuting individuals for their sexual orientation. And there is a world of difference between these things. So there is no danger for individuals of non-traditional sexual orientation who are planning to come to the Games as guests or participants.

Andrew Marr: And as for the Orthodox Church, it calls for returning criminal liability for homosexuality. What is your opinion about that?

Vladimir Putin: According to the law, the church is separate from the state and has the right to have its own point of view. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that almost all traditional world religions are in full solidarity on this topic. And is the position of the Holy See different from that of the Russian Orthodox Church? And does Islam treat individuals with non-traditional sexual orientation in a different manner? It seems so, but this other position consists in a much tougher approach. Those 70 countries I have mentioned mostly belong to the Islamic world, and the ones enforcing death penalty all have Islam as state religion. Thus, there is nothing strange in the Russian Orthodox Church’s opinion as compared to that of other traditional world religions, there is nothing strange in that, but I repeat once again: the opinion of the church is one thing, and the opinion of the state is another thing. The church is separate from the state.

Sergey Brilev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, perhaps, to add to the issue. You know, once I was lucky to meet the smartest and the most beautiful girl, and I have been married to her for a long time, well, generally speaking, my sexual orientation removes me a bit from being able to discuss this issue, but the thing is as follows.

All Russians of non-traditional sexual orientation, who I know, ok - not all, but the vast majority are people with excellent careers, who have never in their life-time faced any job restrictions and so on, though against the background of our bill to ban gay propaganda among minors, our country is getting the reputation of being just about the most anti-gay country on the planet, however, to a certain degree quite the opposite.

Vladimir Putin: It is not getting the reputation, there are attempts to create it.

Sergey Brilev: Yes, I agree. I wonder whether we should review this bill causing all the fuss that has, actually, little to do with its name or content, and to adjust it a bit? Probably with a view to offering not less sex education needed for children, but less sex, in general, available to minors, no matter if it is homosexual or heterosexual, what would be demanded by many people who are quite heterosexual. Or, probably, to really examine this notion. Frankly speaking, I have never come across gay propaganda among minors. Basically, I agree that I do not understand what it is in practice.

Vladimir Putin: Why so? Could you read the bill thoroughly, and pay your attention to its name. The bill's name is "Ban on propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality". The bill banning pedophilia, propaganda of pedophilia and homosexuality. There are countries, including European, where public discussions – I have just talked about this at the meeting with volunteers – for instance, on the possibility to legalize pedophilia currently take place. Public discussions in parliaments. They may do whatever they want, but peoples of the Russian Federation, the Russian people have their own cultural code, own tradition. It's not our business and we do not poke our nose into their affairs, and we ask for the same respect for our traditions and for our culture. My personal view is that the society should look after its children at least to be able to reproduce and not only thanks to migrants, but on its own base. We achieved what we had not experienced for a long time. In 2002, 2003, 2004 it seemed that we would never redress that absolutely terrible situation we had with the demographic crisis. It appeared that it was a demographic pit that would prove to have no bottom and we would continue investing in it endlessly.

And at that time we developed and adopted a program aimed at supporting demography, to increase birth rates in the Russian Federation. Frankly speaking, I was much worried myself: we allocated a big volume of resources, and many experts used to tell me: "Don't do this, anyway, there is such a trend, which is experienced by many European countries. And we won't avoid it as well". This year in Russia, the number of newborns has exceeded the number of deceased for the first time. We achieved a specific positive result. If anybody would like to focus on, so to say, developing the cemetery, they are welcome. But we have different goals: we want the Russian people and other peoples of the Russian Federation to develop and to have historical prospects. And we should clean up everything that impedes us here. But we should do this in a timely and humane manner without offending anybody and without including anybody in a group of secondary people.

It seems to me that the bill we adopted does not hurt anybody. Moreover, people of non-traditional sexual orientation cannot feel like inferior people here, because there is no professional, career or social discrimination against them, by the way. And when they achieve great results, such as, for instance Elton John achieves, who is an extraordinary person, a distinguished musician, and millions of our people sincerely love him with no regard to his sexual orientation, and his sexual orientation does not affect attitudes to him, especially as to a distinguished musician. I think that this quite democratic approach to people of non-traditional sexual orientation alongside with measures aimed to protect children and future demographic development is optimum.

Junyi Shui: I also would like to proceed on discussing this issue of homosexuality.

Irada Zeynalova: And I would like to ask why we are discussing this issue in the context of Sochi when we gathered to speak about Sochi?

Junyi Shui: But I would like to continue.There were talks that the snow of 2014 in Sochi would be lonely because many Western countries spoke about homosexuality, about oppression of homosexuals in Russia, and those messages reached China. By the way, in 1980 there were also attempts to boycott the Soviet Olympic Games in Moscow for different reasons, and it was the same case at the Beijing Olympic Games. Why do such voices appear when a country is developing, for instance, China is developing, Russia is developing? What do you think, may be these are manifestations of the "cold war"?

Vladimir Putin: I don't think that these are manifestations of the "cold war", but it is a demonstration of competition. When such a powerful country, potentially powerful country as China starts showing rapid pace of growth, it becomes a real competitor in global politics and in the global markets, and, of course, tools to restrain such growth are switched on. Probably, you know that once Napoleon said that China was sleeping, and let it sleep as long as possible. This is a traditional attitude of Western Civilization towards the East, and towards China, in particular. But China has awakened. And I think that the right option to develop relations with such a big, potentially powerful and great country as China is to search for shared interests, but not to restrain. I believe that some old approaches towards Russia still exist from the perspective that there is a need to restrain something.

And as for the issue that we cannot leave, I would like to say the following. I explained that homosexuality is a criminal offence in 70 countries. The same is in the USA. It is still a criminal offence in some states of the United States, for instance in Texas, and may be in another three states. But what the heck, we shouldn't hold any international competitions, should we? Why does nobody speak about this and why do they speak about us, though we do not have criminal liability for this. What is this, if not an attempt to restrain? This is a remnant of the previous, old way of thinking and this is bad.

It is even worse when it comes to major sports events, especially Olympic Games. I know what many top US politicians that I respect and that are respected across the world think. They believe that the boycott of the Moscow Olympics, for all the serious grounds it had — I mean the introduction of Soviet troops in Afghanistan — was a great mistake even in those circumstances. Indeed, any major international competition, and Olympic Games first and foremost, are intended to depoliticize the most pressing international issues and open additional ways to build bridges. It is unwise to miss such opportunities, and it is far more unwise to burn such bridges.

Ed Hula: President Obama has appointed Billie Jean King and other members of the delegation who would represent the United States in Sochi. There are homosexual athletes. Do you believe it to be a political component of the Olympic Games? What political background does it create for the Olympic, if there are homosexuals there? Will you meet Billie Jean King as the head of the US Delegation in Sochi?

Vladimir Putin: People have different sexual orientation. We would welcome all athletes and all guests at the Olympics. At some point President Obama asked me to help make arrangements for a large US delegation to come. His request was related to a limited membership of relevant national teams, including both athletes and members of various administrative bodies. The International Olympic Committee has its rules, but we did the best we could. We found solutions to that, bearing in mind that the US has traditionally had a larger delegation at the Olympic Games than other countries, they have a large team and many representatives. We complied with their request. So, I certainly will be glad to see the representatives of any countries, including the United States, there can be no doubts as to that. If they would like to meet me and discuss anything, they are welcome, I see no problems about it.

George Stephanopoulos: President Obama said he was offended by the act on gay propaganda. He has also recently said that if there are no gay sportsmen and sportswomen in Russia, its team will be weaker. However, if they start protesting, meaning gays and lesbians, will they be prosecuted under this anti-propaganda act if they decide to hold protest actions?

Vladimir Putin: … protest actions and propaganda are after all two slightly different things. They are similar but if we look at this from the legal point of view, a protest against a law is not propaganda of homosexuality itself or child sexual abuse. That is first point.

Second point, I would like to ask our colleagues – my colleagues and friends – before trying to criticize, to solve the problem in their own home first. But I have already said that it is well known. In some US states, homosexuality is criminally punishable. And how can they criticize us for a far gentler and more liberal approach to these issues compared to the one they have at home? However, I understand that it is difficult to do since there are a lot of people in the US itself that share the view that the laws of their state or of their country are just, reasonable and correspond with the sentiments of the larger part of its citizens. But we need to discuss this in some more appropriate international forums, to elaborate some common approaches. Anyway, we have got the message. And I am telling you that none of our guests will have any problems.

We remember how some African-American citizens of the US protested during the Olympic Games – a large-scale international competition – against segregation. I saw that myself on the TV screen. But that is all in all a general practice aimed at stating one’s rights.

Sergey Brilev: Vladimir Vladimirovich, if you would allow me to return to sport-related issues - you know, I remember that when London was getting ready for the Olympic Games, the British press made it seem as if something terrible was happening in the United Kingdom. And then a wonderful celebration of sport happened. Later on, however, when Mitt Romney, candidate for the US presidency, arrived in London and repeated the exact same things the London newspapers were writing, the latter rebuked him saying “do not dare, we will manage on our own, and we have a celebration of sport ahead of us”. And that is the kind of celebration that we now have ahead of us. The last time this country hosted the Olympic Games I was eight and I am sure that millions of people are expecting this large event.

You ski and play hockey; what competitions are you planning to attend? What are you planning to see, just for yourself? What results are you expecting from the Russian national team?

Vladimir Putin: I have already been asked this question. I can say that I will be able to attend competitions only on those days when I am free from the current work and this is not going to totally coincide with my sport preferences. But if I could go and see the competitions I am interested in, that would of course be hockey and alpine skiing. I would also watch with great pleasure biathlon and figure skating.

George Stephanopoulos: I was just wondering whether you and Barack Obama made a bet what country would get more medals: the U.S. or Russia?

Vladimir Putin: No, we never make such bets. Barack himself loves sports very much, I can see it, he pays due attention and not only to going in for sports, but also to the development of sport. Practically all American presidents as we can see pay great attention and act effectively, that is why the team of the United States traditionally achieves very good and impressive results. We wish success to our American friends, the American athletes. I know that a lot of people in our country, millions of people admire American athletes and truly sincerely love them. As I have already said I would like very much the sports not to be soiled by the politics. And I think that we all will benefit from this.

But, of course, first of all we will support our athletes. We traditionally have good results in winter sports. In previous years, because of the change of generations, and frankly, and I also have already spoken about it,because of the loss of training bases we had a certain failure, decline, including a not very bright performance in Vancouver, although in general there we performed in a proper manner. We expect that the situation will improve and that the scores, including the number of medals will grow. Although it is important, it is still much more important for us, for Russia, to create a favorable environment for the Games and to conduct them in a proper manner. And it is very important that our athletes have shown their worth, showed their character and skill.

And as far as the medals are concerned, it is also an essential element of any sports competition, including the Olympic one. But for me it is even more important to see that we have a viable, efficient team that holds promise.

Andrew Marr: Mr. President, before this sports festival starts there have been a lot of amnesties in Russia, in particular concerning the Greenpeace. Some critics say that you just "are making a forced smile".

Are these real liberal efforts in the framework of Russian policy or just such a step for popularity?

Vladimir Putin: What kind of answer do you want to hear from me?

Andrew Marr: I would like you to say, "I am a real liberal and hold liberal-views".

Vladimir Putin: It’s true. And one more thing, we adopted the Amnesty Law not in connection with the Olympics, but in honor of the 20th Anniversary of the Russian Constitution. That is first.

In the second place, in accordance with our law the decision on the amnesty was not made by the President. It is an exclusive prerogative of the Parliament. It is not me who made the decision on the amnesty, but the Parliament. So I "cannot make a forced smile". It is not my merit, but the merit of the deputies of the State Duma of the Russian Federation. But I certainly support this initiative and believe that it is correct. And in this connection I would like to note that we are probably record-holders for the number of amnesties concerned. Here we also should strike a certain balance between those who committed the crimes and the victims of these crimes. We talk a lot about the situation of the sentenced prisoners or persons under investigation. And that is correct, we should never forget about it, especially as the situation in the places of detention in our country, as well as abroad, by the way, in many countries, is not the best. But we should never push to the sidelines the people who became victims of the crimes. Here the position of the State towards these problems should be balanced.

Irada Zeynalova: Vladimir Vladimirovich, while we have been talking the storm has already become so strong that the mountains cannot be seen, it snows more and more. It turns out that the Winter Games, as well as the Summer ones, generally speaking, have one more organizer that is the weather. The weather forecast has reminded a guess lately. Unfortunately, the models do not work. Let's say, will we modify the weather during the Sochi Olympics or will we hope for a good luck? For example, in Turin a few days of competition were canceled just because of fog and because of snow. Will we do something with the weather so that the Games are on the schedule?

Vladimir Putin: No, we will do nothing. Unfortunately, we are and will always be dependent on nature. As you know, Australia, which is now hosting a major tennis tournament, is facing an extreme heat wave with temperature over 40°C resulting in some competitors fainting from the heat. It started to snow rather unexpectedly here and if weather conditions do not meet the standards of the competition, the representatives of the International Olympic Committee will decide what to do about it. However, I do hope that the conditions will be favourable, as the weather data for many years show thatfrom the first half of February to the end of March, this region generally has very favourable weather for winter sports. I hope that despite all the fluctuations it will not be an exception this time.

Irada Zeynalova: So, we will not need the thousands of tons of snow that we have stored somewhere in the glaciers, will we?

Vladimir Putin: Well, it is obvious that there is no need for them now, but we have stored them just in case. We have seen major international winter competitions, say, skiing races, with just a narrow snow path for the skiers and green grass on both sides of it. Thank God, it is not the case here and I hope that it will not be.

Junyi Shui: Mr President, as I have already said there have been many questions from Chinese people before my arrival. I have printed only a small part of them relating to the Games and you personally. China is not very strong in terms of winter sports. What results do you expect from the Chinese team at the Sochi Olympics? In addition, some wonder in what sport you perform worst yourself. In general, is there anything in the world that you do not know how to do? It seems that you have mastered everything.

Vladimir Putin: There is a famous saying: "The more I know, the more I realise that I know nothing." I think that it applies to all people, including me.

As for sports, I really love them, both winter and summer sports. The expectations as to China’s results, whether at Summer, or Winter Olympics, are usually high. China has developed an extremely efficient way of preparing and motivating its athletes. Note, it is very important that preparation go hand in hand with motivation.

I watched with great attention the way China grows a young generation of athletes, the way it selects them, the way they are trained and the way their psychological attitudes are shaped. There are plenty of lessons to learn there. With strong internal motivation like this people achieve maximum results.

Certainly, China has traditionally developed summer sports rather than winter ones. Yet this is just a matter of adjusting the pattern. If China has made this adjustment or makes it in the near future, I believe that it will turn into a major competitor for those countries who have traditionally been developing winter sports. We expect that Chinese athletes will demonstrate spectacular performance. We look forward that they both please and surprise the winter sports lovers from around the world. They can do it.

Ed Hula: Is it important for the success of the Winter Olympics and for your satisfaction with the Games that Russian team wins a medal in ice hockey? How important is this to you?

Vladimir Putin: I should be honest, it does matter. Not for me personally, not to satisfy any ambition. Rather, it is important for the millions of our ice hockey fans. Ice hockey has traditionally been very popular in this country, and although it has been viewed as a Canadian sport, I believe it to be equally a Russian one. We are very grateful to Canadians for having invented this game, as well as to those who brought it to this country. It would be no exaggeration to say that ice hockey is loved by millions of people, with hundreds of thousands of people playing it and millions of people watching the matches. Certainly, ice hockey matches are always spectacular and memorable. I would like to stress that in ice hockey, just like in any other sport, we expect success and victory, yet what is most important is that excellence and character are demonstrated. It would be the main result that our sports and particularly ice hockey fans see that our athletes have made the best of their character, excellence and talent. Then nobody will reproach them for a failure to achieve a desired result. If they do achieve it, we will be very grateful to our athletes. Yet, let me repeat, there is no point in making any forecasts or prior assessments. We are very well aware of the fact that ice hockey has been developing all over the world and, which is of great pleasure to us, it has been developing in Europe. Finnish and Swedish teams have traditionally remained strong, with Switzerland and Germany making great advances, not to mention the United States and Canada. We would be very glad that these outstanding athletes come and show their talents here, in Russia. We are very grateful to all of our partners and to all of these prominent athletes. We would be very glad to see and to welcome them here and look forward to enjoying their game.

Junyi Shui: Mr President, let me change the subject of our conversation to the role of the Olympics for Russia. I have heard you calling the Olympics your baby, your project. I have also heard people saying that your contribution was a key factor why Russia has the chance to host them. You also mentioned that you could make Russia a strong and powerful country within 20 years. Is there a connection between Sochi Olympics and your vision of a strong Russia? Some media even say it is somehow linked to your future political career. Can you comment on that?

Vladimir Putin: As you know, there is a strong connection between the Olympic Games, the progress in sport and the successful development of a country in general, because great sport achievements are mostly a result of effective economic and social policies. Russia wanted to host the Olympic Games in 1994 and in early 2000s, but I believe it was obvious to both Russia and the International Olympic Committee that it was very hard for the country due to pure economic reasons. Russia’s GDP and household incomes have almost doubled and even though our gold and foreign currency reserves of over USD 500bn cannot match those of China, we still rank third in the world on this indicator. The Russian Government has two reserve funds. Over the recent years, we have nearly always had a surplus budget. Last year, we had just a meagre deficit of -0.5% per cent, which is insignificant. We have paid off all our external debts.The trade balance surplus is about USD 196bn, although I may be mistaken with exact figures. This means that our economic development and economic growth empower us to carry out such projects. We have become the fifth world economy not in terms of income per capita, but in terms of GDP and purchasing power parity. It is quite an achievement. Just like any other country, we have our difficulties, but the results achieved allow us to reach social goals, including those in the demographic sphere that we have already mentioned today. I would like to recall the fact that now the number of births in Russia is higher than the number of deaths for the first time in 20 years. It enables us to raise salaries in the social services sector, including health care and education. All these factors create a solid basis for sport achievements that, in turn, will positively influence the demographics. We may even seek progress in sport, including or even mostly, a means to create favourable demographic conditions and improve the health of the nation. Such major events as world championships, European championships and Olympic Games encourage people, especially young ones, to do sports, help to facilitate mass sport participation, which certainly has a positive impact on the health of the nation, and make sport popular, interesting, and fashionable. I believe all of this to be of extreme importance, it is not just my ambitions and it is the interests of the state and its people in their purest form. No doubt, it gives me great pleasure to see us do that, but again, not because of my ambitions.

There is also a certain moral aspect here and there is no need to be ashamed of it. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the dark and, let us be honest, bloody events in the Caucasus, the society had a negative and pessimistic attitude. We have to pull ourselves together and realise that we can deliver large-scale projects on time and with high standards of quality, and by projects I mean not only stronger defence potential, but also developments in the humanitarian sphere, including in sport. I believe that all this is a step in the right direction, as it strengthens the morale of the nation, as well as its social and health care sectors and creates conditions for future development.

Junyi Shui: In your opinion, what image of Russia will the Sochi Olympic Games convey to the world, what history can they tell?

Vladimir Putin: I would like the participants, guests, journalists and all those who watch the Games on TV and learn about them from the mass media to see a new Russia, see its personality and its possibilities, take a fresh and unbiased look at the country. And I am sure that this will happen, it has to bring about good and positive results and it will help Russia to establish relations with its partners around the world.

Andrew Marr: You sound very convincing. You have been named third most influential person in the world, ahead of the Pope. Do you think it is possible for you to stand for election once again? Do you consider such a possibility? Or maybe someone has got bored?

Vladimir Putin: I believe one should not pay attention to such ratings. Besides, no person can get the better of the Pope. Such a comparison is irrelevant. The Pope is in charge of the biggest state in the world. The state which has no formal characteristics. How to say it in the modern language to put it correctly, this is a kind of a network state. You see? But it is real and not virtual, as there are quite a number of Catholics in the world, a billion people already. Besides, here we talk about spiritual influence which is more important than political one.

We have orthodox religious leaders as well. First of all, this is Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. I have enormous respect for this person. He contributes a lot to the spiritual strengthening of our people, and not only the Orthodox, because he cooperates with other representatives of traditional Russian religions in order to promote interreligious and interethnic peace. So Russian Orthodox Church carries out great work in this respect which has positive results.

As for ratings, I reiterate that I do not think them important. The situation changes every day. One can never be guided by them. The most important thing in any sphere of activity is to feel that you are a professional and to constantly increase your level of expertise and the quality of your work.

Concerning ambitions, it is too early to speak about this. We are in 2014 now; elections are to be held in 2018. It is necessary to work now, and then we will see. The worst and the most dangerous thing that can happen to a politician is holding on to power by all means and focusing only on this. In such a situation the failure is inevitable as you are always afraid of making a wrong step. This is not what you should think of; you should focus on the results of your work. Time will tell.

Sergey Brilev: Mr. Putin, let me speak about the future and the past at the same time. I was lucky to be in Guatemala when Sochi was chosen to host the Olympics. It was at that moment that our paralympians showed their worth so clearly.

Vladimir Putin: Yes.

Sergey Brilev: The future after the Olympics includes Paralympic Games.

Vladimir Putin: Right.

Sergey Brilev: I do not know if this was planned or not, but now the city of Sochi, and not only those exemplary parts of it that are intended for the Olympics, but also those that have fewer foreigners and more Russian people, as well as other Russian cities are becoming more friendly toward not only paralympians but disabled persons as well. This is quite visible. Much has to be done as the disabled still face many bitter things, but progress has started. Was this your intention when you brought in paralympians then?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, it was. Moreover, we have a federal programme on the so-called barrier free environment. Unfortunately, I have to admit that in creating such a barrier free environment we fall greatly behind many other countries of the world. I really regret it, but it developed like this since the Soviet times. And I am greatly pleased that we are leaving this negative tradition behind. We adopted the programme on a barrier free environment. It is being implemented differently in different regions, and this obviously requires additional financing. But I would really like Sochi to serve as an example of how the problem of a barrier free environment can be solved, this was my initial plan. Here this was done from scratch drawing upon the highest modern standards. And I reiterate that from the very beginning I wanted the programme on a barrier free environment in Sochi to become a good example for other Russian regions.

As for our paralympians, they are all outstanding athletes.I cannot but feel gratitude when I mention them, because they win more medals than our Olympic team. This is first, and it is very important. Secondly, it is actually quite obvious that they serve as an example for people with and without disabilities, example of how one can and should become strong morally to keep moving forward and enjoy life fully. Regretfully, our state is still far from meeting all the needs of the disabled people in the contemporary world. When our paralympians achieve outstanding results, by doing so they push the state to address those issues. I feel very grateful to them and, of course, I count on their brilliant performance during these Paralympic Games. By the way, many media do not pay enough attention to them… some more than others though. There is a small channel called RBC, I think, that provides a regular commentary on the paralympians. I do not see that on federal TV channels though.

SERGEY BRYLEV:I heard you, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

George Stephanopoulos: Since 2007 you invested so much in the Olympic Games. How would you measure success in Sochi? Will it influence your reputation and is it a question of honor for you?

Vladimir Putin: I want it to be a success of the country. As I said, we are hosts, and the goal number one for us… not in sports but for the state… is to create good conditions for athletes, guests, journalists, tourists so that people come to an international celebration of sports, a number one winter sports event this year, and be in the center of this celebration, so that millions of sports fans throughout the world feel it even if they are hundreds or thousands miles away from Sochi. This is our main task. Of course, people in Russia should also see that our country can hold such events and be a part of this celebration. This is first.

Another very important thing is that it should influence the development of mass sports in the country, it is one of the key goals. Of course, we expect good results from our athletes. This is not an exhaustive list, I mention only obvious things, but if all these elements are there, it will be a success. In a way, it would be my success as well as of the Russian Government, of the regional authorities, of all those who prepared and conducted this work, from builders, designers and engineers to common workers. Certainly, it will be their success, and I will be happy if all that is done properly. I am sure they will be happy as well. So, it is not going to be my personal success but of a whole country. I hope it will happen.

Irada Zeynalova: When you won the presidential elections, you came out to a square, and we all could see how emotional you were. Preparation of the Olympic Games is a much more complex and time-consuming task than any electoral campaign. Have you ever thought about March 18th, about how this supercomplex task would be fulfilled?

Vladimir Putin: No. I was thinking about the schedule to prepare this event. After that, I was thinking how to deal with the first, second, third stage of preparation, how well one thing is done and how we can address the other. I would say it was a general and a stage-by-stage approach towards dealing with the issues. I never thought much about how someone may look at it.

Irada Zeynalova: On March 18 everybody is leaving, you see off the guests and you finally get the time for a late celebration of New Year, like all people who were busy with Sochi Games. Did you think how to celebrate the New Year?

Vladimir Putin: No, I think there will be other things to be taken care of.

George Stephanopoulos: You said that it is necessary to promote fitness, sports. We know that you practice judo and play hockey. How do you stay in shape, is it important for you?

Vladimir Putin: How to control one’s weight? Don’t overeat. How to stay in shape? Practice sports. No magic pills here. I do something everyday. Yesterday I skied here till 1.30 am, today morning I exercised in a gym, I swim about 1000 meters almost every day. Nothing special, but on a regular basis. You know the saying, chicken pecks grain after grain.

Junyi Shui: I also have a personal question which was also asked by Chinese Internet users. Have you thought about what you are going to do when you retire? Chinese users believe that you are very handsome and masculine. Maybe you will play tough guys in cinema?

Vladimir Putin: That’s unlikely. Maybe I will play hockey. We have recently created our own NHL. It is not called National Hockey League but Night Hockey League where non-professional 40+ people can play. I was very glad to see that this initiative is followed throughout the Russian Federation. Teams are now created in every region, they hold competitions, and the final is held in Moscow or in Sochi, like it was last year. More than a hundred teams arrived from all Russia’s regions. Two and a half years ago I was not able to stand on skates at all. You may have seen that now I am already trying to do something. That’s what I like. If and when I retire, I will try to do things that I like.

Junyi Shui: Thank you.

The Orthodox Church is celebrating Christmas.

The reason this feast is so important is because it commemorates God’s incarnation.

God becomes man, and this union of the divine and human elements can no longer be broken.

The perception of Christ in a modern secular mind has been greatly distorted.

People see Christ merely as an altruist, as a champion of moral principles, as a spiritual leader of the Christians. But we will never abandon the genuine, evangelical concept of Christ as a God-man.

Christ is like a tuning fork for human nature. If we lose this standard, we’ll have nothing to help us withstand the immense challenges which we face today and which target primarily the traditional and genuine concept of humanity.

Today, it’s important for us all to concentrate on Christ, checking all our words and actions with Christ. We should be inspired by His boundless love for humanity, His zeal in serving the heavenly Father, His modesty and meekness, His intolerance to sin and long-suffering with sinners, His fortitude in suffering all the difficulties and trials of human life, His genuineness and simplicity in dealing with people, His willingness to sacrifice Himself for others which was manifested in so many ways: God comes into the world, not as a powerful and glorious King to have people serve and please Him; no, he is meekly born in a stable for cattle to serve people and give up His life in order to save them.

For the first time ever, God Himself came to demonstrate to the whole world what a real, genuine man should be like. What’s more, He also provided us with everything we need so that anyone who believes in Him could become just like Him. The mystery of baptism brings us into the church, the community of faith. Through the Holy Eucharist, we partake of the Savior’s body and blood and thus partake of divine nature.

The church service reminds us of what Christ accomplished to save us, inspires us with the Word of God and with the models of the saints. All these things can produce a radical transformation within us. By living in Christ and imitating Him, even while still living here on the earth man can have a foretaste of future eternal blessings; man can live according to the spirit of God’s love which will reign in the life to come.

The Savior says to us: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Today, our joy over Christ’s being born into the world should manifest itself in our readiness to celebrate this holiday by performing a specific good work. We always have people around us who need our help and support -- our family members or perhaps someone living next door, or in the neighborhood, and especially lonely patients in hospices and hospitals, those who are depressed and burdened with sorrows and worldly care.

Bring them the glad tidings of Christ’s birth. May your smile and your joy melt the chill in their souls. Remember in your prayers the victims of terrorist attacks in Volgograd and Pyatigorsk. Let’s ask our Lord to heal the injured, strengthen the afflicted and rest the deceased. May the walls of enmity that divide people come down on this wonderful day of Christ’s birth through the love of Christ and through your active love for your neighbor.

Happy holiday, my dear ones!

President Vladimir Putin's address:

Dear friends,

We are about to enter a new year, 2014. In a few minutes, we will take a step from the present into the future.

Celebrating this wonderful holiday is one of our most heartwarming traditions. It is passed on from generation to generation, bringing us all together.

Of course, we faced some problems and serious trials in 2013, including the atrocious terrorist attacks in Volgograd and the unprecedented natural disasters in the Far East. Russia has always stood united in the face of trials.

Dear friends,

This year I address you on New Year’s Eve not from the Moscow Kremlin, as usual. I am in the Far East. I came here to celebrate New Year’s Day with the people who were strong and brave in the face of the elements but who don’t yet have a new home of their own to celebrate this day there. Together with these people, I want to wish our country a happy New Year and raise my glass to our people, to the health of all those who valiantly fought the floods and all those who showed compassion and genuine generosity.

Dear friends,

We mourn the victims of the brutal terrorist attacks. We will continue to fight terrorists with determination, resolve and commitment until they are all gone. We will provide support for the victims and their families; we will accomplish everything we have planned; we will restore or build everything we have decided to restore or build.

But I should also mention that we have achieved a lot in 2013. Our country has become better, wealthier, and more comfortable to live in. We have consistently protected our national interest in dealing with others. This is why today we welcome the New Year with joy; we are full of expectations and dreams about the future.

Wherever we are right now, the special atmosphere of New Year’s Eve fills us with optimism. We genuinely expect happiness, good fortune and success. We all know that prosperity does not come out of nowhere; it comes as a result of hard work and individual efforts, as a result of perseverance in achieving your goals. The totality of these personal achievements makes up the future of our motherland, and as we care about our families, our children, our parents, we also feel responsible for Russia – the country we live in, the country we love, the country we want to prosper.

These emotions and aspirations strengthen our unity. Being together is the only way for us to be strong, to make sure Russia keeps developing, and to make all our plans and ideas come true.

Dear friends,

In the coming year we will have a lot of things we need to do to develop our economy, to make people’s lives better, to ensure their security. We have a little over a month left before the Olympics. We need to make sure the Games are perfect.

On New Year’s Eve, it becomes particularly clear to us how close we all are. Let us thank one another for understanding and support, for love and care. In our daily lives, we are often so busy we forget to do that. But it is the support of our family and friends that we know we can always rely on, and this is what makes us strong – and eager to help them as they have helped us, and even more.

I wish you a healthy and happy New Year. May every house be full of joy, and may every family enjoy harmony and prosperity.

Happy 2014 to you, Russia!

RT: Hello Mr. Lavrov, and welcome to RT. Thanks for joining us. Today in the studio we have journalists from RT English, RT Arabic, and RT Spanish. If my colleagues don’t mind, I will start. This year has been a landmark year for Russian diplomacy. What is your personal assessment of the arrangements on Syria and Iran? And what do you think are the prospects for the Geneva-2 talks?

Sergey Lavrov: These are very positive agreements, and I believe they were made possible by our joint efforts. This is further proof that initiatives can only be put into action by our joint and sincere efforts that ensure a balance of interests and are in line with international law. I wouldn't go as far as to say we've made a breakthrough this year in terms of Syria and Iran. First, the agreements to destroy the Syrian chemical arsenal and to convene the Geneva-2 conference, as well as the first stage agreement on further steps to resolve the Iran nuclear issue, are the fruit of years-long efforts. At least when it comes to Syria, we're talking about three years of Russia's consistent efforts of defending international law. The same applies to the progress on Iran. For over three years we'd been seeking two things: first, to get all the parties to the talks to agree that eventually Iran should have a recognized right to develop its peaceful nuclear program and enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power plants, while making sure that this program has no military dimension and that it is subject to total control of the IAEA, and providing security of all the countries in the region, including Israel.

But it took a very long time for our Western partners to start reasoning this way, the way which is fair, comprehensive and takes into account the interests of the international community – Western countries, the region's and Iran's interests. It also strengthens the nuclear nonproliferation regime. So we have managed to reach this deal right at the end of the outgoing year. Another thing we have been advocating for years is the necessity to draw up some kind of a roadmap (the expression has become a buzzword now) since you can't resolve a conflict overnight. So we suggested moving forward step by step on the basis of reciprocity, which means Iran is to meet the demands set by the IAEA and supported by the UN Security Council, and the international community, in its turn, starts easing sanctions on Iran. It is supposed to continue until Iran has fully complied with all the requirements and that is the moment when all the sanctions will be lifted. For a few years, we have been advocating these two things: the so-called "endgame" — and the procedure of the dialogue, as well as promoting a political settlement in Syria.

So this breakthrough – if it was, indeed, a breakthrough – was the result of Russia’s long-term efforts and patience. When the Arab Spring began, Russia was said to be on the wrong side of history, to have lost the Arab streetand the Middle East. Unfortunately, at the time our Western partners – and some of our partners in the region, by the way – weren’t looking for solutions that would help stabilize the situation and help the nations in the region to implement their right to a better life, but opted for information warfare tactics. I’m just stating the facts – that’s what was happening at that time, and up until the beginning of this year, but I admit that in the end our Western partners have come to important and wise decisions. So the breakthrough was the result of profound groundwork.

The second reservation about using the word ‘breakthrough’ has to do with the future. The decisions regarding Syria and Iran are far from being fully implemented. As for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, everything is going according to plan, with minor deviations concerning the timeframe of the interim stages, though the reasons for that are objective rather than subjective. I am sure that the deadline for the complete destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, June 30, will be met.

As for Geneva-2, we still have a long way to go. We don’t know for sure that this conference will be successful. (We can talk about this in more detail later. I am sure you’ll have more question on this issue.) And as regards the Iranian nuclear program, we’ve only reached an agreement concerning the first phase. We have a detailed plan, and technical experts are currently working on a timeframe which very specifically describes all the steps that Iran and the international community will take reciprocally. But then we need to proceed to the second phase which also needs a detailed plan of mutual steps by both sides, until we reach a point which we may call final. So now we are at the intermediate stage. A lot has been done, but it’s still early to celebrate. There’s a lot of hard work ahead of us. So instead of celebrating we should be thinking how to bring these two extremely important processes to completion.

RT: Let’s stay on Syria and countries which have had Arab Spring revolutions. Could you please elaborate on the balance between democracy and security? How difficult this problem is? What lessons can we learn from Arab Spring revolutions? What dangers is this region facing today in terms of terrorism?

SL: I think more and more countries today embrace democracy as their way of organizing society and structuring their state. Russia made this choice a long time ago. It is our clear choice, and it can't be revised. We are convinced that democracy is the way the world and every country should follow, but we are also convinced that it is up to each nation to choose a specific model of democratic development and democratic institutions. Every country has to make that choice taking into account its traditions, history, and values. Yes, there are some universal criteria that have been adopted by all. I am talking about things like the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights signed by all UN member states. But when, in addition to the universally accepted principles, certain countries seek to impose their own system of somewhat controversial values which have only been around for the past couple of decades, insisting on them as universal obligations, this leads to conflicts and causes certain nations to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, imposing their model of democracy on others. This is no longer democracy. This kind of forced “democratization” result in instability. This happened when Americans invaded Iraq; this happened recently, when NATO blatantly overstepped the UN Security Council mandate and bombed Libya; and this kind of external intervention is also happening in a number of other countries in the region. The Syrian conflict is another example of a situation where you have terrorists from all over the world, including Europe, US and Russia, fight there to turn Syria, and in fact this whole region, into a caliphate. So, forced democratization by outside forces undermines stability and produces new threats. Greater stability, on the other hand, provides the best environment for democratic reforms.

So, when the conference on Syria opens (and I really hope that the conference will go ahead as planned on January 22; I hope the opposition does not come up with some unacceptable conditions contrary to the Russian-American initiative), I strongly believe this conference should focus on fighting terrorism as this is the main threat to Syria and other countries in the region today. Certainly, there will be other issues on the agenda, including pressing humanitarian issues, discussions on the political process, organizing the elections, provisional institutions for the transitional period, but all this should be based on a common understanding between the government and the opposition, just the way it was captured in the Geneva communiqué produced at the first Geneva conference.

So, I really hope that our Western partners and our partners in the region, which have more influence on the opposition than anybody else, will make sure, firstly, that the opposition is properly represented at this conference and, secondly, that the opposition attends the conference without any preconditions. The very point of the Russian-American initiative is that the people of Syria should agree on how to implement the principles captured in the Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2013, without any external intervention or any preconditions. But so far, unfortunately, we don’t know what the regime's opponents, who have recently formed the National Coalition, will do. We are alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition does not seem to have complete unity. We are also alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition keeps saying that this conference must result in a regime change, or even that a regime change is a prerequisite for having the conference. This is something we have never agreed to. We are also alarmed by the fact that the National Coalition does not seem to have complete control over all the groups fighting the regime on the ground. Another concern is that we see among the rebels an increasing number of jihadists who pursue extremist objectives. They want to set up a caliphate and impose sharia laws, and basically they are already terrorizing minorities.

They have formed what they call an Islamic Front, and some of our partners in the West are even flirting with it – even though we know from our confidential contacts with them that they know pretty well that the organizations which formed the Islamic Front are not much different from Jabhat al-Nusra, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This alarms us.

Incidents of anti-Christian violence are happening time after time. Before the crisis, there were two million Christians living in Syria. Now there’s probably less than a million left. We don’t have reliable statistics, but I believe at least a million Christians are now refugees. We all know about the most outrageous incidents, and your channel covered some of them. There was an incident at St. Thecla Convent when nuns were taken hostage by terrorists. This incident happened near the town of Maaloula, the only place in the world where people still speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. We know from our contacts with Christian communities in Syria and throughout the region that they are very worried, because Christians have been living in the Middle East for two thousand years, and now all this can be over. So, first of all, it is necessary to come to an agreement on what the future Syria should be like. Fighting terrorism is the number one priority. As far as the political process is concerned, the government and the opposition should first of all put on paper their common vision of Syria’s future – that Syria should be a sovereign, independent country whose territorial integrity is universally recognized and where the rights of all the ethnic, religious and political groups are respected so they all feel secure and they are all involved in in the political process. Who should be in the government, on the other hand, and who should organize the elections – these matters are secondary. The biggest threat comes today from those who seek to defeat the government on the battlefield and set up a totally different state.

Of course, the humanitarian situation worries us as well, and perhaps we do more than anybody else to address these problems by working together with the government and UN agencies. We are making progress, although it is a difficult job. After all, there is real war going on in a large part of the country. We help both directly, by sending humanitarian cargo like medicine, food and other things, and indirectly, by making donations to various UN humanitarian agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

But some people are trying to take advantage of this humanitarian crisis for their own purposes, just like they did with the chemical weapons. They get extremely emotional on this issue, and, like they did with the chemical weapons, they blame the government for everything, including the humanitarian crisis. They had the UN General Assembly adopt a resolution which gives a completely distorted picture of what is actually happening on the ground. This resolution is extremely ideologized. At least, a much smaller number of nations supported this resolution compared to a similar resolution adopted a year earlier. Now they say they will send what they call a “humanitarian” resolution to the UN Security Council. This resolution will demand that the government should take certain steps unilaterally and threaten the government with actions based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This plan has no future. What worries us is that we see increased activity on the part of the people who come up with such spoilers before the Geneva-2 conference. The opposition says they will only take part in the conference if their various demands are met. Sometimes they insist on a regime change; sometimes they say they need guarantees that there will be a regime change immediately after the conference; sometimes they say they will only take part in the Geneva conference after the humanitarian crisis is taken care of. But in reality the humanitarian crisis gets worse mostly because of the militants, because of the groups which many countries have officially recognized as extremist and terrorist. So, we do need to address humanitarian issues, but instead of fighting symptoms we should fight the root cause of the crisis. And the root cause of the crisis is that the terrorist threat is extremely serious in Syria today, and the government and the opposition should come to an agreement on the key parameters regarding the future of their country, like I said earlier.

By the way, I should also mention that at the G8 summit in Lough Erne in June, all the leaders of the G8 countries urged both the Syrian government and the opposition in their communique to join their forces in fighting terrorists in order to defeat those terrorists and drive them out of Syria. This, I believe, is our top priority today. Once the situation stabilizes, once the rights of all minorities are secured, once the multi-ethnic and multi-faith nature of the Syrian state is secured, democratic institutions will follow. Stability is the number one priority today.

RT: Mr. Lavrov, I would like to ask you about Latin America, which is becoming increasingly attractive for many countries - including Russia. But China is also very active in the region. What’s more, the Chinese are showing interest in the same areas as Russia – transport, mining, and arms exports. How will the interests of Russia and China co-exist in the region? Would you describe the situation between Russia and China in Latin America as competition?

SL: If a certain country in Latin America announces a tender for the construction of a hydro power plant, or a railroad, or a highway, or an industrial facility, and there are companies from both Russia and China interested in taking part in this tender, I guess you can call them competitors. But this is what you may call the practical dimension of cooperation between Latin America and their international partners. At the conceptual level, I can say that when we make friends with other nations, our friendship is never against anyone. We want every country to have diverse, equal, and mutually beneficial ties with all the countries who would like to do the same. This is part of our foreign policy concept. We call it being multidirectional. As equal partners, taking into account each other’s interests, we are open to cooperate with anybody who wants the same. In the modern world, where Russia, China, and many other countries are becoming stronger economically, and where Russian and Chinese companies have capabilities and ambitions to compete for promising markets, of course Latin America is an immensely interesting region. It is rapidly developing. It is a region that seeks to play an increasingly independent role, and we appreciate that - because few countries around the world today can afford to be independent.

Also, Latin America is definitely becoming a center of economic growth, financial power, and political influence. It is one of the poles in the emerging multi-polar world order. It is a very promising region. Politically speaking, Latin American countries share an approach which is very similar to Russia’s – and, incidentally, China’s – position on various international affairs. What I mean is respect for international law, recognition of the central role of the United Nations, non-use of force for conflict and crisis resolution, the use of political and diplomatic means to resolve various international issues, etc. This is what we have in common. Of course, this political proximity is a good foundation for developing further our economic and cultural contacts. We have a visa-free travel regime with all the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (just to be on the safe side, I should probably add that possibly there are a few exceptions). This is an important indicator of mutual trust and an important instrument for developing trade, investment, tourism, and general contacts between people. We live in a globalized world, and we are happy that Latin America attracts more and more serious partners.

RT: Russia is often portrayed abroad as a country that tends to act rashly, even though Russia’s foreign policy is anything but rash. Would you say that Cold War clichés are still a major influence in international affairs today?

SL: I agree that attempts to portray our actions as rash and emotional have nothing to do with reality. This may be part of the information war I mentioned earlier. If you look at what we did with Syria and Iran, for example, you will get a totally different picture. We are always pragmatic and flexible. We never corner ourselves, like some did more than two years ago when they said that Assad was no longer legitimate and did not represent anyone. This was a hasty and emotional statement by some of the world leaders. How can you say that he doesn’t represent anybody while in reality he’s backed by a significant portion of the population, if not the majority, due to a number of reasons. It’s not because he is vastly adored by the people, but because a lot of people depend on him. It’s not just the minorities, a lot of Sunni depend on him. Whatever you might think of it, many of them have successfully run their businesses during the rule of the Assad family. They are convinced that in the case of a violent regime change, without any political settlement, their businesses might be taken away from them. So Assad does represent a significant portion of the population, and statements like ‘he’s not legitimate’ or ‘you can write him off’ is a prime example of hasty and premature decisions. Syria inevitable comes to mind no matter what issues we are talking about today. Currently, the attitude of the West is different, they are becoming increasingly realistic in their approaches towards the settlement of the Syrian crisis. Whatever the official spokesmen say, number one problem is the threat of terrorism, the threat of jihadists coming to power in Syria and establishing a Caliphate with an extremist order, the threat of undermining the rights of or even exterminating the Syrian minorities. Our Western partners are becoming increasingly aware that regime change is not a solution – quite the opposite, regime change can make it easier for the terrorists to come to power. So, hopefully, our Western partners will do whatever it takes to convene the Geneva-2 conference. We’ve done our share. The Syrian government has picked its delegates, the opposition has not done it yet. So I do hope that as the understanding of the situation in Syria and the region sinks in, our partners will work hard to complete their part of the job in a way that we’ve earlier agreed on.

Talking of Russian foreign policy in general, we have an official concept that outlines its key principles – we pursue relations with other countries that are equal, pragmatic, and mutually beneficial. We will defend our legitimate national interests in a determined and consistent way but without engaging in any confrontation. In his annual address to the Federal Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly re-affirmed our policy. In particular, he said that Russia doesn’t claim to be a superpower on the global arena, Russia doesn’t want to lecture anyone. But Russia wants to be a leader in promoting international law and the principles that are enshrined in the UN Charter.

Patience is required to achieve success in international affairs, to resolve crises like the Syrian or the Iranian one. I’m sorry; it’s a bit of an exaggeration to call the situation around Iran a crisis. But I can also refer to the Middle East in general or the Israeli-Palestinian issue. We are promoting a pragmatic approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an approach that rules out any unexpected or unilateral steps that undermine confidence. This conflict is a good example to explain one more important rule. You can be vocal in defending certain principles in public, but it’s much more important to put them into action in a consistent way. Take the intensive work done by the Quartet of international mediators on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including Russia, the EU, the US and the UN. There were regular meetings of experts and ministers who drafted some blueprints with principles offered to Israel and Palestine as the basis for launching direct talks. We worked together with the Arab League, and we still want to do that. But then there was a break at a certain stage. Not all members of the Quartet were prepared to move forward at the same pace and in the same consistent fashion to convince the two conflicting parties to use the principles to settle the longest-standing conflict in modern history. So it’s wrong both to take steps in a hurry and to make a pause in your efforts, to lose sight of the progress that was achieved.

The current Obama administration, I mean US Secretary of State John Kerry, with whom I have close contacts, is taking their own unilateral steps to facilitate direct talks. We support these efforts. But I am sure that eventually - just like with Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, or Iraq - unilateral efforts are not sufficient. You need to rely on joint efforts, on ideas that are worked out together. Two heads are better than one anyway. We have several multilateral formats like the Quartet or the P5+1 group on the Iranian nuclear program. We have a format on Afghanistan and on Yemen. A conference on Libya is upcoming next year. Our cooperation within these formats is never smooth, but these represent our joint efforts. Any proposals that Russia might come up with are usually promoted via these formats. We first need to win broad support from the other stakeholders and then propose to the conflicting parties a plan that would be universally accepted.

So there’s no haste in the decisions that Russia takes in its foreign policy and I hope our partners wouldn’t be tempted to resolve any issues overnight – otherwise it could be harmful.

RT: Let’s talk about Russian neighbors. Recently, we’ve been hearing anti-Russian rhetoric in Ukraine and some other post-Soviet countries. Don’t you think it’s happening too often?

SL: It’s sad that we still see these things happening, so many years after the end of the Cold War. The main antagonists who contributed to this coldness in the world are no longer there, at the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone, unlike NATO. It’s not constructive to rely on the phobias of the bygone era. It’s a short-sighted policy. Our goal is to live with all our neighbors in peace. We used to live as part of one state together with them, including the Baltic states. It was thanks to our joint efforts that these countries have robust production, the industries that drive the economic growth and infrastructure.

As the Soviet Union was collapsing, our Western partners told us that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia had a lot of phobias regarding the past and that once they were members of NATO, they would feel secure.

It never happened that way. True, we are developing economic and cultural ties with these countries and we want to see them strengthening but when they get together at a NATO summit, we hear them voicing Russian phobias. Here’s an example. We have a discussion platform called the Russia-NATO Council in place where we debate many issues, including the missile shield, of course, which is the main stumbling block in our relations with the US. We’ve talked about that issue at length. We want the Russia-NATO Council to be a confidence-building tool. Confidence is what we desperately need in the Euro-Atlantic. The level and the volume of our economic, humanitarian, educational, and scientific ties with Europe is huge and is growing every year. It’s a striking contrast to the low level of trust in terms of politics and defense. To improve that, we’ve been suggesting sharing information on different aspects, advocating transparency on military exercises that are taking place near our respective borders. During my visit to Poland, my counterpart has expressed satisfaction with the level of transparency regarding the recent drills West 2013.

Later NATO held the Steadfast Jazz 2013 exercise on the territory of Poland and the Baltic states. But unlike West 2013, which focused on combating terrorism, Steadfast Jazz followed the procedures outlined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which is all about collective defense.

Even in the run-up to the exercise, we asked our NATO partners who they were supposed to be defending against. It’s a relevant question since the drills were to take place near our borders with the Baltic States and Poland. We didn’t get any coherent reply. But once the exercise was over, Poland and the Baltic States announced that the exercise had demonstrated that the alliance was capable of defending their countries from a threat from the east.

So yes indeed, we still see these phobias, which is very sad. We were open about our concerns at the latest ministerial session of the Russia-NATO Council. Driven by these phobias, some in Europe want to maintain these dividing lines and even move them closer to the east, to view anything happening on our huge Eurasian continent as if it were the zero sum game. You mentioned Ukraine. Well, any attempts to start a geopolitical battle over Ukraine can have disastrous consequences, both for Ukraine and for Europe. This runs counter to modern aspirations of Europe or the goals set by outstanding European leaders; I mean Charles de Gaulle, who spoke of the common space between the Atlantic and the Urals. What Russia proposes right now is a common economic and humanitarian space between Lisbon and Vladivostok. This idea, voiced by President Putin, has not been rejected. Furthermore, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, voiced a similar idea. So why then is it still on paper? Why do we hear these ideas but in reality we see completely different strategies being played out? We now see that responsible European politicians have changed their view on Ukraine after the current crisis. Previously, their key message was that Ukraine had to make a free choice in favor of the Association Agreement with the EU. Right now, they’ve come to realize the importance of the fact that Ukraine has a unique position between eastern and western neighbors; that it has vast economic ties with both east and west, and that you need to be looking for solutions which take into account the complexity of all these factors. One of them is holding trilateral talks between Ukraine, Russia and the EU - the idea voiced by Ukrainian Prime Minister Nikolay Azarov right in the heat of the crisis and supported by President Putin. The president is aware that both Ukraine and the EU have their unique interests, but we don’t want our interests to be undermined. But back then, the EU officials rejected this idea. Today, the German leadership, including Chancellor Angel Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, say that you need to factor in the realities and look for ways of cooperation that would be beneficial and acceptable for all the parties. I can only welcome statements like this.

So we need to get rid of these phobias. Of course, old habits die hard. But I think that responsible European politicians should help the EU to build a policy that will take into account the legitimate interests of Russia, Ukraine, and other post-Soviet countries. As we build such an environment at the political level, with the Eurasian integration gaining ground and increasing our competitiveness in industry, agriculture, and innovations, we will be better prepared to talk as equals on further liberalization of trade and investment regimes between Russia, our neighbors and the European Union and push for it on more favorable terms. In other words, we'll be taking practical steps to make our dream come true and build a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

RT: Mr. Lavrov, we've talked about Syria and Iran. But this year was certainly marked by a tremendous scandal over the US spying on both ordinary citizens and world leaders. Do you think the international community's response to Edward Snowden's revelations has been sufficient? And has it affected America's global influence?

SL: President Putin talked about this at his recent major press conference. He said he hoped that the primary objective of the US special services is combating terrorism and preventing terrorist attacks. This is our common goal, and we're interested in bringing the entire international community together in the UN and other institutions in the most efficient way to tackle the threat of terrorism.

Speaking of Edward Snowden, I doubt anyone was shocked by the actual content of his revelations. Rather, the shock came from making the whole thing public; from leaking facts that are traditionally swept under the carpet. The response, I believe, was pretty predictable. Who would take kindly to something like this, after all?

As to the practical steps taken by the international community, the UN General Assembly voted unanimously for a resolution that condemns such privacy infringement. In fact, a few years ago we suggested that the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe should adopt a resolution against the abuse of the internet, stating primarily that intrusion into private lives is unacceptable. But their response was negative.

By the way, at the OSCE ministerial session in early December we brought up this question once again, telling the OSCE that the decision they refused to adopt a few years ago has now been taken aboard by the UN General Assembly. In other words, the OSCE, which considers itself a trendsetter, suddenly found itself lagging behind.

The most important thing to do now is to learn the lesson. We’ve heard that President Obama has given instructions to draft documents against abuse by intelligence services. We are also convinced that this problem calls for additional attention in terms of a systemic approach to cooperation.

Now, I’ve mentioned one aspect to this problem, which is the abuse of the internet in terms of privacy infringement. But for a few years running, there’s been another issue in the spotlight, and that is managing the internet. The International Telecommunication Union is heavily discussing ways to prevent the web from becoming a tool to promote someone’s unilateral interests. This is a complex issue. I won’t go into detail – you surely do understand what it’s all about. But I believe that having this topic on the agenda is a serious message.

Russia is also actively sponsoring several related initiatives together with its partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. We have introduced a draft document regulating international information security in the UN. We suggested to our NATO partners that we should have a special mechanism for cyber-security inside the Russia-NATO Council. However, NATO has so far rejected this proposal – which, I believe, is to a large extent because some of the NATO members are still influenced by their old phobias. But we’ve been able to establish a bilateral working group on international cyber-security as part of a larger presidential commission. Our initial contacts in this working group have confirmed that the US does understand the need to introduce regulation in this area and to prevent the internet from becoming a tool for terrorists and other criminals to promote child pornography and many other crimes that are totally unacceptable and that are now almost entirely unregulated.

RT: The issue of whether Iran should be invited to the Geneva-2 conference has been a stumbling block. The West continues to insist that Iran shouldn’t join. Do you think this conference can take place without Iran?

SL: The matter hasn’t been settled yet. If you look at the list of participants that is currently being negotiated, Iran has parentheses around it. We are convinced that all the countries that influence the situation should take part in the conference. In this case, it’s first and foremost all of Syria’s neighbors and other key players, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia. These two countries are linked to a very serious threat. I am talking about the brewing conflict within Islam between the Sunni and the Shia. We can’t allow this to happen. By the way, there are tensions even inside Sunni Islam right now, and that’s very dangerous. That’s why Saudi Arabia (as the home of two Muslim holy sites and a predominantly Sunni country that openly declares its interest in removing the Assad regime) and Iran (which aspires to be the leader of the Shia world and openly declares its interest in preserving the current regime and finding a political solution) should both be present at the conference. They will influence the situation anyway, so it would be much better to include them in the general discussion and have them listen to the opinions of all the participants - especially the Syrian government and the opposition - but also other countries supporting different parties to the conflict. Pretending that they have no influence would be non-pragmatic. That’s an ideologized approach that harms the process.

Some say that Iran is counterproductive and that it hasn’t signed last year’s Geneva communiqué, which is the basis for the Geneva-2 talks. But some of the countries whose participation in the conference the West does not oppose are not only in disagreement with the Geneva communiqué provisions, but are basically obstructing the convention of Geneva-2. Everyone is fully aware of that. So it’s obvious to us that Iran should participate in the conference, and in fact it is obvious to pretty much everyone else; the European countries are in favor of it, the Arab countries support it, and the UN Secretary General and his special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi support it as well. The US still has some reservations, but there’s some time left, and we’ll be discussing this matter further. After all, in the past, when the US had its own problems to solve in Iraq or Afghanistan, Washington established direct contacts with Iran without a second thought - ideology or no ideology. So if this was possible when there were American interests involved, why not sit down to talk with Iran when it concerns Syria’s interests? When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, we had a 6+2 group – Afghanistan’s six neighbors plus Russia and the US. Iran was part of that group and proved capable of working in a multi-party format as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.RT: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavrov, for this interview.

SL: Thank you.

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, members of the Council of Federation and the State Duma,

The President’s state-of-the-nation annual address to the Federal Assembly is a requirement set forth in the Russian Constitution, which is exactly 20 years old today. I congratulate you on this important date for our state and our society. And of course, I also congratulate you on the 20th anniversary of the Federal Assembly, Russia’s parliament, which was created in accordance with the provisions of our country’s basic law.

Our Constitution brings together two fundamental priorities – the supreme value of rights and freedoms of citizens and a strong state, emphasizing their mutual obligation to respect and protect each other. I am convinced that the constitutional framework must be stable, above all in what concerns its second chapter, which defines the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens. These provisions of our fundamental law are inviolable.

But life does not stand still, and no constitutional process can ever be regarded as finally completed or dead. Targeted amendments to other constitutional chapters, deriving from law enforcement practices and from life itself, naturally are possible and sometimes necessary.

You know that we have proposed to amend the Constitution and to unite the Supreme Court and Higher Arbitration Court. Today these courts often differ, sometimes quite substantially, in their interpretation of various laws. Sometimes they take different decisions in similar cases, and sometimes they agree. This results in legal uncertainty, and at times in injustices that affect concrete people.

I believe that unifying these courts will allow us to bring judicial practice onto one track, and therefore strengthen the guarantees protecting a crucial constitutional principle, the equality of all before the law.

Colleagues, the Constitution contains crucial unifying national ideas. The meaning of its provisions on the welfare state consists in the mutual responsibility linking the state, society, the business community, and every Russian citizen. We must support the growing desire of citizens, representatives of public and professional associations, political parties, and the business class to participate in our country’s life.

Among other things we must support civic activism at the local level, in communities, so that people get a real opportunity to participate in managing their village or town, to deal with everyday issues that actually determine their quality of life.

Today quite a few problems have accumulated within our local self-government system. Unfortunately, and you know it well, the responsibilities incumbent on municipalities and their resources are not evenly balanced. This often leads to confusion regarding their authorities, which are not only blurred, but are constantly thrown from one level of government to another: from districts to regions, from towns to districts and back again. Local self-government authorities are being constantly shaken by corruption scandals.

The powers at the district level have been significantly watered down. Those that existed in education, healthcare, and social welfare have been transferred to the regional level of government.

In addition, local authority – because it is the closest power to the people – should be organized so that any citizen could reach out to it, figuratively speaking. In this connection I am addressing the All-Russian Council for Local Self-Government Development, All-Russian Congress of Municipalities, governors, and members of the Federal Assembly, of the Government of the Russian Federation – let’s comprehensively go over these issues again and finally bring the situation in line with common sense and attune it to the times.

Let me repeat: I think the most important task is to clarify the general principles of the local self-government organization, and develop strong, independent, financially sustainable local authorities. And we need to start this work and give it sound legal foundations already next year, 2014, the year of the 150th anniversary of the famous Zemstvo Reform of 1864.

Incidentally, at the time it was precisely the development of zemstvos, of local self-government that enabled Russia to make a breakthrough and find competent people capable of implementing major progressive reforms, including Pyotr Stolypin’s agrarian reform and the restructuring of industry during the First World War.

I am sure that today as well strong local self-government can become a powerful resource for enhancing and renewing our country’s human resource potential. And of course, we are all interested in ensuring that elections bring to power qualified, motivated, professional people who are ready to perform their duties responsibly. For this reason we shall continue to work on developing the political competition, improving political institutions, and creating conditions for them to be more open and efficient.

Recent elections demonstrated that today there is less officialdom, bureaucracy, and predictable results in our political life. I consider it important that many new parties have made their presence felt. By winning seats in municipal and regional bodies, they have laid a good foundation for participating in upcoming federal election campaigns. I am sure that they will act as worthy competitors to longstanding political actors.

Today’s Russia requires broad public debate that would yield practical results, when public initiatives become part of public policy, while society monitors their execution. I think that all draft bills, key government decisions, and strategic plans should pass a so-called initial public reading involving NGOs and other civil society institutions.

Both the federal and regional executive authorities must establish public councils. Of course many such councils already exist within various levels of authority, but they are not everywhere. And most importantly, these councils should not be formal or decorative structures. On the contrary, they should act as expert groups, and sometimes as the government’s constructive opponents, and be active participants in anti-corruption efforts.

I would ask the Civic Chamber, the Human Rights Council and other non-governmental and human rights organizations to be actively involved in drafting the bill On Public Oversight that would establish the legal basis for such civic participation.

Supporting the human rights movement should be a priority of joint work between the state and society. We expect that such organizations will not act in a way that is politically biased, and that they will engage as closely as possible with the interests and concerns of every citizen, every individual.

In this context, the role of the Civic Chamber is increasing. It must become a platform where various professional and social groups, associations, and unions can express their interests. More professionals should be involved in this work. I believe that members of these unions must compose at least half of the Civic Chamber’s members proposed by the President. Such an approach would balance the interests of different social and professional groups, and enable the Chamber to be more responsive to their concerns.

The most important topic requiring frank discussion in our society today is interethnic relations. This one topic concentrates many of our problems: challenges relating to socio-economic and regional development, corruption, shortcomings in the work of public institutions, and of course failures in educational and cultural policies, which often produce a distorted understanding of the true causes of interethnic tensions.

Such tensions are not provoked by representatives of particular nationalities, but by people devoid of culture and respect for traditions, both their own and those of others. They represent a kind of Amoral International, which comprises rowdy, insolent people from certain southern Russian regions, corrupt law enforcement officials who cover for ethnic mafias, so-called Russian nationalists, various kinds of separatists who are ready to turn any common tragedy into an excuse for vandalism and bloody rampage.

Together we must rise to the challenge; we must safeguard interethnic peace and thus the unity of our society, the unity and integrity of the Russian state.

Colleagues, the May 2012 executive orders contain specific measures designed to ensure the country’s dynamic development in all fields. In fact, the orders amounted to a unified action program, reflecting the will of millions of people, the desire of all Russian people for a better life. Sometimes we hear that there are insufficient funds to realize all stated plans and goals,that we need to lower our standards and simplify our tasks.

Colleagues, let me turn to a very important subject with profound implications. I think that it is impossible to elaborate policies following a formal approach. Yes, of course we all know that economic trends may and do change. But that is no reason to talk about revising our goals. We need to do real work, seek solutions, and clearly lay out budgetary and other priorities. I would ask you to update all state programs accordingly.

Already within the next two years, all budgets should be changed to conform to our budget plan. This does not mean rewriting everything mechanically. It means increasing the personal responsibility of each manager for the achievement of results. What we need to do is to focus resources on achieving substantial changes in specific sectors.

For this reason we are raising salaries in education and healthcare so that the work of teachers, professors, and doctors becomes prestigious once again, and attracts strong university graduates. But as we agreed, decent wages must not only reflect budgetary transfers, but rather reforms designed to improve spending efficiency and, most importantly, the quality of social services. We need people to see how our schools, universities, clinics and hospitals are changing for the better.

Apart from pay rises, which is what we need and will do, we must bring into life a number of other measures. In particular, we need to switch to the contract-based system, to certify the staff and provide more financing to those institutions, both public and private that deliver the highest quality of service. This is critical if we are to see genuine competition, it will provide access to budget funds for nonprofit organizations and social enterprises. Furthermore, it means we would be able to streamline our public institutions by getting rid of inefficient expenditures and structures, by eliminating hurdles for public institutions to become more independent.

Where are these measures? It’s been 18 months since the decrees were issued. From what I can see it’s either done in a way that prompts a negative response in our society or nothing is done at all. Of course, with an approach like this we will hardly achieve the target.

The reforms have been delayed, and this delay is unacceptable. As a result, the people, who are the end consumers of these services, have not seen any drastic changes. We spend a lot of money but without reforms we will only get inefficient spending instead of better quality. We will get more managers instead, and that’s what is happening. That’s a point for the federal and regional authorities.

Another important job is to set up an independent quality assessment system for public sector institutions. This would allow us to provide financing based on their performance, and therefore help to effectively streamline the network of these institutions.

We need laws with direct effect that would define the standards and benchmarks as well as obligations for authorities of all levels in terms of creating the quality assessment system for public sector institutions. I urge you to adopt such a law within the spring session, colleagues.

We have made significant progress in healthcare over the past couple of years. Life expectancy is on the rise. The mortality rate from heart and other types of diseases is going down. But we are still far from reaching the targets.

We need to move towards insurance as the underlying principle that underpins the healthcare system. Today, the role of mandatory medical insurance boils down to sending the cash to the recipient through the extrabudgetary fund, and not through the budget. Our goal is completely different. People need to realize that they are responsible for their own health, so that they get a financial incentive to lead a healthy lifestyle, while insurance companies should encourage medical institutions to provide high quality service. Insurance companies need to assess the clinics’ performance to make sure that patients have a chance to pick the clinics which they think are best.

The mandatory insurance system shall cover free medical services in full. There must be enough money and these funds need to get to the specific hospital or clinic. The patient needs to be aware of what services are free of charge, while the doctor should understand how his work is paid.

Preventive care needs a stronger focus. Starting from 2015, all children and teenagers would have to pass a medical examination free of charge once a year. Adults - once every three years.

Of course, these regular checkups will reveal more diseases and require more high tech medical aid to treat them. Over the past years, we have set up a whole chain of federal centers that have the capability to render the most advanced medical aid. We need to build on this potential. Their services must be available not only to the residents of the cities where they are located, but also to the people from other regions. We need to provide for the sources of financing for this.

Within the next three years we need to create conditions to conduct 50 percent more high tech surgeries than we do today. This is a feasible goal. We should not lose sight of the world trends. The world’s leading countries are about to introduce new medical technologies based on bio and genetic engineering. This would revolutionize medicine. The Healthcare Ministry and the Russian Academy of Sciences must give priority to fundamental and applied research in medicine.

Professionals need to play a stronger role in managing the healthcare system. I have heard of new ideas that have been floated. They must be supported. I instruct the Healthcare Ministry, together with the leading association of medical professionals, to submit specific proposals to make this happen.

We need to revive the traditions of charity. My proposal is to organize a broad movement of volunteers in Russia, those who are prepared to work in the healthcare system, to offer their help. Those volunteers who have experience of working in medical institutions for several years need to get privileges when applying to medical educational institutions.

Colleagues, the upcoming year of 2014 has been declared as the Year of Culture. It must become the year of genuine enlightenment, getting back to our cultural roots, to patriotism and morality.

We all know the encompassing, unifying role that Russian culture and language have played in the history of our multi-ethnical nation. We need to build on this when shaping our policy, including in education.

We need schools that don’t just teach, which is crucially important of course. We need schools that can bring up a personality which has absorbed the values of the country, its history and traditions, a personality with a vision, a rich inner culture, which are capable of creative and independent thinking.

We have issued an instruction to consider introducing an essay as part of the standardized exam and the marks for it will be taken into account during enrolment.

Professional growth of teachers comes to the forefront today. They must be ready to use modern technologies and work with children with disabilities. I urge you to come up with a comprehensive re-training program for school staff. I know that the Ministry of Education is doing it. We need to finalize the drafting of this program.

There is another urgent issue. A quarter of Russians schools work in two shifts. In many cities, almost half of schools work in this way. In the next five to six years, given the positive demographic changes, the number of schoolchildren will increase by a million.

I am addressing the government, the Federal Assembly, the regional authorities to assess the scope of this issue. We need to come up with effective solutions. One of them is to construct pre-schools so that they could be later used for primary education. This should not increase the cost of construction of pre-schools. Another option is to build the school and the pre-school as part of one building, under the same roof.

Of course, it should not be within scope of the federal authorities, it’s the task for the regional or even municipal authorities. But we need to assess the scope of the problem. We can’t ignore it. If the issue is so important for the nation and is taking such a grand scope, the federal authorities would need to offer some assistance of course.

We also need to continue to build infrastructure for youth sports, to make a healthy lifestyle fashionable. This was the main idea behind hosting the Universiade in Kazan in 2013, which turned out to be very successful, and that’s the main idea behind the Olympics in Sochi that are about to begin.

I am convinced that we will organize the Sochi Olympics, the Football World Cup and the Winter Universiade in Krasnoyarsk at a very high level.

Colleagues, according to the latest statistics for a period between January and October of this year, Russia has seen a natural increase in its population for the first time since 1991. That is a very good indicator.

The birth rate has been higher than the death rate in almost half of Russian regions. What’s interesting is that in all the Urals regions, in Siberia and in the majority of the regions of the Volga District and the Far East, it’s higher than the average Russian figures.

But we also need to realize one thing. Right now, it is the generation of the 1990s who has taken to creating families. Those people spring from a period that was marked by an unprecedented, catastrophic decline in fertility. That is why extraordinary efforts are necessary if we want to ensure that the positive demographic shift in Russia is irreversible.

I would like to remind you that our country showed some of its best demographic results in late 1980s. That same period was also marked by a peak in housing construction. Today, housing policies must once again serve as one of the government’s key instruments for improving the demographic situation.

The government has already formulated its guidelines for implementing the Affordable Housing program. According to this program, a total of no less than 25 million square meters of housing space are to be completed by the end of 2017, complete with the necessary social infrastructure, so that middle-class families could improve their living conditions. I suggest that we name this program ‘Housing for Russian Families’ in order to emphasize this task.

By 2016, we need to construct 75 million square meters, which is higher than the record figures of 1987 when 72.8 million square meters were built. Thanks to modern technologies, we can now build a lot, relatively inexpensive and of good quality. But to ensure that, we need to solve a number of tasks.

We need to amend our legislation to make it easier to provide land for development, and this needs to be done within the next several months. We have been discussing this issue a number of times, including in the past weeks.

Self-government bodies would have to put all of the free land plots on sale according to transparent and clear procedures. The developer’s responsibility would grow, too. Once they get a permit, they need to start construction. If there’s a delay, they would need to return the land.

The next hurdle is the lack of money to provide engineering infrastructure for the land. We need to create dedicated instruments to resolve this issue, to find the finances for it and the right way to organize it.

I know that the government is drafting proposals on regulating e-commerce on behalf on the fiscal authorities. This could become one of the sources of financing for the development of engineering infrastructure. I ask you to submit proposals on this issue.

Finally, we must straighten out licensing procedures which have not been harmonized to this day. I request the government to establish a single, comprehensive list of mandatory permits and licenses for construction activities, and reduce the time frames for the necessary procedures as much as possible. This should be done by the end of March 2014.

My colleagues are perfectly aware of why this issue lingers to this day. This area is highly prone to corruption – that is the core of the problem.

Dear colleagues, we are aware that resuming sustained economic growth is a fundamental prerequisite for ensuring social development. I am essentially referring to the very core of our activities.

Granted, we still sense the post-effects of the global economic crisis. But we must acknowledge that the main reasons for this slowdown in development are driven by internal rather than external factors.

Today, Russia is one of the world’s five biggest economies by GDP, and that certainly is a good thing. However, we are still halfway behind the advanced economies in terms of a crucial economic indicator such as labor efficiency. We need to close this gap promptly.

To that end, we need to make full use of new growth factors. What factors am I talking about? Those are well known. I am referring to good-quality vocational training, a flexible labor market, a favorable investment climate, and advanced technologies.

I am tasking the government with updating the list of priority areas of research and development, in collaboration with the Russian Academy of Science. The recently established Russian Scientific Fund must plan its activities in accordance with those priorities. It must focus on financing fundamental research and long-term programs. I consider this to be a task of national importance. Just recently, leaders of all parliamentary factions met to prepare for this address, and they all explained how they could participate in the innovative development of the country. You all voted for the law that established the Russian Science Foundation. I am asking all parliamentary factions to send their representatives to the Russian Science Foundation’s Board of Trustees.

As for application research, this work has to be done based on technological platforms. I propose that we redirect funds to support this research from certain target programs, mostly from the ‘Research and development in strategic areas of science and technology.’ It is important for the state and business to co-finance such projects. Today only one out of 265 scientific products gets protected as intellectual property. The added value of intellectual property makes less than one percent of Russia’s GDP. It’s an extremely low number. In the US, its 12 percent, 7-8 percent in Germany, and 20 percent in our neighboring Finland. So high tech institutions must aim at specific results, i.e. getting patents and licenses, as well as practical implementation of scientific research.

We need to boost domestic demand for high technology. This is a crucial factor; we need domestic demand for these technologies. To achieve that we have to use the public procurement system and investment programs of state-owned companies. The sums are huge – trillions of rubles.

We also have to carry out a large-scale review of development institutions, whose activity has lately split into numerous uncoordinated projects that are sometimes not directly related with innovations. But this is not what we created these development institutions for. The projects may be good, but these institutions have been established for boosting innovations in economic development in the first place. So a technological breakthrough should become the focus of their activity again.

In order to purge our economy of outdated, inefficient, and harmful technologies, it is high time we developed a modern system of technical and environmental control. This is a very complicated and delicate issue for our economy. I hope that the government, in cooperation with the private sector and our colleagues within the Customs Union, will carry out this work actively.

Apart from that, I suggest we should establish a statistical appraisal system to assess the level of technology for specific industries, in order to have an objective image of our competitiveness. We had such a system in the Soviet Union, but it was scrapped. Nothing has been established to replace this system, so we need to reconstruct it.

Our next task is to support the non-commodity exports. So far, this system hasn’t been fully functional. There are still many red tape barriers. It takes over 20 days to get an export permit. Compare this to six days in the United States or eight days in Canada and South Korea, for example. We have to take all these issues into account when we develop the new “road map” for supporting export. I am asking the government, along with the Agency for Strategic Initiatives, to finish this work by March 1, 2014.

Colleagues, new professional standards will play a key role in a healthy economic development. But they will only work if the business community itself sees them as important. Therefore, we have to involve professional communities in this process. My proposal is to establish the National Council for Professional Qualifications. And it should not be under any agency, but must be an independent body. The most prominent business unions and professional associations must be involved in its work. The council will have to develop the whole package of new professional standards in two years.

I am asking our colleagues from the business sector, from the unions that I just mentioned, not to avoid this work. After all, this will benefit you as well. After we develop the standards, we will have to reset the whole system of professional education. We can draw from our own experience, but do it at a new level. What am I talking about here? I am talking about bringing professional orientation programs back to our schools, as well as technical universities affiliated with major industries and manufacturers. The important principle here is to teach in immediate proximity to the actual manufacturing, when practical skills can be supported by theoretical knowledge.

I would also like to say a few words about higher education. Most young men and women seek university degrees. The quality of our universities has to meet this demand. In that case this “education drive” of our young people will become a major factor in the development of our country. But today we have many universities, both in Moscow and other cities, that don’t meet modern standards.

I think that we need to renew the whole system of higher education and involve the best universities in this process, commissioning them to assess quality of education in other schools. This will help us make sure that university graduates are hired by companies, thus investing back into the economy and society.

We shouldn’t create any barriers for the educational mobility of our people. This has to do with dormitory fees, for example. Prices should not just appear out of thin air, but have to be based on living conditions and services provided to the student. I am asking the Ministry of Education and student government organizations to monitor the situation closely. Living in a dormitory should not be extremely expensive.

I also want to say something to university presidents. You know what’s going to happen soon? The Ministry of Finance will audit your revenues and lower the subsidies quotas. You are asking for it. As a result, education, students and universities will suffer.

We should also make high-quality Russian tertiary education broadly available to foreigners and our compatriots, primarily those who live in the CIS. That is an effective way to strengthen Russia’s cultural and intellectual influence in the world.

We should provide for mutual recognition of school certificates with all the CIS countries and consider the option of organizing simultaneous school exams under the Russian standards at Russian language centers. These could be synchronized with exams in Russian schools. All these measures are designed to enable gifted young people from the CIS to enter Russian universities.

Finally, we should speed up the approval of regulation that would allow Russian universities to offer distance learning courses. This is mostly focused on our compatriots and citizens of the CIS.

As we work on improving professional education, it is important to bear in mind that the labor market is becoming increasingly flexible. And people should be able to get additional training, to get a new profession. We should set the right conditions for those who are ready to move for work to another city or another region, considering the objectives of territorial development and engaging the business community.

There is a need to provide information support to the people and set up a nationwide vacancy database so that any person looking for a good job could see exactly where he or she can find one. And this won’t come into being without a whole package of solutions. Please work on this. It will include accommodation for rent and more. You know what I’m talking about. There’s a whole range of solutions, and we must put a list of them together as soon as possible.

Another important goal is to increase the appeal of rural areas for life and work. We have already invested quite heavily into developing the Russian agriculture sector. The industry has been growing quite well. As a result, the output has been enough to satisfy our national demand. Many thanks to the farmers for doing this job very well.

The new priority is to make sure that people stay in rural areas, and to build a modern, comfortable infrastructure. Please focus on this while amending the government agriculture development program.

Now, a couple of words on the single-industry towns - or ‘monotowns,’ as they are known - with a total population of 15 million people. They are part of the legacy of the Soviet economy. True, a lot of these towns are in dire straits. But they do have an established social infrastructure, housing, professionals. We just need to understand what’s missing there for businesses, what preferences need to be introduced for investors so that they start working in these towns - not because we force them but because it is profitable for them. Believe me, this would be a better way than to spend dozens of billions of budget money into employment programs later. And we would be forced to do it if the situation develops along a negative scenario.

I would like you to introduce proposals on the comprehensive development of these types of towns, with a list of investment projects and ideas of the sources of financing them, proposals on easing the tension on the labor market and direct assistance to the SMEs.

In this regard, I would like to address the governors of all Russian regions. We are well aware of the problems that the regional budgets are facing. But you should think beyond the day-to-day concerns.

I support the idea that has been repeatedly floated that new small businesses operating in the production, social or scientific areas can be offered two-year tax holidays. (Applause).

I don’t think that all the governors joined the applause but I would like to assure you that in the future, this step will pay off with additional taxes generated for the regional and municipal budgets. Mind you, we are talking about newly-founded businesses; you can’t lose any taxes because they didn’t exist previously. But if we create conditions for these businesses, you are going to get these revenues.

To make it more convenient for small businesses and individual entrepreneurs, we need to arrange for a ‘one stop shop’ where they could pay all the taxes, including the payroll tax. These are different payments, but it would be more convenient to receive them in one place so that they could do the payments at the same time.

Another challenge on the labor market is related to migrants. Without the proper rules, we see imbalances in the employment structure and ethnic conflicts emerging which exacerbates the criminal situation.

We must tighten the rules for the employment of migrants that don’t require visas to come to Russia. We must make employers more responsible for using foreign workers. And, of course, if they live and work in Russia, if they use the benefits of our education and healthcare systems, they need to pay taxes and other payments.

We have a difficult task here. We can’t sever our special ties with former Soviet republics, but at the same time we have to clear up the mess. In this regard we need to improve our current patent system, according to which a migrant worker needs to have a license when hired by an individual. I suggest that all legal entities, as well as private entrepreneurs, could hire migrant workers based on the license system. The cost of the license will be set by the authorities of Russia’s constituent entities, depending on the labor market situation and average per capita income level in the given region. The patent system must be differentiated and should boost the inflow of, first of all, qualified, educated specialists to Russia, who have a command of the Russian language and are familiar with Russian culture. Let me highlight that the license is only to be valid within the region where it has been acquired.

Provided this work is organized efficiently, I expect it to become an economic leverage in regulating migration flow. I am talking about the cost of this patent in different regions of Russia – that is why I say “economic.”

Finally, we need to toughen control over foreign citizens’ purposes for entering the country; all civilized countries do that. The country has to know what a foreigner comes to Russia for and how long he plans to stay here for. Apart from that, we have to address the problem with those foreigners who have entered the country visa-free and are staying here for a long time without certain purpose. They claim to have no certain purposes but apparently they do have some – it is just that the government remains unaware.

The period of their stay must be limited. Those who violate the rules of stay will be prohibited from entering Russia for the period from three to 10 years, depending on the severity of the violation.

These measures will set up an additional barrier for foreign citizens who, to put it frankly, are either involved in shady and even criminal activities, or work illegally - often in indecent conditions - and unfortunately become victims of crimes themselves.

Colleagues, Two years ago, together with the business community, we embarked on a comprehensive project to improve the business climate in Russia. By now, we have made some good progress, surprising for many. But we need to move forward. The regulatory framework ensuring a comfortable business climate must be largely put in place by 2015. Starting from next year, we will launch the national ranking of the investment climate across the Russian regions. In a nutshell, it will gauge the share of the private sector in the economy of each region of the Russian Federation.

At the same time, we must provide incentives for those regions that work hard to improve their economies, for those who focus heavily on supporting the private sector initiative and creating new businesses and jobs.

And now a good piece of news for governors. If a region invests its own funds into building new production sites and technoparks, business incubators, the additional federal taxes that these facilities will generate over the next three years of their performance should be passed back to the region in the form of inter-budget transfers. But that total of the funds returned should match the costs of the infrastructure. You laugh, but it’s a good proposal. It has been born out of arduous discussions with the Finance Ministry, and I would like the Finance Ministry to stick to its word and deliver on the commitment.

Another sensitive issue for entrepreneurs is excessive attention on the part of different supervising agencies. Oversight is necessary, but we also need to continue changing the way these supervisory agencies operate.

This work is underway and will go on. For more transparency in this area, I suggest setting up one federal website where each inspection would be assigned an individual number. Everyone would be able to see who initiated the inspection, who is being checked, what the reasons are, and - most importantly - what the results of the inspection are.

There’s one more issue: the rules to resolve commercial disputes are still lagging behind the world’s best practices. In particular, we must boost the authority of arbitration courts.

I would like to ask the government, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Russia to speedily draft and submit to the State Duma a bill that would overhaul the arbitration proceedings.

In my last year’s address to the Assembly, I spoke about the ‘de-offshorization’ of the Russian economy. I would like to bring this topic up again today.

I will be frank in saying that the results have been very scanty. Earlier this year the purchase of TNK-BP, a major deal worth over 50 billion dollars, was concluded outside Russian jurisdiction, though it is known for a fact that it was sold by Russian citizens to one of the biggest Russian companies. According to experts, last year Russian exports via offshores and semi-offshores amounted to 111 billion dollars, which equals twenty percent of our exports. Half of the 50-billion-dollar Russian investment abroad went to offshores as well. These numbers stand for the drain of capital that should be working in Russia and direct losses for the national budget.

Now, since over the last year there’s been little progress in this area, I have some ideas to share with you. Here they are.

The companies registered in an offshore jurisdiction but legally owned by a Russian citizen as the ultimate beneficiary should pay taxes in line with the Russian regulations, with the tax amounts payable to the Russian budget. And we should think of a way to collect this money.

This idea is nothing new, by the way. Some countries are already introducing such mechanisms: you are welcome to register your company in an offshore, but you will have to pay your taxes here. These mechanisms are being used by developed market economies. They have proven their efficiency.

Next, companies registered in a foreign jurisdiction should not be entitled to state support, including loans from the Vnesheconombank and state guarantees.

These companies should also be denied access to government procurement contracts.

In other words, those who want to use all the benefits and government support and at the same time get their profits while working in Russia should get registered in the Russian jurisdiction.

We should make our economy more transparent and criminalize the management of banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and other financial institutions for deliberately providing incomplete information about their financials.

We need to maintain a consistent policy to purge our banking and financial system of various money-laundering structures, all the while protecting the interests of reliable clients and depositors of troubled banks in the best possible way.

It is a worldwide trend today to combat tax evasion schemes, including offshore schemes. These issues are widely discussed by the G8 and the G20. Russia will follow this policy both nationally and internationally.

Transparency and responsibility are a must, not only for businesses, but also for the management of state-run companies and development institutions. I suggest that the government should transform their modus operandi. The management should not treat their jobs as a sort of comfort zone. Their pay is quite high. The economy won’t improve much if we cut them down; we would simply lose the qualified staff. But there is a need to exercise control over what these managers do, and that should be done in a proper way.

These institutions must work out their long-term strategies, pinpointing their goals and specifying the management’s personal responsibility. The management’s employment contracts should spell out the responsibility for failing to fulfill these objectives, including liability for damages.

The plans and policies of companies listed as strategic enterprises must be approved by the Russian government, their implementation subjected to external audit. I looked it up yesterday; the list comprises of a few dozen companies. We have a couple of lists according to different criteria, but there are only a few dozen strategic enterprises. Of course this means some additional workload, but the government will certainly deal with it.

I would like to emphasize once again that public funds and private money alike should be used for purposes of development, with a view to accomplishing strategic tasks – such as the task of developing Siberia and the Far East. That should be our national priority for the rest of the 21st Century. We are faced with tasks of an unprecedented scale, and that means we have to come up with unorthodox solutions as well.

We have already agreed to provide income tax deductions and some other tax breaks for new investment projects in the Far East. I believe it would be advisable to expand this special tax regime to cover all of Eastern Siberia, including the Krasnoyarsk Region and the Republic of Khakassia.

In addition, I suggest setting up a network of areas for advanced economic growth across Eastern Siberia and the Far East, where special conditions would be provided for the establishment of non-resource based industrial enterprises, including export-oriented companies. The essence of the proposal is that newly-established companies based in these kind of areas should enjoy exemptions for a five-year term from income tax, mineral extraction tax (except for oil and gas companies, since this is a high-profit industry), land tax, property tax, etc. What is especially important for hi-tech companies is that they should also be entitled to business insurance at discounted rates.

What is also important, such areas should provide an enabling business environment capable of competing against the Asia-Pacific’s leading business hubs, complete with fast-track procedures for obtaining construction permits or customs clearance, tapping into electrical grids, etc. In order to address those territories’ need for infrastructure, we plan to rely extensively on the Far East Development Fund.

We need to designate specific territories to accommodate such areas by July 1st, 2014, as well as issue all the necessary legal acts regulating their operations. In doing so, we should keep in mind the scale and importance of this task. I bid the prime minister to personally supervise these activities.

In the future, we will decide on further development for such territories, based on their performance and results to date.

We shall also continue to carry out projects that are already in the works. For example, as you know, a new university has been created on Russky Island. It is tasked with developing a comprehensive evaluation procedure for assessing territorial development programs in the Far East. It is also supposed to provide the region’s labor market with qualified professionals, primarily in areas such as air and space, biotech, robotics, industrial design, engineering, marine science, and marine resource management.

I am convinced that by shifting its focus toward the Pacific and ensuring dynamic development for all of its eastern territories, Russia will not only enable itself to tap into new opportunities for economic growth, but also gain additional instruments for pursuing an active foreign policy.

Dear colleagues, global development is becoming increasingly dynamic and controversial. This means greater historic responsibility for Russia, not only as a key provider of global and regional stability, but also as a nation that consistently defends its values and principles, both domestically and internationally.

Military, political, economic and media competition is on the rise worldwide instead of receding. As Russia grows stronger, other global powerhouses are watching it closely.

We have always been proud of our country. But we don’t have superpower aspirations; we don’t want global or regional domination, we don’t interfere with anyone’s interests, trying to play a patron, we are not going to lecture others. But we will strive to be leaders by defending international law, making sure that national sovereignty, independence and identity are respected. This is a natural approach for a country like Russia with its great history and culture, its vast experience in the area of different ethnicities living in harmony, side by side, in one state. This is different from the so-called tolerance, which is gender-free and futile.

Today many countries revisit their moral standards, erasing national traditions and boundaries between different ethnicities and cultures. Society is asked to respect every person’s right to freedom of thought, political views and private life, which are good values. But now people also have to treat evil and good equally, which is strange, because these are opposite things. Not only does such destruction of traditional values have negative effects on societies, but it is also anti-democratic to the core, because these are abstract ideas applied to real life despite of what the majority of people think. Most people don’t accept such changes and suggested revisions.

And we know that more and more people in the world support our approach of protecting traditional values, which have been a spiritual and moral foundation of our civilization and every nation. We value traditional family and genuine human life, including a person’s religious life; not just material, but also spiritual values of humanism and the world’s diversity.

Of course, this is a conservative position. But as Nikolai Berdyaev said, the meaning of conservatism is not to prevent moving forward and upward, but to prevent moving backwards and downward, into chaotic darkness, back to the primitive state.

We have seen in recent years how attempts to impose a presumably more progressive model of development on other countries in reality led to regress, barbarity and massive bloodshed. This happened in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa. These dramatic events took place in Syria.

The international community had to make a historic choice in the case of Syria: it was either continuing to wash out the world order foundations, moving towards the rule of force, fist law, and growing chaos, or making responsible decisions together.

I think we were successful in this situation and made our choice on the basis of fundamental principles of international law, common sense, and the logic of peace. At least for now, we have been able to avoid military invasion into Syria and spilling the conflict further, across the border.

Russia played a key role in this process. Our actions were firm, well thought-out, and balanced. We didn’t jeopardize our own interests and security or global stability at any point. In my opinion, this is how a mature and responsible power should act.

As a result of our joint work with our partners, we were able to change the situation, make the transition from war towards an all-Syrian political process, and search for reconciliation. Syria’s chemical weapons are now under international control. Getting rid of these weapons is an important step for the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Syrian incident confirmed that the UN should play the central part in international relations and politics.

As we have seen in the situation with Syria, and now also Iran, any international problem can and must be solved through political means. The use of force is pointless, and it is considered unacceptable by most countries. This year, a breakthrough has been achieved concerning Iran’s nuclear program, but this is only the first step. We need to patiently continue searching for a broader solution that will guarantee Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology and ensure security for, I would like to emphasize this, all countries of the region, including Israel. By the way, it is worth noting that Iran’s nuclear program once served as the key reason for deploying missile shields. And what do we have now? Iran’s nuclear problem is fading while the missile shield remains in place. Moreover, it is still developing – I will get back to that a little later. Let me emphasize that again: Russia is ready to co-work with all of its partners for ensuring common, equal and integral security.

Russia's G8 presidencyin2014 will focus on acute global problems, including strengthening non-proliferation regimes, fighting against international terrorism and drug trafficking. These will also be the guidelines for the SCOandBRICS summits that Russia is to host in 2015.

We are now finalizing the Eurasian Economic Union agreement. We expect that by May 1, 2014 the text of the agreement will be ready and submitted to the parliaments of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. So I would like to ask my colleagues to consider and approve the documentin a quick manner.

There are already working groups that are drawing up roadmaps for Kyrgyzstan's and Armenia's accession to the Customs Union. I am sure that the real achievements of Eurasian integration will only make it more appealing to other neighbors, including our Ukrainian partners.

Ukraine has repeatedly expressed its willingness to join some of the Customs Union’s agreements and has participated as an observer in its meetings and discussions since May 2013, which is prior to the events we are now witnessing in Kiev. I do hope that all Ukraine’s political stakeholders will manage to come to an agreement and sort out problems that have accumulated, in the interests of the Ukrainian people. We don’t impose anything on anybody, but if our friends are willing to cooperate – we are ready to continue this work at the level of experts.

Our integration project is based on the principles of equality and genuine economic interests. We will consistently promote the Eurasian project but we will not put it into opposition to other integration projects including, naturally, such a mature integration project as that of the EU. We believe we complement each other and will continue to work with our European partners on a new basic agreement.

Now a few words regarding our plans to further enhance Russia’s Armed Forces.

I have just mentioned the issue of missile defense, and here is what I would like to tell you.

We are well aware of the fact that the missile defense system is only defensive in name, whereas in reality it is an essential element of a strategic offensive potential. We also have our concerns about some of the new weapon systems currently in the works, such as low-intensity nuclear explosives, non-nuclear strategic missiles, or non-nuclear hypersonic, high-precision systems designed to deliver long-range missile strikes within a short time span.

We have been closely following the evolution of the so-called ‘disarming nuclear strike’ concept. There is, indeed, such a concept, and it is being actively promoted in a few countries. If implemented, such plans may have a grave impact on regional and global stability.

By building up their potential for non-nuclear, high-precision strategic missile strikes, combined with a continually enhanced missile defense system, foreign powers threaten to undermine all of the existing arrangements for strategic nuclear arms control and reduction, and to upset what is known as the strategic balance of power.

We are well aware of that. And we know what we need to do about it. (Applause)

No one should entertain any illusions regarding their chances of asserting military superiority over Russia. We will never allow that to happen. Russia will come up with a response to every challenge, both political and technological. We have all the necessary potential for that.

Thanks to our military doctrine, and to the advanced weapons that are already being supplied to the Armed Forces, we are fully capable of ensuring Russia’s security.

We still have a lot to do with regard to developing state-of-the-art, high-precision weapon systems. That said, Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrence forces are making systemic progress and exploring new horizons even now by a number of performance indicators. Some of our foreign counterparts will have to catch up with us.

In order to further strengthen our nuclear triad, we are developing new strategic missile systems for its land-based, naval and airborne components. We will keep enhancing our strategic missile forces and building our fleet of nuclear submarines. We are also getting down to developing a Prospective Air Complex for Long-Range Aviation.

Another task on our agenda is the creation of a global surveillance system for purposes of early warning and target designation, which would operate in real time within a shared information environment, serving the Russian Armed Forces. It is an extremely important project, which also concerns strengthening our Space Forces.

We shall also continue to develop our conventional armed forces: the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.

As you know, we have been investing at an unprecedented scale in re-equipping the Army and the Navy, and in upgrading the defense industry. Our spending totals 23 trillion rubles. So Russian defense companies will be provided with orders for production to the utmost of their capacity for another decade. They will be able to upgrade their production facilities and create new jobs. Let’s not forget that about two million people are currently employed in the defense industry, and if we count their families, the number goes up to seven million. They will have stable and well-paid jobs, which will ensure their families’ well-being.

This year the number of contract soldiers – privates and sergeants – has risen to 220,000. However, we also need to think about creating a well-trained military reserve.

I would suggest the following – to change the way military education and training is conducted in universities without abolishing the draft deferment for students. Every student would go through the basics of military training as part of their education and acquire a military skill.

That would allow us to train the needed number of reservists with skills that are most in demand, mainly technical ones, without actually drafting them. I would like the Government and the Security Council to present specific ideas regarding the establishment of such a system.

We should start thinking about the future of the defense industry after 2020, i.e. after the arms procurement program is over. We can’t allow for these plants to become oversized and rendered useless. We need to strengthen our positions on the global market. I would like the Military and Industrial Commission to present specific proposals regarding our defense companies, so that in the future they could start making civilian goods in demand on both domestic and foreign markets.

There’s another point I would like to make. As we said, all military personnel who were put on the waiting list by January 1, 2012 would be provided with a permanent residence by the end of this year. This task should be soon completed, and I expect it to be so. I’d like to draw the defense minister’s attention to this matter, and to ask him to work on each particular case to help people find the most suitable options.

Colleagues, for the first time in our country’s history, we’re going to settle the issue of permanent residence for those who serve in the Russian Army and Navy. Now we can focus on completing the construction of modern service housing and comfortable military towns.

Colleagues, the sense of responsibility for the country is the keynote, the heart and the core of the Russian Constitution; it is a challenge for each one of us.

The strategic agenda of the country’s development is well-known; and the address specifies the key focus areas, and ways and methods of reaching the stated goals.

All these targets must be reached without any caveats, excuses, or misinterpretations. This is the main and the most substantial job of the authorities. It is our duty to build up people’s trust. This is the only way to engage the people, to encourage them to contribute to the country’s development.

I want to reiterate, once the decision is taken it has to be implemented. This is what responsibility is all about, and I suggest we make it the motto of the upcoming year for all of us – for the authorities, for the society, and for the citizens.

I am absolutely convinced that we will be able to accomplish all of our tasks and to succeed as we follow the best traditions of our people and use the most advanced ideas and efficient development methods.

Thank you for your attention.

Russian-Vietnamese friendship has stood the test of time, having lived through the numerous tragic events of the 20th century, drastic changes in the world as well as in our countries. The main thing has always remained the same, however – respect towards each other, traditions of confidence and mutual assistance, ability to appreciate selfless support of the partners that will never betray.

In this context, let me quote famous words of President Ho Chi Minh: "When you drink water, think of its source." I consider that phrase to be a spiritual instruction to the present and future generations of citizens of our countries. One should always remember our common history and everything that unites us. This guarantees continuity and stability of future-oriented relations.

We are happy with major achievements reached by Vietnam on its path towards important economic and social reforms. Russia addresses complex national issues as well. We believe that active involvement in the integration processes, both at global and regional levels, is a powerful resource for development. We attach particular importance to cooperation with the Asia Pacific States among which Vietnam is one of the leading centers of growth.

The positions of our countries on issues relating to the global agenda are similar in many aspects. Together we seek answers to new challenges and threats. We uphold the rule of law in international relations and advocate that no alternative political or diplomatic tools should be used for resolving disputes and that every state has a right to choose it own path of development.

All these factors determine the intensity of Russian-Vietnamese strategic partnership which we can rightly call comprehensive. Last year, bilateral trade increased by 20 percent and amounted to $3.66 billion. We expect that it will reach $7 billion as early as 2015 and increase up to $10 billion in 2020.

The signing of a free trade area agreement (FTA) between the member states of the Customs Unions and Vietnam would contribute to achieving these objectives, which corresponds to the logic of political and economic integration in Eurasia and the Asia-Pacific region. The negotiations on a FTA are under way, and we hope to successfully complete them.

Energy, oil and gas sectors have traditionally played a key role in the development of Russian-Vietnamese industrial and investment cooperation. For instance, our leading joint venture Vietsovpetro has accumulated a unique technological expertise of working on the continental shelf. Over the years, the company has produced 206 million tons of oil and its total profits account for tens of billions of dollars.

The companies Rosneft and Gazprom increase their presence in Vietnam. Their projects relate to the production of hydrocarbons, modernization of refining capacities and supply to Vietnam of the liquefied natural gas from the Russian Far East.

Let me emphasize that our oil and gas cooperation is two-way and reciprocal. Rusvietpetro is an example of a successful joint venture in the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous district. We also expect a lot of another joint company Gazpromviet which has started the development of oil and gas fields in the Orenburg region and other Russian territories.

Our cooperation in energy goes far beyond hydrocarbon production. Russia helps Vietnam to develop a nuclear industry which is a totally new sector for the country. Rosatom will be responsible for the construction of the first Vietnamese nuclear power plant in the province of Ninh Thuan. The first and second nuclear units are scheduled to be launched in 2023 and 2024, respectively. Plans are being discussed to jointly construct a Nuclear Science & Technology Center.

Peaceful use of outer space and Russia's GLONASS satellite navigation system, air and rail transportation development, engineering, mining, banking and public health seem to be very promising areas of cooperation.The goal of the above projects and initiatives is to improve our investment, technology and industrial collaboration.

Our military and technical cooperation has taken a totally new dimension. It is no longer limited to export supplies, steps are being taken to launch in Vietnam licensed production of advanced military equipment with the assistance of Russian companies.

We have always been proud of the traditions of humanitarian cooperation in the field of education, science and culture. It is meaningful that this year Vietnam has been allocated the highest quota (except for the CIS countries) for training specialists in Russian educational institutions. Today about 5,000 citizens of Vietnam receive education in Russia, about 2000 of them study under interstate agreements.

I should underline the joint activities of our scientists, including many years of work of the Russian-Vietnamese Tropical research and technological center. Specialists all over the world highly appreciate the results of its applied and fundamental research.

My visit takes place during the Days of Russian culture in Vietnam. We are pleased to see that our Vietnamese friends are truly interested in our art. On their turn Russian citizens are waiting for the Vietnamese cultural workers to come to visit Russia. I am sure that the Days of Hanoi in Moscow in late November this year will have great success. Such exchanges have already proved their importance. We intend to continue this practice.

The number of Russians visiting Vietnam shows the willingness to learn better rich history and culture of the Vietnamese people. Last year this number doubled and for nine months of this year it has grown up by 66 per cent having risen beyond 200,000 people. I think that this tendency will continue taking into account the successful development of tourist infrastructure in Vietnam.

It is difficult to enumerate the areas in which Russia and Vietnam do not develop fruitful cooperation. I expect that the future high-level negotiations in Hanoi will be constructive as usual and will give new momentum to the strategic partnership between our states and peoples.

An article by Russian President Vladimir Putin originally published in the leading Vietnamese newspapers under the title 'Russia-Vietnam: Together to New Cooperation Goals' on the eve of his official visit to Vietnam.

RT: We’re joined on RT now by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov from the fringes of the APEC summit here in Bali. Mr. Lavrov, thank you very much for your time, thank you for joining us here on RT. I’ll delve straight in, if it’s okay, and start to talk about Syria. You said on Monday that the Geneva-2 peace talks on Syria could be held as early as the beginning of November. But I’d just like to talk to you about some quotes attributed to President Bashar al-Assad over the weekend in Der Spiegel news magazine in Germany. He is quoted as saying that he doesn’t necessarily believe a solution can be negotiated with some elements of the opposition, the extremist elements, saying: “By my definition, a political opposition isn’t armed.” I was just wondering – is that a sign that he is going to need more persuading to come around the table?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, first, I believe the possible dates for the conference were announced by the Secretary-General of the United Nations during the General Assembly opening week. He consulted with us, the Americans, other members of the Permanent Five and he suggested to target mid-November. We would be ready to announce any day because our information is that the government is going to send a delegation and the main thing now is to make sure that the opposition participates and that the opposition is representative — not just one group of people who live outside Syria. We would like the opposition to represent the entire spectrum of the opponents of the regime, including the opposition which is active inside Syria, like the National Coordinating Committee, like the Supreme Council of Kurds. And this would be important for the conference to be really representative as the Security Council Resolution 2118 adopted on the occasion of Syria joining the Chemical Weapons Convention said. Because apart from the chemical disarmament, the resolution spoke about the need to convene the conference and to make sure that the full spectrum of Syrian society is represented. Therefore, the conference would be successful if the opposition manages to bring all those who would like change in Syria, to negotiate with the delegation from the government.

As to the interviews which President Assad has been giving very generously in the past weeks, I do believe that a situation which we have to handle in Syria is assessed more and more in the same manner by us, by the Americans, by the Europeans, by the countries of the region.

The situation is really deteriorating. The armed groups of the opposition are becoming split more and more. Recently there was news that some 13 field commanders said that they would not be taking orders from the Free Syrian Army and from the National Coalition, which is the political wing of the Free Syrian Army, as far as I understand. And they would create what they called a movement to introduce the Sharia law in Syria, and not only in Syria but in the adjacent areas. And then 40 more groups said they would be creating an Islamic Front. These people are moving closer to Al-Qaeda than to the Free Syrian Army, which is being portrayed as the secular armed opposition. So, the trend is in favor of the jihadists, radicals, among those who fight on the ground.

And it is not only our conviction — it is the conviction of the Americans — that we cannot and must not talk to these people. We can only talk to those who opt for the sovereign, territorially integral, secular, multiethnic and multi-confessional Syria. And therefore — I come back to the beginning of my answer — it is of crucial importance to have the right mix of opposition groups represented at the conference. But, as the G8 leaders said in Lough Erne at the summit in June, we call all of them, all eight of them plus the European Union. They called upon the government and the opposition to join forces to fight the terrorists and extremists in Syria. I think it is a very important message which must not be overlooked.

RT: Last week, Russian media quoted anonymous diplomatic sources as saying that chemical attacks on the suburbs of Damascus on August 21 were carried out by a Saudi Arabia-backed group. These were anonymous quotes. I was wondering, does Moscow have evidence to back this up?

SL: I read those reports. We have been looking into the problem of chemical weapons use in Syria for many months now, starting from March probably, when on March 19 there was an incident reported in the vicinity of Aleppo and the Syrian government asked the United Nations to investigate this specific incident. The United Nations, under the pressure of our European friends, refused to send the team just to investigate this incident; they demanded as a precondition access anywhere, everywhere to anyone in Syria and this demand looked very much like the regime under which Saddam Hussein was put when the United Nations was looking for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And the Syrians said: “Look, we would be ready to negotiate further sites to be visited, but this one is urgent, people died and it happened only a few days ago, why don’t you send your experts?” No way.

Then the Syrians asked us and we did send our experts who took these samples in full accordance with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons rules; we ensured the uninterrupted custody of the samples as they were delivered to an OPCW-certified laboratory and they were analyzed in Moscow and the results are available to the Security Council. We made them available, I think, in late June or in July and we are convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that this was the incident, the provocation staged by the opposition. The gas, which was a type of sarin, was homemade, the rocket was homemade, and some other facts established during this analysis point in the same direction.

And we also have good reasons to believe that the August 21 incident was staged by the same group of people; the gas which was discovered and analyzed by the UN experts is very much of the same substance as the one used on March 19 except that the one which was used in August is much more concentrated, and some other facts which you can get from the inspectors’ report and from other sources readily available on the Internet and elsewhere, convince us that it was a provocation staged by the opposition.

We do know that there’s so much evidence shown on the Internet and elsewhere indicating that some foreign countries or some representatives of foreign countries had something to do with it. We cannot say for certain and we don’t want to accuse anyone unnecessarily and undeservedly, but since this evidence has been [circulating] quite widely, when the Security Council agreed on Resolution 2118 on chemical weapons in Syria, it included by consensus a special clause which says that we are categorically against any attempts to give chemical weapons or their components to non-state actors, that this is prohibited, and then the Security Council also by consensus called upon all member states, in particular on the neighbors of Syria, not to allow the use of their territory for the purposes of producing or delivering the chemical weapons or their components to the Syrian opposition. It’s a very important message and I do believe that this reflects that the seriousness with which members of the Security Council, all of them, take those reports which we are discussing.

RT: Going back to the idea of it being a provocation, it’s your firm belief that that is the case. Why do you think you’ve struggled to convince the international community that that is the case?

SL: I think quite a number of people have been biased from the very beginning. They have been obsessed with the projection of this situation as another manifestation of the Arab Spring, as the fight for democracy, for a better life, against the tyrants, against the dictators and so on and so forth. And as the actual situation on the ground, as the real life was producing more and more facts that this is, to a large extent and more and more so, about radicals trying to get hold of this huge region, the people who already committed themselves to a different interpretation, they had difficulty admitting that they were wrong. But the truth and this understanding of the danger these radicals present to Syria and the North African region in general, it’s being understood more and more. And this was very obvious when we met with John Kerry and we basically said so at the press conference in New York and at the press conference here in Indonesia a couple of days ago.

RT: The process has begun, OPCW have begun the process of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal. You believe there’ve been a number of provocations already. Do you think there could be more? Is there a fear that the radical extremists could try and undermine this entire process?

SL: I do believe that this is a very possible scenario and we would like to avoid it at any cost. Actually, the incident on August 21 happened when the UN inspectors eventually arrived in Syria and started doing their job. They were first subject to some sniper fire, and the culprits have not been found. And then there was this provocation under their noses. Just mere logic says that the government had no interest, had no advantage in doing this. That’s why, again, I come back to Resolution 2118. Given that sad experience, we agreed by consensus to write into this resolution that it is not only the government which must fully cooperate with the OPCW and the United Nations to finalize the program of disarmament. It’s also all other Syrian groups, the opposition, all of them, who would be responsible if something happens to the inspectors because of their provocations and who would also be responsible if they use again chemical weapons. Whoever uses chemical weapons would come to the Security Council to respond. 

RT: Let’s move away from Syria but stay in the region, because America conducted a couple of commando raids in Africa over the course of the weekend in Libya and Somalia as part of their War on Terror. Do you believe that such actions are making the region safer?

SL: I think that whatever you do, you must be covered by international law. The international law regarding counterterrorism is not yet complete. There are some 13 sectoral conventions on terrorist attacks on the high seas, nuclear terrorism and so on, and so forth. There is a draft of the comprehensive global convention on counterterrorism, which has being negotiated for more than 10 years, I think, because of basically one problem: some people believe that some of those who use terror as the means to achieve their political goals can't be called terrorists because they are freedom fighters. This is a contradiction, which is rooted deeply in recent history. Several decades ago, “freedom fighters” was a term coined to describe the mujahedeen in Afghanistan and in some other countries. And then these freedom fighters turned into an organization which we now call Al-Qaeda, which boomeranged on 9/11. So my point is: first, you cannot have good terrorists and bad terrorists.

Second, you cannot strengthen the law by violating the law. If you say that your national law allows you to do something, it is fine as long as you do this inside your own territory. As long as you go international, you really have to be sure that there is an international law which you respect and which you follow. There is a lacuna in international law in quite a number of things, including situations when a known terrorist is fleeing all over the world and people hunt him. But again, the international law provides — at least the existing international law — in such cases provides for operatives of a country who is hunting to get in touch with law enforcement agencies of the country on whose territory the guy is, and then to agree and implement certain procedures. We would be very much in favor of making sure that we all fight terrorism in accordance with our national law, if it is our territory, and in accordance with international law, which, I admit, must be further developed.

RT: The alleged targets in these raids over the weekend were the mastermind behind the 1998 US embassy attacks in Africa and allegedly the man, or one of the men, behind the attack in the Westgate shopping center in Kenya, they were the individuals apparently being targeted. Is the US action here, of targeting these individuals, is this an example of what President Vladimir Putin has recently described as American exceptionalism?

SL: Well, I would not say that this is exactly an example of American exceptionalism, though the Americans do not deny that they want to be exceptional, they say they are exceptional. It doesn’t always help in a dialogue with people. You know, we, I wouldn’t go into the description of whether this is manifestation of exceptionalism or arrogance of power, whatever. We discussed with the United States similar cases when a couple of Russian citizens, one named Bout and another, Yaroshenko, were basically kidnapped, one from Thailand and another one from Liberia. First, they were approached by FBI agents posing as members of some drug cartel, and they were basically provoked into discussing an offer which they did not solicit. But the agents were persuading them to agree, to provide their services, airplanes, something else. And then they were arrested and brought to the United States in violation of the law of Thailand and in violation of the law of Liberia. They were given sentences, 20 and 25 years respectively, just for criminal intent, not for actual deeds. And this criminal intent, by the opinion of many lawyers, was not sufficiently proved in a US court of law. And we believe that this is not the way you handle international relations, it’s not the way you fight criminals, even before you prove that they are criminals, before they can testify to any court of law.

RT: Can we move on and talk about Iran? Following the UN General Assembly in New York, there seems to be cautious optimism about Tehran’s new approach, perhaps not from the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who said that he fears that the United States is in the process or on the path to being duped by Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani. I just wondered what you made of Netanyahu’s assessment of that situation.

SL: Certainly, we welcomed the mood which was prevailing on Iran during the General Assembly general debate – the statement of President Rouhani, the meetings with Minister Zarif who attended the meeting of the 3+3 group on the Iranian nuclear issue. Both President Rouhani and Minister Zarif said that they would like to resolve this issue and resolve it fast. They were saying 6-9 months would be enough if everyone cooperates. I agree. The main thing is for Iran is to cooperate because Iran knows the questions which have been raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency supported by the Security Council. These questions have to be clarified fully, and we are gratified that Iran scheduled a meeting with IAEA experts exactly on this subject. They have to answer, I think, a half-dozen or so questions, which have been with us for many years. Then Iran also agreed to have another round of negotiations, to resume the negotiations with the 3+3 group, which would also take place later this month. And Iran has a legitimate right to know the endgame, as they said. And the endgame, as far as we are concerned, as President Putin repeatedly stated, should be recognition of the Iranian right to the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including the right to enrich uranium for fuel purposes only, provided Iran closes all the issues with the IAEA and puts its entire nuclear program under full and strict control of the agency. It's a very elaborate and exhaustive statement, and I think if other members of the 3+3 group reiterate this position, then it would be easy for us and Iranians to set a road map, a step-by-step approach when Iran takes a step expected from it by the international community and the international community relieves sanctions to some extent. And then, as we progress on this action-for-action basis, we must arrive to a point where everyone would be satisfied that Iranian nuclear program is entirely peaceful. And then Iran should be out of any sanctions, both the sanctions imposed by the Security Council but also unilateral sanctions. As for the statements regarding the Iranians playing another game and trying to dupe people, I haven't seen any confirmation by any intelligence – be it Russian, be it European, be it the United States, be it Mossad, which would categorically say that the Iranian leadership has taken a political decision to have a military nuclear program. No intelligence agency on earth was able so far to make this conclusion. And we spoke to our American colleagues just recently. They agreed that Iran hasn't taken a political decision to go military in its nuclear program, and therefore we all must avoid statements, which would just antagonize the parties to these negotiations and concentrate on a chance which we certainly have now.

RT: What about Israel’s suspicions, let’s say, of Tehran? Is there a concern that Israel’s position could influence Washington and perhaps jeopardize the resumption of the nuclear talks?

SL: No, I don’t think so. I think the Israeli position is motivated by, you know, conviction that the Iranian nuclear bomb would be absolutely, existentially unacceptable for Israel, but it is unacceptable for anyone. We are categorically against any new military nuclear powers to appear on this earth, be it Iran, be it North Korea, be it anyone. But to make sure that this is not the case, we have to resolve this type of situations by negotiations and not by threats and not by military strikes. Because as you put all your emphasis on resolving this by force, there would be more and more countries who would say: you see, Iran didn’t have a bomb and yet it was bombed. So let’s think how we can take care of our own security. And then the risks to proliferation of nuclear technologies and chemical weapons and biological weapons will be multiplied. So any threats of use of force to resolve issues like this are absolutely counterproductive from the point of view of our common goal to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

RT: Let’s change tack and talk about the Greenpeace activists who’ve been arrested by Russian authorities. Moscow’s saying its actions are in full compliance with international law, yet the Dutch government is launching a legal campaign to try and get the people being held freed. I was just wondering what the very latest on that situation was, if you can bring us up to date with the very latest.

SL: The very latest from the Netherlands unfortunately is not about Greenpeace but about unacceptable treatment of a Russian diplomat whose apartment was forcefully opened and who was apprehended by police for several hours in gross violation of any diplomatic conventions, Vienna Conventions and the rest, without any explanations. Well, the explanation was given that somebody told the police that he and his wife were maltreating the kids, two and four-year-old kids, which is absolutely unacceptable apart from any diplomatic privileges. The police have no right to enter an apartment of a diplomat. And we expect our Dutch friends to issue an explanation, to issue an apology, and to punish those who violated the Vienna Convention. This happened in The Hague, the seat of the international Court of Justice, and this is absolutely absurd. On the Greenpeace issue, we have been hearing about the activities of this vessel, Arctic Sunrise, for many years. They have been engaging in provocations all over the world. In all cases they were punished, one way or another; they were paying large fines in some countries – and we have been warning our Dutch colleagues in advance that they should really take a close look at what this vessel under the Dutch flag is going to do in the Arctic waters dangerously close to the platform which was working in the Pechora Sea. Well, the legal procedures are under way, the Dutch initiated an arbitrage procedure, so let's rely on the legal procedures.

RT: Going back to the situation with the Russian diplomat in the Netherlands. Has Russia considered a response to this?

SL: We must today, not later, get an explanation from the Dutch government, an apology – it’s absolutely unavoidable. And then we need to know what disciplinary measures would be taken in regard to these police officers. And then, when we get a reaction on this demand, then we will see how we will handle the relations further.

RT: The final subject I want to talk to you about is Afghanistan, because drug trafficking from Afghanistan is an increasing problem for Russia. I was just wondering what Moscow has planned for when NATO take troops withdraw, with that NATO withdrawal imminent, what Moscow’s plans are to try and counter this problem?

SL: Well, this has been discussed for a couple of years already in the expectation of this withdrawal of ISAF, but this was discussed not just inside Moscow but with our allies in the Collective Security Treaty Organization and also in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which uniquely comprises, either as members or as observers, Afghanistan and all its neighbors. And there is a special program in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on fighting drug trafficking from Afghanistan. The Collective Security Treaty Organization is also engaged very closely. It conducts regularly the operation called Canal to intercept drug caravans on the outer perimeter of Afghan borders. Certainly, it would be much more efficient not to fight symptoms but to fight the root cause, which involves destroying drug production inside Afghanistan, drug laboratories, heroin laboratories especially. And we have been proposing as the Collective Security Treaty Organization to NATO as the backbone of ISAF to establish cooperative arrangement in real time: NATO reports to us what kind of caravans are moving so that on the outer perimeter of Afghan borders it would be easier to intercept them. NATO consistently for the last eight years, I think, is avoiding entering into this type of relationship. My hunch is they are doing this for ideological purposes, not being willing to see the Collective Security Treaty Organization as an equal in this partnership, which is a pity, because for wrongly understood prestige we are losing the efficiency in the fight against drug industry.

RT: Are you hopeful for the future of Afghanistan? I mean, there’s the presidential election next year, the NATO troop withdrawal – I mean, do you feel that the security situation is set to improve in Afghanistan?

SL: There are so many unknowns. ISAF withdrawal is explained by the fact that by that time, by the end of next year, the Afghan security forces, the Afghan army would be in a position to take control of law and order in the country. So far, the trend is the opposite. And the closer the date of withdrawal is, the more evidence we have that Afghan security forces are not going to be ready. There are serious problems in the security sector, there are problems with the Taliban who do not want to get into the national dialogue with the government, who only  want to talk to the Americans, which is unacceptable to the government for obvious reasons. And as this procrastinates, as the game is being played with the Taliban bypassing the Afghan government, we are getting closer to the situation when the Taliban would not be even interested in discussing a government of national unity; they would be only interested in taking power 100 percent, which would be an invitation for another war in Afghanistan. So we certainly hope that all Afghan groups, political, ethnic, religious – Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazara – can get together, including the reasonable leaders of the Taliban, and start discussing the future of their country. It's high time to do this. And presidential elections, of course, are a landmark which should be taken into account. It's up to the Afghans to decide exactly when they want to have this campaign. But unless we have an inclusive process, I'm not very optimistic about any political solution to the situation in Afghanistan. And of course, a related matter is the fact that while withdrawing from Afghanistan the contingents of ISAF, the Americans and some other NATO countries are planning a residual presence. The information is that some nine quite fortified military bases are being constructed inside Afghanistan. We are asking questions about what is the purpose for this remaining presence, and we are told that this is for training purposes and just for some sting operations in case of necessity. It's still not very transparent. And we discuss this with our American colleagues regularly, we have a special channel to discuss Afghan matters, and we want to get full clarity about the purpose of this presence, because in combination with the attempts which they undertake every now and then with one or another Central Asian country to negotiate presence there, it raises a question as to what is the reason for this, because the ISAF is being withdrawn under the explanation that the mission has been accomplished. First, I don't think anyone believes that the mission has been accomplished. Second, if it has been accomplished, then why do you want residual presence? And if this presence is projected outside Afghanistan, then certainly we would like to know what it’s about. Is it Central Asia? Is it Iran? Members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and of the Collective Security Treaty Organization would like to know everything, you know, without any exception, because this is a region next door to us. Russia, China, Central Asian countries, Iran... We certainly believe that cooperation with international community to resolve the problems of this region is very important, and we are open for this. But the international community – in this case, our Western colleagues – must be transparent on what they are planning to do in this region. They come there, and we would like to know with what plans.

Channel One: How difficult was it to come to an agreement with the US this time, while working on the UN Security Council draft resolution on Syria?

Sergey Lavrov: It was not easy. But we made sure that the draft resolution, which has been compiled in support of another document prepared by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – both documents [are] to be adopted today in The Hague and in New York – follows the principles of the Geneva accords that the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, and myself reached on September 14.

The key principle is that the OPCW experts will play the leading role, while the UN will provide additional support, particularly by providing additional personnel, if necessary, and, most importantly, by ensuring the security of the experts deployed to the chemical weapons storage sites disclosed by the Syrian government. Of course, the details of this work are yet to be agreed, and this is why the resolution commissions the UN Secretary General to work with the OPCW Director General and prepare detailed guidelines. There is also another crucial point: the resolution says that security measures are to be arranged in cooperation with the Syrian government, but also that the Syrian opposition will be held accountable in case it endangers OPCW experts. And this is a matter of principle.

C1: We have had situations in the past when UN resolutions were open to interpretation, as was the case with Libya. The resolution spoke of a no-fly zone; it said nothing about air strikes against government forces. Nonetheless, air strikes followed. Isn’t there a risk that certain parties may try and interpret the current resolution in their own way?

SL: I’ll put it this way: the possibility of any party citing the current resolution as a pretext for the use of force is out of question. The resolution on Libya was based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which provides for a number of enforcement measures ranging from warnings to sanctions and, ultimately, to the use of force. This chapter was repeatedly suggested by our European and US partners as the basis for the resolution. We are categorically against this. We have learned the lesson of Libya and, knowing the capabilities of our partners to interpret the UN Security Council resolutions, we wanted to make sure there are no pretexts or “loopholes” that can be used to justify a similar course of action with respect to Syria. This resolution absolutely rules out the use of force and in fact any use of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. This is verified by the fact that the closing section of the resolution says that if any of the Syrian parties, be it the government or the opposition, should interfere with the work of the experts or use chemical weapons, such incidents are to be immediately reported to the UN Security Council and investigated. In case any of the parties are proved to be guilty of a violation, the UN Security Council will address the situation based on Chapter 7. In other words, the possibility of invoking Chapter 7 has been moved into the future and this will certainly require a new resolution, and, again, the violation has to be proved with compelling evidence.

C1: What measures are being considered in regard to the opposition, as there were opinions voiced that it might also have chemical weapons?

SL: Not only they might, they do possess such weapons, and the evidence of that is piling up. Just a few days ago we learned of an intercepted phone conversation between two rebels, which was also published by Kommersant. We raised this issue with our colleagues from the US and Western Europe, as well as the other states supporting the opposition, and asked them to demand that their “fosterlings” refrain from any further attempts to lay their hands on chemical weapons or components thereof, let alone use chemical weapons, as we know that the opposition in Syria has more than once tried to pull off such false flag operations.

So, those who support and directly sponsor the opposition bear particular responsibility to make sure such provocative actions never happen again.

I want to stress this again: The draft resolution lays responsibility on all Syrian parties, both the government and the opposition, to not use the chemical weapons. Furthermore, the resolution says it is unacceptable for chemical weapons to fall into the hands of non-government actors, which is what the rebels basically are. It is particularly stressed that all UN member states and especially Syria’s neighbors must take all necessary measures for their territory not to be used to supply the opposition with chemical weapons or their components.

C1: Once the OPCW secures control over all the chemical weapons, will the entire stockpile be destroyed? Or may part of it be moved, or kept in a safe place?

SL: In keeping with the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Syrian government provided an inventory disclosing chemical weapons sites. OPCW experts, Russia, the EU and the US have acknowledged that the inventory is more than satisfactory. The US told us that on a [scale of A to E] this inventory would be B+. Of course, any inventory has to be verified, and this is why OPCW inspectors will go to Syria within the next few days, where they will work with the Syrian authorities to take control of chemical weapons sites and verify the information they have received. I do not rule out that there could be some corrections but I repeat, experts have agreed that the bulk of the Syrian inventory looks quite credible and provides them with enough material to get their work started.

C1: Going back to the opposition, Russia has more than once claimed to have proof that the opposition had chemical weapons and presented this evidence to the UN. Has this intelligence been published?

SL: Yes, it has been published. Our report on the Aleppo incident of March 19 is available to all the members of the UN Security Council, and I think it is even available to the general public. It is a very professional report, and we have no doubt that the sarin gas used in the March 19 attack near Aleppo was homemade. Also, we have intelligence that the chemical weapon used in the infamous August 21 incident was sarin gas of roughly the same origin as the chemical used on March 19, only in a higher concentration. We sent this data to our US partners and the UN Secretariat. The Syrian government supplied us with the data they had, showing the opposition’s involvement in a number of incidents where chemical weapons were used. All these materials require careful examination.

We do not try to unjustly claim a monopoly on the truth. It has to be established through careful examination of every incident, and the results of this investigation should be reported to the UN Security Council, as the G8 leaders agreed at the summit in Northern Ireland this June. So it is strange that the leaders of some G8 countries say that it was clearly the Syrian government that used chemical weapons on August 21; that this was a crime against humanity, and that no further investigation is necessary. This goes against the agreement the leaders of all the G8 countries reached in June, when they said all reports of chemical weapons use should be reviewed collectively in the UN Security Council after a professional investigation. We will insist on following this procedure in the future as well.

C1: Why did it take weeks to reach an agreement?

SL: I do not want to sound incorrect in regard to our partners at the talks, but we had to do everything possible to ensure there were no deviations from the Geneva Communiqué, and this took some time.

Channel One: The Syrian government is reported to have shared with Russia some evidence of the use of sarin gas by the rebels. What kind of evidence is that?

Sergey Lavrov: Earlier this week, my deputy, Sergey Ryabkov, visited Damascus, where he met with the Syrian president, the foreign minister, and experts, as well as opposition activists in Syria who never left the country and are not trying to dictate reforms from abroad.

The data provided by the Syrian side is strictly technical and is currently being reviewed by our experts. At the very least, it is an addition to what we and the international community already know - including independent experts who publish their opinions and confirm that the opposition resorts to provocations on a regular basis, trying to have the regime accused of the use of chemical weapons and through that trying to get external military support for their own agenda.

Channel One: After the UN mission report was released, France and the US concluded that chemical weapons had been used by the Syrian ruling regime. Russia, however, came to the opposite conclusion. What kind of report is it if it tolerates such conflicting interpretations?

SL: France and the United States never made it a secret that they had no interest in the report. Long before the report was produced they said that they have long since known everything anyway and that their intelligence was beyond reproach – despite the fact that they never shared it with us in full scope. The information they did share does not prove the government's involvement in the chemical attack. There are more testimonies. Among witnesses are nuns from a nearby Christian monastery, as well as journalists who visited the sites and talked to the militants who told them they had obtained some shells from abroad they had never seen or used before and then eventually they used them. I’ve repeatedly talked about the letter penned by the CIA and Pentagon veterans which puts things into perspective. That’s why it came as no surprise that the report, which only described the substances and shells the experts saw on the site but included no identification of who had actually used the weapons, was immediately interpreted as proof of the regime’s involvement in the attack by the Americans, the French, and other nations. That’s absolutely wrong. Such an approach is unprofessional and unscientific, and it is politically and ideologically charged.

We expect the UN inspectors to go back to Syria because the August 21 incident was followed by three similar toxic gas attacks against the government forces later that week. It is a pity that our Western partners took advantage of the leverage they have with the UN Secretariat leadership by making the experts finish their work prematurely and write a report on the August 21 incident before investigating those three subsequent incidents. But we do hail UN mission leader Ake Sellstrom's statement which says the experts will go back and complete the investigation at the earliest possible date.

Channel One: Carla del Ponte, a member of the UN commission looking into human rights violations, has said that the rebels could have used chemical weapons. Her claim has been supported by the CIA veterans, by a number of independent experts, and even by the disillusioned deserters from the rebel ranks. So why does the West appear to be unwilling to hear this voice of reason? Supposing Bashar Assad does quit, this will mean the militants will come to power. And the latest reports confirm that these militants are mostly radical Islamists. Who would benefit from this?

SL: Our partners are currently fixated on the ideological task to have the regime replaced because a couple of years ago they made a statement that President Bashar Assad had no future whatsoever except to quit and leave. Today they are facing the necessity to acknowledge that they were mistaken – the same way they were mistaken in case of Libya when they bombed the country and drove it to a collapse; the same way they were mistaken in the case of Iraq where they did the same and on top of that ran a land operation and left the country in a critical state, with dozens of people dying every day at the hands of terrorists. No one cares to recall these facts. Everyone is too busy saying that Bashar Assad has to go. They simply choose not to talk about how a chain of their actions led to a catastrophe in the region.

I am sure that the nations of the West did so in order to prove that the Middle East will “dance to their tune.” This is a strictly political agenda. They are first and foremost interested in establishing their dominance – and not at all in the task we’re interested in which is finding a solution to the chemical weapons issue in Syria. If this were their primary interest too, they would not be doing what they are doing, for instance, in the UN Security Council. They didn’t even care for the implementation of the very first action on the action plan that we mutually agreed with US State Secretary John Kerry - this action being having the Executive Council of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to make a relevant decision. Ignoring this, they are urging the UN Security Council to make a decision invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, and it just has to be Chapter 7, mind you. That’s what they are concerned about most of all. They want Chapter 7, which stipulates the possibility to put pressure on the breachers of international law through sanctions and even through the application of force. That’s all they want, since obviously if they wanted to take care of the chemical weapons situation they would be following the plan we have agreed - i.e. focusing their efforts on obtaining the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) decision.

Our American partners are blackmailing us, saying that if Russia refuses to vote in the UN Security Council for the resolution invoking Chapter 7, the US will stop cooperating on producing the OPCW decision in The Hague. This is completely the opposite to what we have agreed with State Secretary John Kerry – which was that the OPCW decision has to be produced first, and only after that the UN Security Council would follow up by adopting a resolution in support of this OPCW decision, and this supporting resolution would not be invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Channel One: According to Western media, your successful negotiation with John Kerry has strengthened the role of Russia in the Middle East settlement process, to the level Russia enjoyed back in the 1970s. It is clear now that the West is trying to turn the situation to their advantage and pull apart Russia’s success. What would be the course of action for Moscow should the UN Security Council pass a tough resolution on Syria?

SL: The UN Security Council can just as well pass a tough resolution in support of the decision made by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but this resolution will not invoke Chapter 7 of the Charter, and therefore will not give a green light to any military action against Syria that some parties have in their mind.

It is hard for me to understand what is going on in the West right now. I am genuinely surprised at how light-heartedly our Western partners are tossing aside the unique opportunity to solve the chemical weapons issue in Syria now that President Assad’s regime has officially joined the Chemical Weapons Convention and is ready to comply with all the obligations under it fully and immediately, without claiming the 30-day timeframe allowed by the Convention. And, as confirmed by the Syrian authorities during the visit of my Deputy Sergey Ryabkov to Damascus recently, the Syrian government is also ready to disclose all the information about the amount, type, whereabouts and other details of the chemical weapons in its possession. I believe that is irresponsible and unprofessional under such circumstances to focus all the efforts on trying to get some politicized agenda approved by the Security Council instead of focusing them on the real professional work. They want the Security Council to do more than simply support the OPCW decision. They want to throw in a number of other issues such as human rights and International Criminal Court issues, and others. Instead of viewing the Russian-American agreement as the opportunity to rid the planet of a significant arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria’s possession, they view it as the opportunity to try and achieve what Russia and China have consistently denied them to do, namely to force through a resolution allowing the application of force, condemning the regime and freeing the opposition from all blame – instead putting all blame on Bashar Assad - and getting a green light for the scenarios involving the application of force. The outcome of these scenarios, if implemented, as you correctly pointed out, will be in favor of the militants who will seize power, and it will be the end to a secular state. At least two-thirds or three-quarters of these guys are jihadists. Some of them are really extreme such as Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and a whole number of others whose purpose is to establish an Islamic caliphate in Syria and adjacent territories. If our Western partners can think at least a couple of moves ahead, there is no way they don’t understand this.

Channel One: We already have a “LibyanJamaat,” a highly unstable Egypt, and a turbulent Islamized Tunisia. Why would the West need all this? They can’t help seeing what it all ends up with.

SL: It’s hard for me to answer this question. Russian President Putin keeps asking this question whenever he talks with his US or European partners, but so far we have never heard a clear answer to it. We hear a lot of mantras about promoting democracy and protecting human rights, but these are not the only things that mature policy-makers should take into account. It is certainly important to ensure the observation of civil rights and freedoms; however, not to ensure stability in this key region of the world is simply irresponsible. Completely irresponsible.

Analysts have been trying hard to get to the point behind all this. There was a hypothesis that someone is trying to generate a controllable chaos and “catch some good fish in muddy water.” I don’t see any real benefits for the Western countries in doing so, even if we suppose they did it. What we’re dealing with here is rather an attempt to “grasp at straws,” to try and ignore the fact that the world is changing and evolving into a multi-polar world. Today it doesn’t work anymore to impose one’s rules onto others, the way it worked a few centuries ago - what works today is to make collective decisions. It is no coincidence that the UN Charter defines the UN as the organization that is the center for the collective actions of all nations. So let us act this way instead of imposing one’s rules onto other civilizations, especially since these rules are not always and not by everyone perceived as good.

Channel One: If we could get back to the chemical weapons issue. Damascus issued a statement that it needs one billion US dollars and one year of time to destroy all the chemical weapons in stock. It also confirmed its readiness to hand chemical weapons to any nation that will take up the risk to accept it and destroy it on its territory. Is there a road map for this chemical weapons disposal program? Technically, how will it be implemented?

SL: We had security, military, and chemical experts with us in Geneva during the talks with US State Secretary John Kerry and his delegation. The proposals that we have agreed and that are currently being reviewed by the OPCW contain a professional assessment of all key milestones of the works to be done. Naturally, it is now the OPCW’s task to refine them and capture them in a legally binding form, which is exactly what the OPCW is doing now. We and our American colleagues are currently drafting the OPCW decisions. Some issues are yet to be finalized in order to ensure compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Among them is immediate and unhindered access to the locations designated as the locations of chemical weapons storage facilities, and a number of other issues. I believe that these can be easily agreed and the decision can be expected fairly soon, unless of course, the arrogant position of some of our Western partners threatening to cease cooperation within the OPCW framework if the UN Security Council fails to pass a resolution on Syria invoking Chapter 7 prevails. If this were to happen, it would expose their true intentions about the Syrian crisis.

I am aware of the one billion US dollar assessment voiced by the Syrians. We discussed the potential cost of this program with our American partners in Geneva, and the numbers we talked about were significantly smaller - therefore it needs an expert evaluation. It will become clear after the OPCW experts have reviewed the chemical weapons arsenal in Syria and decided what can be destroyed on site (this is a considered possibility) using mobile destruction facilities that can be provided by a number of countries, and what will call for the construction of special destruction facilities of the kind we built to destroy the USSR’s stock of chemical weapons. Also, a special permission will be required in order to move part of the hazardous substances outside Syria since the Convention stipulates for the destruction of chemical weapons to only take place on the territory of the country in possession of it. To achieve this, we’ll have to look for legal solutions, but if all parties agree in principle, there should be no problem capturing it in legal terms.

Channel One: Are we to expect some sort of an international military presence in Syria in connection to all this?

SL: No, this isn’t part of the plan. There is an understanding that a group of OPCW experts, enhanced by external additional experts with proper expertise if necessary, will take the chemical weapons arsenals under their control and process them at their storage facilities that will be identified and confirmed in cooperation with the Syrian government. Syrian and international experts will carry out the required procedures to prepare chemical agents and chemical weapons for destruction.

Of course, we need to address the issue of ensuring their safety. We put forward a proposal that it may be possible to set up an internationally secured perimeter around the areas where the experts will work. We are ready to send in our military and military police to fulfill this task. I don’t think there is any need for significant international military presence there. I believe it will be sufficient to have a military observer force deployed. We need to ensure that all the permanent member states of the UN Security Council, as well as Arab states and Turkey, are represented on the international observer force in order to send the message to all the conflicting parties inside Syria and that the observers represent all of the external forces cooperating with all the parties in the Syrian conflict in order to discourage any provocations. I would also like to emphasize that according to the Russian-American agreement, Syria as the sovereign state in charge of its territory will bear the main bulk of responsibility for ensuring the security and safety in general and of chemical weapons experts in particular. During the [Geneva] meeting, we also emphasized that other Syrian parties, i.e. the opposition, are also liable for maintaining a threat-free environment for the international experts to work in. And those who have nurtured this opposition and keep encouraging them and covering for them – these parties must feel that it is their responsibility to ensure that the opposition groups attempt no provocations towards the international experts.

Channel One: According to Israeli experts, the rebels took control over the areas with chemical weapons facilities at least twice and may have gotten hold of it. Also, it is possible that the sarin came from outside Syria. As we all know, two Jabhat al-Nusra members attempted to smuggle some containers with sarin via Turkey. How can the international community implement control over the chemical agents possessed by multiple rebel groups?

SL: The decisions the OPCW is developing now stipulate that the entire arsenal of chemical weapons in Syria has to be placed under control and ultimately disposed of. When our Western partners keep saying all over again that only the regime has weapons in its possession and therefore no one else could have used them, and that the opposition has no chemical weapons whatsoever, they are not being honest. This is also confirmed by the Israeli reports you just referred to. In our opinion, the likelihood is high that this data published by the Israeli experts is true, in addition to the fact that the rebels are likely to be trying to “cook” their own hazardous and poisonous agents in their primitive labs. And it is critical that as part of the effort for the OPCW experts to place chemical weapons storage facilities under control, those who finance and support the opposition groups - including the extremists - would find a way to have them turn in the weapons they got hold of as they need to be destroyed in line with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Channel One: Aren’t you concerned that the timeframes for chemical weapons disposal announced by Russia and Damascus are a bit unrealistic, as the Western experts say? Moscow has practically become the guarantor of chemical disarmament, yet the West insists that the timeframes are not feasible.

SL: You know, the timeframes have been agreed with our American colleagues in Geneva. Most of the milestones such as deadlines, periods, and start and end dates were proposed by the Americans. I would like to point out that we are in no way a guarantor of chemical disarmament in Syria. We ensured that Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention under no preconditions – whereas the United States had acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention with stipulations. Now Syria is a party to this legally binding document and therefore the guarantor of Syria’s compliance with the Convention is no other than the entire international community. In this case, it is the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Channel One: On the way to Geneva, did you have a feeling of whether Washington is ready or willing to hear what you want to say?

SL: I didn’t think of it. All I thought of was that we had our position that allowed for many things to be agreed and negotiated within its scope, but we’d never agree to re-define its scope. As a professional, I was pleased that we succeeded in maintaining our position. And we did it not by bluntly ignoring the US position, but through an active search for a solution within the scope of our position. Through a search for compromise approaches that would rely on the letter of the Chemical Weapons Convention and be free of the ideologically and politically charged agenda.

Channel One: What caused the heaviest disputes in Geneva and proved to be the hardest of all to negotiate? I understand it was a checks and balances system.

SL: It’s difficult to say. In a nutshell, the Americans were very eager for us to undertake the obligation to vote for the UN Security Council resolution invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, regardless of the decision made by the OPCW – which would be putting the cart before the horse. At the end of the day, professional approach prevailed over the politically charged one stipulating that the OPCW experts would first produce their decision and a plan detailing all the procedures required to place chemical weapons in Syria under control and eventually dispose of it, after which the UN Security Council will support this decision and implement additional measures, such as, for instance, providing additional experts that the OPCW doesn’t have, or establish the secure perimeter. This is all the UN Security Council should do based on the guidelines we expect UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to produce.

Right now, our Western partners are trying to force through a resolution invoking Chapter 7 prior to obtaining the UN Secretary-General’s guidelines. They are nervous, as they understand well that the very mention of Chapter 7 means a chance for some validation for the unilateral actions they have in mind with the Security Council. Our advice to them would be to stay calm and stick to the international law - i.e. the Chemical Weapons Convention - instead of inventing resolutions that actually push the Convention into the background while putting forward their personal or geopolitical and national ambitions.

Channel One: Chemical disarmament in Syria doesn’t mean the end of the Syrian conflict. Is there an action plan to follow the chemical disarmament plan and eventually put an end to the war?

SL: The key thing is to follow through the political settlement. There is a foundational document that can ensure it - i.e. the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 which was signed by all the UN Security Council permanent member states, the League of Arab States nations, Turkey, the EU, and the UN which is currently considered by all as the only possible foundation for settlement. At the time the Geneva Communiqué was being negotiated, our Western partners tried to have this document capture an obligation for all the involved parties to pass a UN Security Council resolution invoking Chapter 7, and to demand that President Assad resign. Eventually, these proposals were not included. Russia, China, and a number of other nations saw clearly the completely unrealistic nature and an unhealthy fixation on the unilateral interests of such proposals. The Communiqué calls on both the government and the opposition to achieve agreement and establish a transitional governing body that will have the full executive power for the period required to prepare the new Constitution, new elections, etc.

But it is paramount that this should be done based on a mutual agreement. When we presented the Geneva Communiqué to the UN Security Council exactly the way it had been approved by all signing parties, the US partners said, “It’s okay but we need to add to it that we invoke Chapter 7 and demand Bashar Assad to go under it.” It’s the same story all over again now. Right now, we have another document fully agreed in Geneva with no mention of Chapter 7. And again, attempts are being made to change this and rewrite the document to link it up to Chapter 7.

You see, we are open for negotiations. We are trying hard to always be. No one can say we don’t stay true to our commitments. It is true that sometimes we do not budge, but we refuse to budge only where we see obvious attempts to violate the international law. And once we have committed to something, we stand by it. And it is very sad that our partners sometimes do not reciprocate.

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen,

I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the timing is good. We are in the centre of Russia – not a geographical centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed how the elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the light of the fact that two great rivers – the Volkhov and Neva – acted as natural means of communication, providing a natural linkage at the time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.

As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an unprecedented list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders, philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing views.

You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you unduly. But nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical, cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates, conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country’s development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twenty-first-century world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its partners.

Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European, Chinese and American – the societies of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.

For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre-1917 Russia seem to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, western-style liberalism.

It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self-determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today their main focuses are economic-technological and ideological-informational. Military-political problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.

[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their own history, values ​​and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really is fundamental for Russia.

Meanwhile, today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century, when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all, the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental for both legal and everyday life.

After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semi-official ideology was hard to swallow. And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasi-colonial element of the elite – those determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country, the place where they earned their money.

Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed in other nations too. The time when ready-made lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states like computer programmes has passed.

We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural, spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.

All of us – so-called Neo-Slavophiles and Neo-Westernisers, statists and so-called liberals – all of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit of only listening to like-minded people, angrily – and even with hatred – rejecting any other point of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country's future like a football, plunging into unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.

This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the left-wing and, conversely, that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.

Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism in the purest sense of the word.

Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess certain historical events still divide our country and society.

We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer engage in self-deception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history, breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It's time to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our opponents would do. [Self-]criticism is necessary, but without a sense of self-worth, or love for our Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.

We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust and allow society to move forward.

Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.

The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis.

What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values ​​embedded in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values​​. One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar, standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the God-given diversity of the world.

Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries. Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights, including the right to independently choose their own development path.

This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia's role in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international stage.

I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia’s strength, the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century became clear.

There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some other countries so-called multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.

Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the "prison of nations", not even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn (I did not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this respect.

Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence, mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multi-ethnicity lives in our historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course of a millennium on this organic model.

Russia – as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it – has always evolved in "blossoming complexity" as a state-civilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely the state-civilisation model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.

Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity, its historical heritage and the present-day lives of its citizens. The main task of the state, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.

However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such a large nation with a multi-ethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.

There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured politically and conceptually – including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that individuals’ personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from a dangerous decline in the national potential.

Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people, rather than natural resources.

The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot, we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This community speaks the same language – the language of science, knowledge and education, despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok. In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.

I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives. A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely cooperating with equals.

Local governments and self-regulated citizens’ organisations serve as the best school for civic consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to non-profits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true civil society and a true, nationally-focused political elite, including the opposition with its own ideology, values and standards for good and evil – their own, rather than those dictated by the media or from abroad – can only grow through effective self-governing mechanisms. The government is prepared to trust self-regulating and self-governing associations, but we must know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organisations.

Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening the nation’s unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’ development has been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.

I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic, cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbours is our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements. The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post-Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.

I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step. We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global development.

Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the post-Soviet era. We have lived through and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history. After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Translated by Russian President’s official web-site Kremlin.ru

“This is a tragedy. What must be done and that's where the US and Russia see eye to eye is to do everything to stop it. You know that alongside with the opposition which is called Free Syrian Army terrorist organizations fight. And one of them was the terrorist organization created by the United States  - Al-Nusra Front. Immediately the political leaders of the opposition said it was a mistake and betrayal because Al-Nusra cannot be listed as terrorist organization as long as it fights the regime,” the Russian foreign minister said in an interview with CBS in Moscow.

He added that back in the 1970s and ’80s the US was supporting Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet troops. “Then these Mujahideen gave rise to Al-Qaeda, and then Al-Qaeda struck back,” Lavrov said.

Russia is hoping to try to resolve the Syria crisis at the peace conference, due in July, which could gather all interested parties, including the Syrian government, various Syrian opposition groups, regional powers like Iran and others. But doing it requires a genuine joint effort.

“We want Syria to stay united, one piece, sovereign territorial integrity respected,” Lavrov stated.

US and Russia ‘need much more investment’

CBS: Mr. Lavrov, thank you so much for taking the time to sit down with us. Let's talk a little bit about the relationship between the US and Russia.  What do you see as the greatest challenges to that relationship currently?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, I don't see any challenges which are not insurmountable. I believe that after some pause and some irritations, which appeared rather officially in our relationship some time ago, both presidents are keen to move forward. And that was the message President Obama sent to President Putin earlier this year. The President of the Russian Federation reciprocated in the same way. We are prepared to go as far as the United States is, of course, on the basis of mutual interests searching for balance between the interest of the two countries and on the basis of equality and respect to each other's positions. Within these parameters anything is possible. And the two presidents pay special attention, which they agreed to do actually one year ago in Los Cabos, to improve radically the economic part of our cooperation. There are conditions for this.

There is interest on both sides - American and Russian business. We need much more investment. The two presidents agreed, and I think this should be materialized soon, to establish some kind of flexible, informal mechanism to monitor the conditions for doing business in Russia and in the United States. Because our businesses encounter, sometimes a treatment which we don't believe, is really conducive to promoting mutually beneficial economic cooperation. 

The hi-tech area is certainly something that we should want to deepen. Outer space is a case in point. Last year we managed to enter into force the “123 agreement”, which is about peaceful uses of nuclear energy. This opens up the prospects for respective companies to cooperate with each other including on the markets of third countries.

The humanitarian area is very important to promote a mutual trust and people-to-people contacts. Last year we marked the 200th anniversary of the first Russian settlement in California - Fort Ross. There are now plans to use this premise to establish a permanent Russian-American center of cultural heritage. And we also signed and ratified an agreement to facilitate the visa regime for tourists and businessmen. President Putin suggested considering doing away with business altogether for the short-term travel of our citizens. This was again reiterated during his last contact with President Obama. So I think, of course, without closing eyes on what still irritates our relations - missile defense is a case in point, some absolutely, I would say, unprecedented arrogant steps like the Magnitsky law, whereby the Congress took upon itself to be the judge of the Russian system, basically. This doesn't help at all. And we would have to redirect. This is the rule of politics and diplomacy in the international arena. But all this is taken into account, the two presidents are keen to build upon the positive foundation which we have managed to establish.

Syrian peace effort

CBS: It's no secret that Russia and the US do not see eye to eye on the conflict in Syria. Has that put a strain on the relationship? 

SL: I thought we saw eye to eye when [US Secretary of State] John Kerry was here. I don't think we have any difference in the strategic approach to the situation in Syria or the situation in any other country. We want all countries to be stable, prosperous, democratic with the systems which reflect modern requirements of international law, but also reflect the traditions of the society so that we promote cultural plurality in the world. So we don't differ on the goals of what all of us want to achieve in helping the people in any country to realize their dreams, if you wish.

CBS: But the US. Government has repeatedly spoken out against what it perceives as being Russia's support of the Assad regime? 

SL: Well, that's misperception. And misperceptions are used in today's diplomacy to build the public opinion the right way for those who want to achieve some geopolitical goals.

CBS: How is that a misperception?

SL: Russia repeatedly stated that we do not support anyone in Syria. We are not weathered to any personalities. President Assad was a best friend of the French, the British and other European capitals. And that's a fact of life.

CBS: But you've supplied them with weapons?   

SL: We supply weapons to all those who contracted legally. And this is the universal rule.

CBS: Even if those weapons may be used to perpetrate war crimes? 

SL: I don't think you can perpetrate war crimes with defensive weapons, with air defense systems. I hope you also know about the volume and kind of weaponry sold by the United States to the countries of the region. And in quite a number of cases, those equipment and weaponry include things which you can use against popular demonstrators.

CBS: May I just read you a few elements from this list? This is a request from a Syrian army general to a Russian arms supplier from March of this year. 

SL: Sure.

CBS: Twenty thousand AK-47s, 200,000 mortar rounds, grenade launchers, millions of rounds of ammunition. These are not defensive weapons. 

SL: Are we discussing Syrian army requests or the substance of the contracts which we honor? I think those are two different things. And you have to make a difference.

CBS: Were these weapons supplied to the Syrian army? 

SL: I have not seen this request. And this is not a contract to which we are committed. Those are two very different things. As I said, international law does not prohibit legal supplies, legitimate supply of arms to any sovereign state without violating any international norms. Take a look at the existing international legal basis, recently a conference concluded which was initiated years ago by Britain and some other Western countries to negotiate and international treaty on arms trade. We have been very disappointed that the eventual text does not contain very firm language on making sure that arms do not get into the hands of those who were not authorized by the state, in other words non-state actors. This treaty clearly says that you can no longer sell arms to the international players like countries, governments and you cannot sell arms to non-state actors. While this treaty was negotiated, the arms will continue to flow into the region, including into Syria through hundreds and hundreds of kilometers of uncontrolled borders. And the people who fight the Syrian army, they're very well armed. The situation in the city of Qusair was created by the fact that both sides were fighting with heavy weapons. The opposition used artillery and air defense systems. 

This is a tragedy. What must be done and that's where the US and Russia see eye to eye is to do everything to stop it. You know that alongside with the opposition which is called Free Syrian Army terrorist organizations fight. And one of them was the terrorist organization created by the United States  - Al-Nusra Front. Immediately the political leaders of the opposition said it was a mistake and betrayal because Al-Nusra Front cannot be listed as terrorist organization as long as it fights the regime.

I think that I don't even need to qualify this kind of attitude to what is going on. When John Kerry was in Moscow on May 7 we were absolutely united that we all must concentrate on bringing the parties to a negotiating table to implement during those negotiations, what was agreed in Geneva on June 30 last year. 

‘Our priority is to stop violence’

CBS: The peace conference that was slated for June now looks it will take place in July. Why the delay? 

SL: I don't know. You have to interview John Kerry and his officials, because we promised to make sure that the government participates in the conference and the government said so.

CBS: So it's the opposition who are lagging? 

SL: Yes. Well, that's, I believe, all over the media. And the American officials recognize that the national coalition on which some outside sponsors want to put all the money is not ready not even to negotiate, but to decide who is in charge in this coalition. And this is very unfortunate because there are constructive groups including those who never left Syria and spent all these years together with the Syrian people, who are in harsher position to the Assad regime and who want to participate in this conference and who, unlike the coalition, have a constructive agenda. They have the vision as to what kind of Syria they would like to see.

I met with the former chief of the coalition M. Khatib in February in Munich on the margins of the security conference. I liked the guy. I think he's the patriot and a very responsible politician. I suggested that instead of trying to get united only around regime change slogan, they should also present some positive agenda for their country.

CBS: And you've been successful in that endeavor?

SL: I don't think so. I never saw anything coming from the coalition which would say “this is Syria which we would like to build with all ethnic minorities, with all religious groups feeling comfortable, with all citizens being equal” and so on and so forth.

This never came from the coalition which is busy, as I said, trying to decide who is in charge. And we certainly believe that the entire spectrum of the Syrian society must be present. The supreme Kurdish council of Syria absolutely insists that it must be there. 

I believe that it is in the interest of all of us to make sure that this is the case. Because we want Syria to stay united, one piece, sovereign territorial integrity respected. And for this you need to have Kurds among other at the negotiating table. 

CBS: Do you believe that President Assad should step down? 

SL: This is not for me to decide, this is for the Syrian people to decide.  

‘We condemn all use of force which makes civilians to suffer’

CBS: Do you believe this regime has perpetrated war crimes? 

SL: I believe that there are signs that war crimes have been perpetrated by so many people in Syria and that this must be investigated. This is what we agreed in Geneva on June 30 last year. But we have to understand our priorities. If our priority is to punish people, then of course you can say that unless President Assad steps down, unless international criminal court considers this case we would not be ready for negotiation. That's what the coalition and some other opposition figures are saying. But then revenge and punishment is the priority number one. Our priority is to stop violence and to save more lives. And for this, you have to put everything else on the back burner. Everything can wait.

The immediate task is to make sure that they sit down and start negotiations. The government said it is ready. It said it has a delegation. The foreign minister would be the head of the delegation. We believe that the opposition must do the same as soon as possible. Those who sponsor the opposition must make all efforts to use their influence for good purposes. You know, because sometimes we hear statements like (actually some White House representative said the other day) that the US will continue to support the political and armed opposition because what is needed is to restore the military balance on the ground. If this is the logic of moving things forward, then I'm not very optimistic.  

CBS: I've spent quite a bit of time on the ground inside rebel held parts of Syria. And I've seen fighter jets dropping bombs strapped to parachutes falling onto civilian areas, civilian casualties, women and children. And I wanted to ask you, have you ever even privately condemned the regime for bombarding its own people? 

SL: Not only privately, we did it publicly. We condemn all use of force which makes civilians suffer. We do this irrespective of whether this is done by those whom we like or dislike politically. We condemned what our Western friends call ‘collateral damage’ in Libya when civilians were dying. We condemned the collateral damage in Iraq. And we condemned the use of force by regimes when the civilians suffered, be it Libya, be it Syria, be it any other country. But you have really to be consistent and you have to understand that the opposition is not just peaceful civilians.

CBS: But it started that way. I was there. I was at those protests.

SL: It started the way it started. And if we now want to get on to the business of who is to blame and not being able to lift a finger to stop the violence before we decide who is to blame, then I'm afraid we would be in for a very, very difficult and long tragedy. 

If we are willing to do everything to stop this and to save lives, then we have to really agree on our priorities. Justice must be done. But justice can wait until we stop this. You cannot really say we would not we would not help stop the bloodshed until we have this guy in court.

'We're only country who works with all spectrum of Syrians, including armed opposition’

CBS: Do you ever worry that you've backed the wrong horse?

SL: No, we are not cynical enough, you know, to use this type of analogy to describe a very tragic situation. We are not whether to President Assad and people know this. And when we discuss things privately with my colleagues including those who publicly make statements which are catching the eye, you know, of the viewers and creating a very simplistic picture of what is going on, when we talk to them privately, they understand fully what is going on. But they say, "You must understand that very early in the conflict we said he must go. And now we cannot eat our hat." Okay, we have to choose. Either you think about your reputation because you made the wrong statement two years ago or you think about achieving real result, which would save lives. And then you can use any eye-catchers like backing the horse or something else.

CBS: Wrong side of history? 

SL: Wrong side of history, yes, we've heard of this. And we were also told that we had lost the Arab world. Well, come to put at mind that this is wrong, because we work - we're probably the only country which works - with the whole spectrum of Syrians, including all groups of the opposition, including the armed opposition. And we understand that those of them who think about their country would be really brought together and a compromise could be reached. So that not just the opposition who says, "Well, negotiations are good, but the only purpose to go to Geneva is for the government to deliver the full authority and to give it to us”. This is not going to work because this not what we agreed. Last year in Geneva we said that the government and the opposition must decide the composition of this transitional governing organ by mutual consent and because, apart from this coalition, there are people who, as I said, never left Syria and who suffered, they lived through all these difficulties together with their people. They have the right to express their view of what kind of future they want for their country.  

CBS: Some analysts have suggested that Russia's stance on Syria may be a knee-jerk reaction to what it perceives as US meddling in other nation's affairs. Do you think that's fair?   

SL: No, I think, this is again something which analysts invent to have something which would sell on TV, the newspapers and other media. We don't build our foreign policy on the basis of this kind of judgment. We try to be consistent. And as we were condemning the way NATO used the Security Council mandate in Libya, by the same token we condemn those people who made a support to Libya when this people are trying to get to power in Mali now. And our French colleagues who were supplying the Libyan rebels with arms are now fighting them in Mali and countering the French equipment which is used against them.

‘What is going on is radicalization of politics’

CBS: You see a hypocrisy in the West? 

SL: I see double standards, if you wish. You either deny terrorists any acceptance in the international life or you make your double standard policy work the way it has been working. "I don't like this guy in this country so we will call him a dictator and topple him. This guy in another country is also dictatorial. But he's our dictator." To put this a bit differently than one famous American said about bad guys who were “our bad guys”. We have to take a look at the comprehensive picture of what is going on in the Middle East and North Africa and down south the Sahel region. What is going on is radicalization of politics, extremists being harbored from Libya, arms and combatants are infiltrating into Mali and some other countries in the region. And you either make your choice on the basis of whom you like and whom you don't. Or you agree that there is a common enemy in the person of international terrorism. I think you must be consistent.

CBS: Do you see President Assad in that sense as an ally of Russia's? 

SL: We see an ally in all those who want the Syrian war to stop.

CBS: And do you believe President Assad wants that?

SL: For this you have to make sure that the opposition expresses its readiness to go to this conference. Because he said his delegation is ready and to call him bluff, you need to see whether the opposition is coming or not.

CBS: But what do you believe?

SL: Well, I believe he would send a delegation.

CBS: And do you believe that he wants peace in Syria? 

SL: I'm not in the business of believing. I'm in the business of verifying. We won't know whether this conference has a chance until the time the delegation sit down at the table with the outside circle pushing them into their bets and not allowing them to leave this table until they agree.

CBS: You're in a unique position, though. Russia has great influence on the Syrian regime. Do you feel the weight of that responsibility?

SL: Yes. No doubt about it.

‘We condemn any abuse of international humanitarian law’

CBS: And when you see the regime using ballistic missiles against its own people, killing hundreds, taking out entire city blocks… 

SL: We cannot have responsibility for what regime is doing. And as I've said, we condemn any abuse of international humanitarian law. We feel responsibility and bear this responsibility as the Russian Federation, which is co-sponsoring an important international meeting together with the United States. We delivered what we promised. Namely, the government consent to send the delegation to his conference. For all other responsibilities, be it the regime, be it the opposition, be it the outside sponsors of the opposition, you have to talk to those who have influence on this on this groups of people.

CBS: Let me just talk about another issue. I just wanted to talk to you quickly about the Boston bombings. Do you see this as an opportunity for the US and Russia to cooperate further on counter terrorism efforts?

SL: Well, I think we have always been in favor of this cooperation to be deepened. We have a saying “You might not have luck, but bad luck helped”. I think when President Putin just immediately after 9/11tragedy called his American counterpart and expressed his condolences and readiness to help, I believe the two presidents had a very good conversation and agreed in the context of what we just discussed about what is going on in the Middle East and North Africa. They agreed that there should be no double standards in fighting terrorism.

Normally people don't draw lessons from past history. But I think 9/11 is still very fresh in the minds of the Americans and all others to forget the fact that when the US back last century in the 1970s and 1980s was supporting Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviet troops. Then these Mujahideen gave rise to Al-Qaeda, and then Al-Qaeda struck back. We have to be consistent. And I hope that this terrorist attack in Boston will improve the cooperation of the coordination between our agencies. Immediately after the Boston terrorist attack we arranged for the FBI to visit Makhachkala [capital of Russia’s Republic of Dagestan] to talk to the family of the Tsarnaev brothers. The director of the FBI, Mr. Mueller, visited us last month and had useful discussions with his colleagues and other special services and intelligence communities, cooperated very closely on this particular case, but is also trying to establish priorities for future cooperation in other cases.

CBS: Some people have suggested the Boston bombers are an American issue. That they have no relation to Russian's own difficulties in the Caucasus. Do you see it as purely American incident?

SL: Well, some 15 years ago the Americans called those who were trying to establish Sharia law in the Chechen Republic just like they did the Mujahideen in Afghanistan – “freedom fighters”. Quite a number of them were given political asylum in the United States, including a gentleman called I. Ahmadov, a very close associate of Basaev, who was recognized as a terrorist by the US and by the United Nations. But Ahmadov still lives there and enjoys the status of political refugee. By the way, he was given political asylum by a Boston court decision. He writes books and receives subsidies from national endowment for democracy in spite of the fact that all necessary material on this particular person is available with the United States respective agencies. 

So I think this will be changing. And the less we attempt it to use terrorist situations, I would say, to achieve one or another geopolitical goal different from fighting terrorism wherever it pops up, I think we would be doing right thing.

CBS: Mr. Lavrov, thank you so much for your time. Do you think that more could've been done on both sides (on the US and the Russian side) to pin down these men before the attacks happened?  

SL: Well, this was discussed broadly in the US media. And it was not us who raised this issue in the public domain. But there were contacts a couple of years ago. And there were some warnings. But I don't want to get into the substance of this. I am not a professional on counter-terrorism in practical terms. But the legal basis for counter-terrorism, the politics which we promote on the basis of this legal understandings and legal norms are very important.

CBS: But you're looking very closely to see what lessons have been learned. And I'm assuming it's sort of refocused Russian security forces on looking at Dagestan and Ingushetia. 

SL: Well, the terrorist manifestations still take place but in much lower numbers than it used to be. I can assure that we have understanding with intelligence and special agencies of other countries including the US to make certain that this would not be treated in isolation. Because it's all related - Afghanistan, from Afghanistan and Pakistan, some no man’s land Waziristan between these two countries, then Central Asia, the Caucasus - it's all part of what we call terrorist international. And the sooner we stop calling terrorist good and bad and call them just terrorists the better is for the world.

Transcript of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin’s interview with Germany's largest television and radio broadcasting company ARD (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Consortium of public-law broadcasting institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Moscow Region, Novo-Ogarevo presidential residence.

Jörg Schönenborn (retranslated): Good evening, Mr President,

Germany and Russia enjoy special relationship and, economically speaking, they are a good match. However, there exist certain difficulties from the political viewpoint. Quite a number of Germans keep track of the raids in the Russian offices of German funds with great concern. The Russian public must be frightened. Why do you act like this?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is you who are scaring the German public instead. There is nothing like this going on here, do not scare the public, please. The media should cover the events objectively. And what does it mean, objectively? The new law adopted late last year in Russia stipulates that non-governmental organisations engaged in Russia's internal political processes and sponsored from abroad must be registered as foreign agents, that is organizations which participate in our country's political life at the expense of foreign countries. This is not an innovation in international politics. A similar law has been in force in the Unites States since 1938.

If you have any additional questions, I would be pleased to answer them in order to clarify the situation to you and your or, in this case, our viewers.

JS: Mr President, I am not aware of any similar confiscations or raids carried out in the United States. In our opinion, the term ‘foreign agent’, as these organizations are to be called, sounds something like cold war.

VP:Then let me explain. First of all, the United States adopted a similar law, which has been in effect ever since. And our, Russian, organizations have followed the same practice that was established in that country decades ago.

I am going to show you a paper in which, not long ago, the United States Department of Justice requested a non-governmental organization to submit documents confirming that its activities were to be financed from abroad; the list is very long.

We have adopted a similar law that prohibits nothing; let me stress it, the law does not prohibit anything, nor does it limit or close down anything. Organizations financed from abroad are not forbidden to carry out any type of activities, including internal political activity. The only thing we want to know is who receives the money and where it goes. I repeat: the law is not some sort of innovation of our own.

Why do we consider it so important today? What do you think is the number of Russia-sponsored non-governmental organizations functioning in Europe? Any ideas?

JS: I am afraid I cannot assess the situation, Mr President.

VP: Let me tell you. One such organization operates in Paris, another one – in North America, it is registered in the USA. And this is it. There are only two of them – one in the United States and another one in Europe.

There are 654 non-governmental organizations operating in the Russian Federation, which are funded, as it has turned out, from abroad. 654 organizations make quite a network nationwide, the Russian regions included.

Over the four months alone that followed the adoption of the law in question, the accounts of these organizations augmented by… How much money do you think they received? You can hardly imagine; I did not know the figure myself: 28.3 billion rubles, which is almost $1 billion. 855 million rubles via diplomatic missions.

These organizations are engaged in internal political activity. Should not our society be informed of who gets the money and for what purposes?

I would also like to stress – and I want you to know this, I want people in Europe, including Germany, to know this – that nobody bans these organizations from carrying out their activities. We only ask them to admit: “Yes, we are engaged in political activities, and we are funded from abroad.” The public has the right to know this.

There is no need to scare anyone saying that people here get rounded up, arrested, have their property confiscated, although confiscations could be a reasonable thing if those people break the law. Some administrative sanctions are envisaged in these cases, but I think all this falls under rules commonly accepted in a civilized society.

Now let us look at the documents that our organizations in the US are required to provide. Note who asks for these documents, signed at the bottom of the page. The Counterespionage Section. Not the Office of Attorney General, but the Counterespionage Section of the US Department of Justice. This is an official document that the organization received. And note the number of questions they pose. Is this democratic?

JS: Mr President, we will examine this document. I do not know if any such searches took place in the US. I would like to ask you once again: we understand democracy as the coexistence of the state and opposition. Political competition is an integral part of it. Does Russia need a strong opposition?

VP: Certainly. We do need it to say the least. I believe that without competition no development in either economy, or in politics is possible today, and we want to ensure this development for our country and our people. Without this competition we would not be able to make effective, sound and justified decisions. Which is why we will undoubtedly strive to make the competition a cornerstone of every sphere of our society's life, including politics.

But this does not mean that opposition should be financed from abroad, don’t you think? Or do you have a different opinion?

JS: Does this imply that the opposition can freely participate in demonstrations?

VP: Absolutely, as long as they abide by the law. There are certain rules that provide for various forms of political activity. Voting means publicly expressing your opinion, as does participating in demonstrations. There is law. Good or bad, it can be changed democratically, but it must be abided by. Ordnung muss sein. It is a well-known rule. It is universal and applicable in any country. There must be order, and there must be no chaos. Northern Africa is a vivid example of what chaos leads to. Does anybody want that?

As for the activities of the opposition, I would like to draw your attention to the following fact. Just recently, a political party was required to have at least 50,000 members to be registered. We have radically reduced this number: now one only needs 500 members to register a party and engage in legal political activities. 37 parties have already been registered, and, I think, several dozen more have filed their applications. This is how it is going to be, we will encourage this political competition.

We have changed the procedure for the election of members of the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council; now they are elected by secret ballot by citizens of corresponding regions. By the way, I do not think that the upper chamber of the German Parliament is elected this way: if I am not mistaken, its members are elected by their respective landtags.

In this regard, we have gone further; I refer to the election of heads of the Russian regions that I reintroduced. We have returned to direct voting by secret ballot. Germany elects heads of its regions through landtags. Many of our political actors thought that we should go back to forming the Parliament through a mixed election system with simple majority rule nominations and strict party-list nominations. We have arrived at this mixed system, so we are moving, we are looking for those forms of our society’s political organization that would be most suitable for us at this stage and would satisfy the requirements and aspirations of our people. This, of course, concerns political parties as well. Naturally, we want competition.

JS: You are going to Germany for a major trade fair. The economic relations between our countries are important for you, I believe. Are you worried that the issues we have just discussed may cast a shadow over your visit?

VP: No, on the contrary, I am very glad about it. And I am glad about our today's interview too because this gives us an opportunity to clarify the situation, to explain what is actually happening and what guides us. Now, what was your first question? About searches and arrests. What searches? What arrests? Who has been arrested? Can you give me at least one name? This is not true. Don’t make anything up.

JS: I didn't say anything about arrests. I spoke about searches.

VP: It sounds alarmist: "Hey everyone! Look! Terrible things are happening here!" Well, yes, there is the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation that is obliged to ensure that the laws adopted in the Russian Federation are respected. And all the citizens, all organizations, all individuals and legal entities operating in Russia must take this into account and have due respect for Russian law.

JS: What are you expecting from your visit to Germany in terms of economy? I assume you are going to encourage the Germans to invest. What exactly are you expecting?

VP: Russia and Germany are very important partners for each other. This is really so. The EU countries and the EU itself are our major commercial partners. They account for over 50 percent of our turnover. Well, the figure can fluctuate a bit: a little over 50, a little under 50 percent due to the economic difficulties faced by the Eurozone and the EU. It is under 50 at the moment, I believe, but it is still a lot. In absolute numbers it amounts to over $430‑450 billion. We are EU's third major commercial partner after the US and China, and the difference is not very big. If our total turnover with Europe amounts to some $430-450 billion, the turnover with the US is a little over $600 billion and $550 billion with China. So as you can see, not that big of a difference.

Germany is our primary European partner. Our turnover amounts to $74 billion and it continues to grow no matter what difficulties there might be. To make it clear for both Russian and German citizens, I need to say that these are not just numbers; there are jobs behind these numbers, there are cutting edge technology behind them, moving in both directions.

By the way, as far as Germany is concerned, the trade pattern is not only in line with its economic capabilities but also in line with its interests since the emphasis in trade and economic cooperation with Germany is put on the industrial production. And behind this – let me stress this once again – there are thousands if not tens of thousands of jobs, and the incomes of Russian and German families. Besides, Russia supplies 40 percent of all natural gas and 30 percent of all oil consumption in Germany.

We are expanding our cooperation in high technology sectors, aviation, engineering, including transport engineering, nanotechnologies, and next-generation physics engineering. This is a very diverse, interesting and promising cooperation.

Germany is one of our major investors with $25 billion in accumulated investments. Last year alone their amount increased by as much as $7.2 billion. This means that Germany invests rather actively in the Russian economy. I would like to stress again that all this is important, interesting and promising.

We are going to have six pavilions [at the trade fair], large ones. We are all united by a single slogan – the industrial production, in which Germany has always been strong, and which is of interest to us. Over a hundred large Russian companies will be exhibiting in those pavilions.

I invite you and all our friends in Germany to visit the 2013 Hannover Messe and Russia’s pavilions there.

JS: You've spoken about 27 billion of German direct investment in Russia. I would now like to touch upon the Cyprus issue. A lot of Germans realized for the first time how much Russian money is there in Cypriot banks and are now wondering why German businesses have to make investments while you pull your money out of Russia?

VP: Don't you see all the absurdity of your question? Just please don't get me wrong. What does Russia have to do with Russian investors in one of the EU countries? The more you "pinch" foreign investors in the financial institutions of your countries, the better for us because the affected, offended and frightened (not all of them but many) should, so we hope, come to our financial institutions and keep their money in our banks.

Why, at some point, many Russian investors moved their funds to zones such as Cyprus? Because, frankly speaking, they did not feel they could rely on the Russian financial system. And, indeed, it was not reliable. Just recall the year 1998 – an economic collapse, or the year 2000 (and that was already our common problem) – again there were widespread fears regarding the future of the financial system. But in 2008, when the new crisis hit, we not only managed to preserve the integrity of our financial system, we strengthened it without letting a single financial institution collapse. There were problems, of course, but we did not allow any of the financial institutions to abandon their customers. Of course, people went through a lot of hardships during the crisis but we arranged the work of our banking system in a way that made it possible not only to support but also to strengthen it while taking some measures to carefully restructure it, again in order to strengthen it. And I hope that people today will understand that.

Forfeiture of investors' funds, including of Russian origin, wherever it happens, in Cyprus or in other places, undermines credibility of the banking system of the entire Eurozone.

Now regarding the issue of whether to provide support or not and who is to blame. Is that fair, that people invested their funds, merely deposited their money with banks without breaking any laws, whether the laws of Cyprus or those of the European Union, just to see 60 percent of their deposits forfeited? They did not violate any rules. As to the allegations that Cyprus was, as they say in the financial community, a laundry for dirty money, they have to be supported with hard facts. One of the basic rules that we all are supposed to know and observe is the rule of the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. How can we ignore that? How can we accuse all people concerned of being crooks? Then anybody can be declared a crook.

Did we create that offshore zone? No, we didn’t. It was the European Union that created it. Or, rather, it was created by the Cyprus authorities with the connivance of the European Union. And is it the only such zone created by countries of the European Union? Are we not aware of offshore island zones in Great Britain or of other such zones? They do exist. If you consider such zones a bad thing, then close them. Why do you shift responsibility for all problems that have arisen in Cyprus to investors irrespective of their nationality (British, Russian, French or whatever else).

I have met with senior officials of the European Commission. We have very good personal relations, though we disagree on many issues. Is it Russia's fault that Cyprus is now facing problems? Indeed, incoming investors are a positive factor as they support the banking system and the entire economy of the host country with their funds and their trust.

JS: You are angry that the European Union did not ask you for help and that many Russian nationals were affected, are you?

VP: Of course, not. On the contrary I am even glad, to some extent, because the events have shown how risky and insecure investments in Western financial institutions can be. By the way, our tax regime in that context is also more favorable than yours. The income tax rate for natural persons in Russia is only 13 percent. What about Germany? How much do you pay?

JS: It would be great if we paid only 13 percent. Of course, it would be great. Fight against tax increases is a hot topic during the election campaign.

VP: So, fight for tax cuts.

JS: Mr President, I would like to touch upon the issue of euro. You spoke about the European financial system. Russia holds more than 40 percent of its currency reserves in euro, which makes you keenly interested in euro. Do you still trust euro?

VP: First, I would like to say it outright: yes, we trust euro. We also trust the economic policy of major European countries, including, in the first place, the economic policy of the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. We are fully aware of various opinions on that issue, including on aspects, such as economic development, maintenance of economic growth and ensuring monetary stability. I agree with the opinion that, before pumping liquidity, it is necessary to address the root causes of crises.

But I wouldn't like to go into detail now and discuss the issue that has no direct bearing on us as that is the prerogative of the leaders of the European countries themselves.

However, judging by what we hear and see, what our colleagues are doing in the leading economies of the Eurozone, what the European Commission itself is doing, – and I would like to repeat that we do not agree on many issues and we do argue – we believe that fundamentally they are moving in the right direction. It gives us confidence that we have made the right choice having decided to keep such a large share of our gold and currency reserves, of our reserves in general in the European currency. I am confident that if the situation continues to develop the same way, our colleagues and friends in Europe will overcome the difficulties they are facing today.

And our reserves are rather substantial: the Central Bank reserves worth $534 billion, another $89 billion representing one of the Russian Government’s reserve funds, another $87 billion (a third fund) representing the second government fund, the National Welfare Fund. So, this is a rather substantial amount of money.

JS: Mr President, our time is almost up, but I would like to draw your attention to another crisis area that raises great concerns in Germany – that is Syria. Hundreds of people die there every day. Your stance and the stance of the West in the UN Security Council obviously differed.

I would like to ask you the following. How do you see the opportunities for stopping the bloodshed? What are the Russian authorities doing, what is the Russian Government doing to finally put an end to this bloodshed?

VP: I think that we should seek an immediate cessation of hostilities, of shelling from both sides, and a cessation of arms supplies.

We often hear: "Russia is supplying arms to Assad." First of all, there are no bans on arms supplies to incumbent legitimate governments. Secondly, only recently the opposition has received 3.5 tons of arms and munitions through the airports near Syria. This is the information published by the American media, I believe, by The New York Times. It has to be stopped.

However, – I would like to stress once again and I believe it is extremely important, – there is international law. There are international legal norms stating that it is inadmissible to supply arms to the armed groups that strive to destabilize the situation in a certain country with the use of arms. Such norms exist and they remain in force; nobody abolished them. So, when they say that Assad is fighting against his own people, we need to remember that this is the armed part of the opposition. What is going on is a massacre, this is a disaster, a catastrophe. It has to be stopped. It is necessary to bring all the warring parties to the negotiation table. I believe that this is the first step that has to be done, and then it is necessary to elaborate further steps during a discussion, which is important in our view.

I have already said it in public and I would like to tell you this, so that your viewers also know about our real position. We do not think that Assad should leave today, as our partners suggest. In this case, tomorrow we will have to decide what to do and where to go. We have done it in many countries. To be precise, our Western partners have. And it is unclear where Libya will go. In fact, it has already split into three parts. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as we still have in Iraq. We do not want to have the situation of the same difficulty as in Yemen, and so on.

Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to bring everyone to the negotiation table so that all warring parties could reach an agreement on how their interests will be protected and in which way they will participate in the future governance of the country. And then they will work together on the implementation of this plan with due guarantees of the international community.

By the way, at the recent forum in Geneva (a few months ago) an agreement was reached on this issue, but later our Western partners unfortunately went back on these agreements. We believe that it is necessary to work hard and search for mutually acceptable solutions.

Recently, we have received Mr Hollande, President of the French Republic. I think he has some interesting ideas that can be implemented, but it requires some diplomatic work. We are ready to support these ideas. We need to try and put them into practice.

JS: Mr President, at the end of our interview I would like to go back to the topic that we have started with. Democracy is a very controversial issue. I would like to quote your Prime Minister. Mr Medvedev said that the democratic changes in Russia can be assessed only in 100 years. In our view, this is not very ambitious.

VP: It may be a translation issue. Could you tell me again what he said exactly?

JS: In essence, Russia's Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said that "development of democracy in Russia can be assessed no earlier than in 100 years." My question is whether there are truly no ambitions about it.

VP: To be honest, I have not seen or heard of Prime Minister saying that, and it is always necessary to consider the context which I am lacking now.

It is obvious that we have made a decisive choice for democracy and we cannot imagine any other way of development. It is also obvious that certain standards used in some countries are difficult to implement or apply elsewhere. I think it is quite clear. We need to develop tools based on the fundamental principles of democracy that would allow for the vast majority of people in our country to influence domestic and foreign policy. It is the majority that must have such an influence, but the majority should also respect the opinion of the minority and consider it. If our domestic policy and public institutions are fully based on such fundamental principles, then it seems to me, we will be able to talk about the success of democracy in Russia. Nevertheless, it is obviously the path that Russia has chosen, the path that it follows. Just compare the situation in the Soviet Union and in modern Russia in terms of development of economy, political sphere, and all other areas associated with democracy. There is a very significant difference. It took other countries 200, 300, 400 years to achieve this goal. Do you expect us to cover this distance within two decades? Of course, we are gradually taking all the necessary steps. We know our destination, and will not abandon this path.

JS: In conclusion, I shall try to ask you a personal question.

You were President for eight years, and then you became Prime Minister. You will be President for the next six years. Do you have a personal plan? Do you want to be President as long as you are elected? Or may be you have some plans about your life afterwards?

VP: Every normal person tries to look some distance ahead. Moreover, I am far from being the longest serving politician. There are people in leading positions in European politics who have worked there much longer than me, both in Europe and in North America, Canada actually. However, I do expect that after my retirement from political life and public service I will have an opportunity to busy myself with other things and challenges. I like jurisprudence and literature, and I do hope I will have a chance to occupy myself with these without any link to my public service duties. May be, I will look into other issues. It can be social life, sports, etc.

JS: Thank you very much for the interview, Mr President.

RT: Obviously we are speaking with you ahead of the BRICS summit and we are expecting that the Syrian conflict will be discussed there between the member states of the BRICS organization. The question is: lately we’ve heard from [Syrian President] Bashar Assad a plea for help from the BRICS countries. Would that be possible, that BRICS countries would be able to help the Syrian situation? And how unified is the position of the BRICS countries on the Syrian conflict?

Sergey Ryabkov: Indeed, it's unavoidable, and it's good that Syria and everything that relates to this issue will be on the agenda. The leaders will have opportunity to exchange views on this. Let me tell you that we are not in any way underestimating the gravity of the current situation and all the problems which we face in Syria. This is not an issue, at least for Russia, to support the government in Damascus. We are not in any way advocating the case of Bashar Assad. We are working and we do believe that it's still possible to achieve this goal towards establishment of a platform for inter-Syrian dialogue, for some reconciliation.

The impartiality here is crucial. Others that have more influence upon Syrian opposition should do more — by far more — to impress these people that they should be really engaged with the government (with the authorities, I'd put it rather this way). There's no alternative. Alternative is more casualties, more tragedy — what we experience there daily. And others at BRICS have very similar views. It has been proven through several events. National positions are being explained by spokespersons, by leaders themselves, and I am very sure that Durban would add to this, what we believe, is a unified and coherent message of what should be done there to resolve the problem.

Voice of Russia: There is some speculation in the West that Russia and China are trying to bring BRICS as a major geopolitical force capable of deposing the United States and NATO from the leading positions. So how does this standpoint reflect the real state of affairs? 

SR: I will categorically deny any intentions towards this end. We in Moscow do think that BRICS has now a very established agenda and any politician, any diplomat, who is interested in what is going on there is very welcome to read through final documents of five summits, see where things move to, how they evolve.

Earlier today, on March 21, we have published our own national concept of Russian policy towards BRICS and within BRICS. It's an interesting reading as well. We are not trying to counterbalance anything in the world. We are trying to catch the wave, the tide of changing reality in the world economy, in the world politics and kind of identify areas where it would be natural for countries as big, as influential, as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia to work cooperatively.

This is very synergetic. We are talking about multiplying authority and influence — no doubt about it, but this is not to challenge anyone. This is to further our own interests and ensure that our ability to achieve these goals is growing and implemented in practical action.

Russian-Chinese relations on upward trajectory

RT: As long as you mentioned China there, it's obviously one of the biggest members of the BRICS organization along with Russia, we see that the new chairman of China is coming to Russia. This is his first visit, just a week after becoming the new leader of the country. We also saw that Vladimir Putin made a state visit to China just days after he was elected president for the third time. Are we no longer in a difficult situation? Are we no longer in difficult ties? Is it something of a new era for the Russian-Chinese relations?

SR: Forgive me for some bluntness, but the difficult situation in our bilateral relationship brings me, or rather my memory, to the days of the spring of 1969 when clashes took place on the island of Damansky and elsewhere. Since that I would dare say we have only progressed and the state of the relationship right now can be very fairly described as an advanced strategic partnership. We do not have any major unresolved problems in our relationship with China, and the very fact that the newly-elected Chairman Xi of China is visiting Russia on his first official trip abroad is a very symbolic and important gesture.

Frankly, we are honored. We understand that it means a lot for both countries. We want to pursue, and we have very interesting prospects and a very interesting vision of what can and should be achieved in this relationship. BRICS plays an important role in these contacts. This is an area, this is a platform, where Russia and China cooperate effectively on political and economic issues. Of course there are different approaches, of course we can see differently on some things but that's natural — big powers have big interests and those interests do not necessarily coincide at any moment. But the maturity of the relationship allows us to look into the future with a good degree of assurance that nothing happens that brings this relationship backwards.

VoR: Russia and China have one position in the UN Security Council about the settlement in Syria and at the same time two other members of BRICS, India and Brazil, want to take place in the UN Security Council. So, how could BRICS members influence the reform of the United Nations?

SR: Irrespective of what is going on in terms of our interaction and coordination even on the Syrian issue at BRICS, I think we have a big issue on the UN reform in broader terms and more specifically on the UN Security Council reform. No doubt there are differences of views, differences of priorities among BRICS members on this issue. Russia is here, as in many other aspects of this agenda, a balancing force. This is how we want to play out our role there.

We think whatever might be the outcome of the current effort to have governmental negotiations on the UN Security Council reform, conducted under Afghan chairmanship since 2009, any eventual outcome of these talks should be very inclusive, it should command broad support by far broader than two-thirds of the vote needed for adoption of any resolution at the UN General Assembly.

Secondly, we need to maintain the effectiveness of the Council. Easier said than done, but it can be translated into more specific positions of any country and I can go on in explaining, but no need for this — believe for what I say.

Thirdly, we need to maintain a veto right for Russia and other permanent members of the Council. This is a condition sine qua non — an unavoidable element of our position. We would pursue it. And I understand that not only China, but others at BRICS have a good deal of recognition of this very situation. I am not saying sympathy, I am not saying, of course, support — that's a different issue — but understanding of the reality. I think it's a very normal base for further discussions and hopefully also for achievement of some results in not so distant future.

BRICS bank prospects

RT: If we look at the BRICS – obviously, the population of these countries constitutes more than a third of the world’s population...

SR: 2.88 billion.

RT: Exactly. Economically, it’s also a very strong entity, with the respective countries being the leaders of the economies of their respective continents. There have been talks for a while of a united development BRICS bank appearing, the one you’ve mentioned today at the press conference. Could you enlighten us, how far along are we in making this bank? And how crucial would that be, how strong this potential bank would become if it appears any time soon?

SR: Thank you for this question. Establishment of this development bank is probably one of the major deliverables along the line of an idea of having BRICS more and more prominent in the area of economy, international finance, development of infrastructure – exactly the core issues that are very close to our own heart when we talk on the future of BRICS.

It’s not been long since this idea was first floated in BRICS. Last year in New Delhi leaders mandated experts to have an exploratory study and prepare recommendations, which was fulfilled and completed very effectively, and we are now on the verge of a formal decision. It would be a substantial – in terms of capital and paid capital – new international institution. We want to ensure that this bank plays a good role in pouring capital, constructing loans, establishing credit facilities for, first and foremost, infrastructure projects in the BRICS countries themselves.

We need more of these kinds of tools and we need to see how it will be introduced into the fabrics of international finance and what niche it will occupy. Several things are yet to be resolved in terms of headquarters, staffing, actual charter of the bank or terms of reference, whatever you call it, but those are secondary things. The major political decision is pending, and in a very few days we’ll know what has been decided in this area, thus also supporting BRICS and enhancing its international role.

Correspondent (via interpreter): I know we have little time and will try to be succinct. I’ll start with Syria right away. Do you think Bashar al-Assad will remain in power for a long time to come? We know that Syria has been in this situation for a long time already, and it is still unclear what the outcome will be. What is Russia’s position on that?

Dmitry Medvedev: We have the same attitude as most countries. We don’t like what is happening in Syria. We don’t like that people are dying there. We don’t like that a civil war is going on there. That said, we think that the only way to calm passions and pacify the situation is to bring all parties to the negotiating table. As for the future of the Syrian government and President al-Assad personally, this is an important issue but secondary.

During today’s talks with the President and Vice President of Brazil, I said that al-Assad is unlikely to be willing to follow in the wake of Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi, and so his personal fate matters. But I’d like to emphasize that this is still a secondary concern, and that, first and foremost, all political forces must come to terms. The thing is that these are not entirely political forces; they also represent different religious sects. If they don’t reach an agreement, the civil war will most likely continue, even with al-Assad out of power. Therefore, our approach is to facilitate dialogue and national reconciliation, and to create a venue for future talks instead of supplying arms to one of the sides or declaring one side legitimate or illegitimate like some European and Arab countries, thereby limiting the legal capacity of that side of the conflict. This is our position. We have held this position from the start. I believe it is reasonable.

Correspondent: What is Russia’s position, as a member of the UN Security Council, on North Korea and its nuclear tests?

Dmitry Medvedev: Russia is indeed a permanent member of the UN Security Council and we understand the responsibility that comes with this status. Honestly, our position on North Korea’s nuclear tests does not differ much from other countries. We consider such tests a violation of universally recognized norms and principles of international law and so we condemn them. That’s it. We have conveyed this position to our North Korean partners. We deal with North Korea. We are one of the few countries that have trade and political relations with North Korea, but we think that such actions do not advance the cause of normalization on the Korean Peninsula.

Correspondent: The international press writes a great deal about human rights and Human Rights Watch compiles periodic reports. Everyone saw this punk band Pussy Riot who were arrested. Could you comment on the state of human rights in Russia right now?

Dmitry Medvedev: What I say will likely differ from the sources you just mentioned. I don’t think we have an absolutely ideal, model society or an absolutely perfect country. We have our problems and we recognize them. Ours is a young civil society and a young, developing democracy with some shortcomings. There are no grounds to say that Russia is an autocracy where human rights are violated and incomprehensible things happen with respect to human rights, though this view does exist. Life consists of concrete episodes, but these episodes can be seen very differently, including the cases you mentioned. In our society you can find diverse, polarized views on, for example, the performance by those girls in the church, and I think it’s wrong to think that there is only one right way to view things. But one thing is indisputable – court decisions must be respected in every country. Therefore, when I’m asked about this case, I always give the same answer: perhaps the toughest punishment was not warranted and a milder sentence would have sufficed, but there is a court ruling that has already entered in force.

Correspondent: Brazil and Russia grow closer with each passing day. Many agreements have been signed today, for instance, on air defense. I’d like to hear what else our cooperation may produce.

Dmitry Medvedev: Let me say right away that no such agreement exists yet. We are simply discussing different forms of military-technical cooperation. This is normal for strategic partners like our countries. We have already achieved a decent level of cooperation in this field.

Now, regarding what the future holds, I hope that Russia and Brazil will have a bright future and a friendly, mutually beneficial relationship, but this will take effort.

Our trade with Brazil is about $6 billion and we’d like to reach $10 billion. Our trade with China is about $100 billion. I’m sure Brazil’s trade with China is also fairly impressive. I think we have a goal to work toward and this is why our trade and economic relations are a major component of our future cooperation. We have devoted almost the whole day to this issue. We are carrying out a host of good projects, but we are already looking for new ones – in energy, infrastructure, industry and high technology. All of them sound interesting.

Question: Are you going to Cuba now?

Dmitry Medvedev: Yes.

Question: I’d like to know your opinion on the liberalization processes that are taking place there now. Please say a few words about political liberalization in Cuba…

Dmitry Medvedev: You know, I think this is a matter for our Cuban partners. All I can say is that, in the time that I’ve been following Cuba’s development, the country has been changing. I think this is also normal. A society immune to change grows ossified. It doesn’t develop and eventually becomes uncompetitive and weak. This is why Cuban society is changing. I think this is normal.

Correspondent: My last question. I’m curious about the meteorite. Could you comment on this incident please? It made such a strong impression on the whole world.

Dmitry Medvedev: Well, it also made quite an impression on us. It showed that human civilisation is overconfident. We think we are making great cars and wonderful buildings and producing arms – in short, that the human race is marching forward. But really we are extremely vulnerable and the fantastical stories of Hollywood blockbusters are frighteningly realistic. We are part of space and we will have to live with the surprises it holds for us. In a sense this was a lesson. We are very happy that nobody was killed but the explosion of this bolide was enormously powerful. It exploded at a high altitude but its fragments reached us and things could have been much worse. So, this is a lesson to the human race and one more reminder that we can deal with some threats only by working together. There is probably no effective protection, but we should think about how to counter the forces of nature. Money and cooperation are a must.

Correspondent: In such a vast country as Russia… You have so much territory…

Dmitry Medvedev: Brazil is not a small country either. Our countries are comparable in size. Thank you! Muito Obrigado.

(interview transcript as published on the Russian government’s web-site).

Below is the full transcript of the address:Dear friends, We are saying goodbye to 2012 as it is about to become history. This was an important year for our country. I would like to sincerely thank all of you for your efforts, your work and achievements, your trust and support.In these moments, we are particularly aware of the fleeting of time, of how quickly our children are growing up, how much we value our families and friends, and how much we love them.At this time, each of us recollects the events, encounters and words that have been most important. We all hope that New Year’s Eve will bring us good luck and a bit of a miracle – which, they say, the New Year sometimes brings.But ultimately and above all, we rely on our own strength and on the people near us; on what we ourselves can achieve in our work, our studies and our creative endeavors; on how we can improve life around us and improve ourselves. So, let’s be more responsive and kind-hearted, more generous and caring toward our loved ones, our children and parents, our friends and colleagues, and everyone who needs our support.As we face the future, we naturally hope for positive, joyful changes, and our personal plans are inseparable from Russia, from our heartfelt, noble feelings toward our Homeland. Its development and further advancement of its thousand-year-long history fully depend on our joint efforts and energy, our unity and responsibility, our aspiration to do as much good as possible. After all, only together can we, the people of Russia, move confidently forward, cope with all challenges, resolve the most difficult problems, and build a powerful, successful nation and a modern, prosperous, free society.Dear friends,Only a few seconds remain before the start of the New Year. I wish you good health, love and happiness! Let children be born and let all good ideas transpire into reality. Let there be joy and harmony in every home and in every family. Then Russia, too, will stand strong and indestructible.I wish you a happy New Year in 2013!

"Measures against persons involved in abuse of fundamental human rights and freedoms including those of Russian citizens”Approved by the State Duma on December 21, 2012 and approved by the Federation Council on December 26, 2012.Article 1Measures against persons involved in abuse of fundamental human rights and freedoms of Russian citizens shall include:1) a ban to enter Russia for those citizens of the United States of Americaa) who have been involved in abuse of fundamental human rights and freedoms;b) who have committed or been complicit in crimes against Russian citizens abroad; c) who hold public office and by their actions or lack thereof have exempted from responsibility for persons who committed or aided to crimes against Russian citizens;d) who were supposed to take decisions which exempted from responsibility persons who committed or were complicit in crimes against Russian citizens; e) who have been involved in kidnapping and arbitrary imprisonment of Russian citizens;f) who have passed arbitrary and biased sentences on Russian citizens;g) who are engaged in arbitrary prosecution of Russian citizens;h) who have taken arbitrary decisions that violated the rights and justified interests of Russian citizens;2) seizure of financial and other assets owned by the US citizens who are prohibited from entering Russia and a ban to conduct any deals involving property and investment of these citizens.Article 2    1. The list of the citizens of the United States of America forbidden from entering the Russian Federation and organizations, the activity of which has been suspended in compliance with Article 3 of this Federal law, is kept by a federal executive body in charge of developing and implementing the state policy and legal regulation in terms of foreign relations of the Russian Federation..2. In respect of those citizens of the United States citizens, included into the list, provided by Part 1 of this Article:1) they are forbidden from disposing of property located in the Russian Federation;2) activity of legal entities run by these persons is suspended in the Russian Federation;3) membership in board of directors or other governing bodies of organizations, registered in the Russian Federation, is suspended. 3. Amendments into the list, provided by Part 1 of this Article, are to be submitted to a federal executive body in charge of developing and implementing the state policy and legal regulation in terms of foreign relations of the Russian Federation, by members of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, members of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Human Rights Ombudsman of the Russian Federation, political parties, the Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation as well as by government bodies.4. Procedure for keeping the list, provided by Part 1 of this Article, is determined by a federal executive body in charge of developing and implementing the state policy and legal regulation in terms of foreign relations of the Russian Federation.5. Head of a federal executive body in charge of developing and implementing the state policy and legal regulation in terms of foreign relations of the Russian Federation is to report on the course of this Federal Law to the chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation at least once a year. Article 31. In accordance with the current federal law, activities of non-governmental organizations that take part in political activities carried out in the Russian Federation or get grants in cash or other kind of property from citizens (organizations) of the United States of America or implement projects, programs in the Russian Federation or get involved in other activities that pose a threat to the interests of the Russian Federation are suspended by a federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of legal regulation in terms of registering non-governmental organizations. The federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of legal regulation in terms of registering non-governmental organizations forwards the information about the non-governmental organizations the activities of which are suspended, to the federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of legal regulation in terms of the Russian Federation's' international relations.2. A Russian Federation citizen who has a United States of America citizenship cannot be a member or head a non-governmental organization, its structural division or of the structural division of an international or foreign non-governmental organization (department, branch, or representation) engaged in political activity carried out in the Russian Federation. An infringement of this ban entails a suspension by a federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of regulation in terms of registering non-governmental organizations and the activity of the said non-governmental organization or its structural subdivision.3. Suspending of the non-governmental organization's activity (or its structural division) in accordance with Parts 1 and 2 of the this Article entails consequences envisaged by paragraph one of Item 61 of Article 32 of the Federal Law dated 12 January 1996, No. 7-ФЗ On Non-Governmental Organizations.” As regards the property of non-governmental organizations (or structural divisions) the activities of which are suspended in accordance with Parts 1 and 2 of this Article, the said property is seized following a court ruling in response to a request of the federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of legal regulation in terms of registering non-governmental organizations. 4. If a non-governmental organization the activity of which is suspended in accordance with this federal law, stops receiving grants in cash or other property from citizens (organizations) of the United State of America or stops implementing its projects, programs or doing anything in the Russian Federation which poses a threat to the interests of the Russian Federation, the operation of this organization is resumed following a decision by a federal executive body in charge of working out and implementing the state policy and of legal regulation in terms of registering non-governmental organizations.Article 41. It is forbidden to pass children, citizens of the Russian Federation over for adoption by citizens of the United States of America. Operation of organizations and bodies involved in selecting and passing children, citizens of the Russian Federation over for adoption by citizens of the United States of America willing to adopt the indicated children is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.2. Due to the prohibition on passing children, citizens of the Russian Federation over for adoption by the citizens of the United States of America as imposed in Part 1 of this Article, on the part of the Russian Federation terminate the operation of the Agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation Regarding Cooperation in Adoption of Children that had been signed in Washington, DC on July 13, 2011. Article 5To amend Subparagraph 7 of part one, Article 27 of the Federal Law of August 15, 1996 # 114-FZ ‘On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry into the Russian Federation’ ( Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 1996, #34, Article 4029; 2003, #2, Article 159; 2006, #31, Article 3420; 2007, #3, Article 410; 2008, # 19, Article 2094; #30, Article 3616) and lay it out in the following edition:“7) in regard to foreign citizens or individuals without a citizenship, a decision is taken on undesirability of their stay (residence) in the Russian Federation, including citizens on the list of citizens of the United States who are prohibited from entering the Russian Federation;".Article 6This Federal law and Subparagraph 7 of part one, Article 27 of the Federal Law of August 15, 1996 # 114-FZ ‘on the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry into the Russian Federation’ (this edition of the Federal law) is applied to citizens of countries that had taken the decision on forbidding entry of citizens of the Russian Federation to their territories, and on arresting assets of citizens of the Russian Federation based on involvement of these citizens of the Russian Federation in human rights violation in the Russian Federation.Article 7This Federal law comes to force as of January 1st, 2013. Vladimir PutinPresident of the Russian Federation

I am glad to have an opportunity to address the readers of one of the most influential Indian newspapers – The Hindu. As my visit to New Delhi is beginning, I would like to outline approaches to further development of strategic partnership between India and Russia.This year marked the 65th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. During the past decades we have acquired a vast experience of joint work and achieved progress in a range of fields. Political epochs were changing but the principles of bilateral ties, such as mutual confidence and equality, remained the same. I would like to stress that deepening of friendship and cooperation with India is among the top priorities of our foreign policy. And now we have every reason to say that they have really unique special and privileged character.The Declaration on Strategic Partnership between India and Russia signed in October 2000 became a truly historic step. The developments in the first decade of the 21st century confirmed that it was a particularly significant and timely step. In fact, today we, the whole civilization, face serious challenges. These are unbalanced global development, economic and social instability, lack of confidence and security.In that situation India and Russia show an example of responsible leadership and collective actions in the international arena.We have a common goal – to make the world we live in more just, democratic and secure and to facilitate resolving global and regional problems, including the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, and in Afghanistan.I would like to note that our joint work in the BRICS becomes increasingly intensive. The authority of that association is growing every year, and that is quite natural. Our proposed initiatives are aimed at establishing new architecture of multi-polar world order. The same constructive approach is also reflected in our interaction in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other multilateral formats. We expect a meaningful dialogue with Indian side within the framework of Russia’s presidency in the G20 that has begun.Joint steps in the international arena, participation in the development of rules of global trade and enhancing business, scientific and technological and humanitarian ties form the basis for achieving a new quality of partnership.We attach particular significance to bilateral trade and investment relations. The growing economic potential of India and Russia is mutually complementary in many respects. Our trade turnover has overcome the consequences of global crisis, and in 2012 we expect to reach record numbers, over 10 billion USD. Our next goal is to reach 20 billion USD already by 2015.To this end, we should engage all reserves and maintain direct contacts between business communities and promote establishing efficient investment, technological and industry alliances in the most dynamic and promising fields. For instance, in energy industry, primarily nuclear one.The construction of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant with the use of the most reliable and up-to-date technologies and standards became a major breakthrough project in that field. The beginning of operation of the first power unit of that plant will allow to significantly reduce the energy deficiency in southern states of India, and eventually eliminate it completely, after the launch of the second and other power units. We expect that the implementation of our arrangements on the construction of new NPPs in India will begin in the nearest future.We hope for significant returns from long-term projects in steel industry, hydrocarbon production, car and aircraft manufacturing, chemical and pharmaceuticals industries, in the field of information and biotechnologies. Important benchmarks are set in the Integrated Long-Term Program of Cooperation in the sphere of science, technology and innovation until 2020. Its main task is to ensure that our scientists conduct fundamental and applied research in order to create new technologies, equipment and materials.The joint operation of Russian global navigation satellite system GLONASS opens up broad prospects. The package of respective bilateral agreements has already been signed. We intend to promote practical interaction in that important area.The strategic nature of partnership between India and Russia is witnessed by the unprecedented level of our military and technical cooperation. The licensed production and joint development of advanced armaments rather than just purchasing military products becomes a key area of activities.Serious attention is paid to developing a fifth generation multifunctional fighter plane and a multipurpose transport aircraft. The product of our designers, the "BrahMos" cruise missile, has successfully passed all tests. Today experts are thinking on its aircraft version.I am confident that such a multi-vector cooperation will allow our countries not only to reach leading positions as a range of hi-technology projects are concerned, but will help to successfully advance joint products to markets of third countries.Humanitarian cooperation has a particular significance for India and Russia, which are States with great cultural heritage and potential. The centuries-old history and culture of India, majestic architectural monuments and museums of Delhi, Agra and Mumbai have a unique attractive force. In its turn, Indian citizens with interest discover the wealth of Russian music, literature and art. The Festival of Russian Culture in India and All-Russian Festival of Modern Cinema and Culture of India which were successfully held this year have convincingly proved it once again.I am confident that awareness-raising and educational projects should be more actively promoted and tourism and youth exchanges developed. In fact, they enrich our citizens and add new contents to human dimension of bilateral relations which becomes all the more significant and relevant today.The India-Russia summit in New Delhi was preceded by painstaking and comprehensive preparations. We have a clear vision of major vectors of future-oriented joint work. I am confident that summit talks will be constructive, as they always were, and their outcome will give a powerful impetus to strategic partnership for the benefit of our two countries and peoples, in the interests of peace and stability in Eurasia and on our common planet.I will take the liberty to outline joint prospects for strategic partnership between India and Russia in the 21st century. These are deepening of cooperation in knowledge-intensive fields based on strong historic traditions, advancement of joint products to international markets, further increasing of the share of high value added products in the trade turnover, enhancing the role and effectiveness of Indian-Russian interaction in international affairs, and the widest possible realization of the potential of cultural and humanitarian contacts.I sincerely wish to the people of friendly India peace, well-being and new impressive achievements.

President Putin’s welcoming address was published on the official site of Russia’s G20 presidency:Dear friends,On December 1, 2012, Russia will assume the presidency of the G20, the informal grouping of the world's biggest economies. We see this above all as a chance to offer our partners a positive and substantive agenda aimed at resolving the common problems of concern to all countries. We will of course also make effective use of our presidency to address our long-term national goals and strengthen Russia's place in global economic governance.The G20 was established in 2008 and has become an important instrument in managing and responding to crises. Through their coordinated action, in just a short period of time, the participating countries managed to stop the economic slide and tighten supervision over national financial systems. They then began systemic transformation of the international financial and economic architecture to bring it into line with twenty-first century demands and started developing the mechanisms that will give us maximum protection from risks, strengthening mutual trust, and giving the impulse for sustained and balanced global economic development.We believe that the Russian presidency's main task will be to focus the G20's efforts on developing measures to stimulate economic growth and create jobs. What will this require? We think the answer is clear: investment incentives, trust and transparency in markets, and effective regulation. These priorities will be at the heart of discussion of the various issues traditionally on the G20's agenda. These issues include the state of the global economy, implementing the framework agreement for strong, sustainable and balanced growth, facilitating job creation, reforming the currency and financial regulation and supervision systems, stability on global energy markets, stimulating international development, strengthening multilateral trade, and countering corruption.We will also include two new issues on the financial agenda: financing investment as a basis for economic growth and job creation, and modernising national public borrowing and sovereign debt management systems.Thus, the Russian presidency will ensure continuity in the G20's agenda and fulfilment of earlier commitments, while at the same time offering new approaches to examine.Russia is ready for the broadest possible cooperation on reaching the G20's objectives. In order to make the G20's work more effective and transparent and increase trust in what it is doing, we will hold broad consultations with all interested parties, with countries not part of the G20, and also with international, expert and trade union organisations, and business community, civil society and youth representatives. Practice shows that global measures are only effective when they are based on the views and take into account the interests of different groups.We hope that Russia's presidency of the G20 will help to consolidate the participating countries' efforts in order to achieve our common goal of resolving the most serious problems facing the global economy, ensuring sustainable growth for the entire international community's benefit, and giving millions of people around the world a better standard of living.Russia is open for dialogue and constructive cooperation.

Below is the full text of Medvedev's interview with France Presse and Le Figaro (as translated by government.ru). Dmitry Medvedev: Good afternoon.Q: Good afternoon. Mr Prime Minister, you plan to visit France soon, next week. We know that you had good relations with Nicolas Sarkozy. How would you assess your cooperation with the new President of France, Francois Hollande? Do you expect any changes?A: I believe that our relations with France have reached a level where they should not depend on who stands at the helm of our countries, although everything is much more complicated in politics. However, I honestly believe that over the past few years our relations have reached a very high level; they can be described as robust, strategic and mutually beneficial. I had a good relationship with the previous President of France, indeed, but I am sure that it is possible to develop equally good relations with the current French President and Government, and I do not doubt that we can do it. My certainty rests not on ideological reasons but on absolutely pragmatic considerations, because maintaining good relations is important for both Russia and France, and on a broader scope, for the whole of the European Union.Q: Mr Medvedev, the French Government has expressed regret that bilateral economic relations do not correspond to the quality of political relations between France and Russia. Do you share this view? Is France sufficiently open to Russian investors?A: I would say that there is no clear-cut answer to this question. On the one hand, we can be satisfied with the development of our trade and economic relations over the past few years. Compared to, say, 2005, trade between Russia and France has grown from approximately 10 billion dollars, not even euros, to $30 billion last year. It is true that our trade and economic cooperation has slackened this year, possibly due to price differences or some other reason. I hope that we will discuss these issues during my talks with my French colleague and the French President. But still, our cooperation has grown threefold. This may seem good, but on the other hand, our investment dynamics are not all that impressive, although there are many large projects underway with great potential, and the overall level of direct French investment accumulated in the Russian economy exceeds $10 billion.By the way, the volume of Russian investment in France is considerably smaller. I believe there is an element of mistrust, or possibly administrative obstacles, hindering Russian investment in the French economy. I would like this to become a thing of the past and for us to invest in each other’s economies, because mutual investment in the strongest bond between countries and peoples. Hence, the situation is not bad, but it can be better still. As I see it, Russian investment in France, for example, would be beneficial, given the current economic situation and economic problems in the European Union and France – and the situation is far from simple in Russia as well. This is why talks on our economic relations are so multifaceted. We can be satisfied with what we were doing, but this does not mean that we should not strive for more.Q: If I may – why is there this mistrust towards Russia?A: I don’t know, you have to ask our French colleagues. But I think there are several aspects. It’s difficult for me to find arguments on behalf of French officials, but I think that, first, Russia has begun investing abroad relatively recently. Consequently, other countries are still cautious of Russian investors, Russian capital as a whole and Russian business – they want to see whether the capital is good or murky, and to determine the origin of that money. In general, these are logical questions at the first stage, but I’d say that Russia has progressed from the first level of the development of capitalism. It’s time to relax and understand that the overwhelming majority of Russian businessmen are law-abiding people who have earned their money honestly, and hence that this money can be invested in any assets, including French assets. So I believe that this is a history of growth. Of course, Russian businessmen should probably be more active, because I can count on the fingers of one hand the cases in which Russians have invested substantial sums in the French economy. This is not good.Q: Your talks will probably focus on the crisis in the eurozone. Do you see it as a danger for Russia, since Russia always depends on the economic situation in the EU?A: We believe this danger is rather serious. Otherwise, frankly, we would have planned Russia’s budget differently. As it is, we have adopted a very tight budget, given the strong interdependence between our economies. Let me remind you that the European Union accounts for 50% of Russia’s foreign trade, or 300 billion euros. Therefore, Russia’s situation depends to a large extent on that in the EU economies. We have to adjust our development scenario for the possible unfavorable developments in the EU and eurozone economies – hence our most recent budget rule, although it was not introduced just for this. It is necessary to count and spend our money wisely. But we could have planned a more relaxed budget anyway. Yet, we did what we think is right for the moment so as not to exceed certain limits. Russia has 41% of its international reserves in euros, so I have repeatedly assured my colleagues, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany, that we strongly count on the euro to continue as a stable reserve currency. We have not taken any decision to withdraw from the euro, but we naturally feel some concern over what is happening in the EU and eurozone economies in general, and in those economies referred to as the “weak links” in Europe, such as Greece, Spain, in part, and some others. So this is not an idle discussion for us.Q: Are you satisfied with the steps the European Union is taking to resolve its economic problems?A: I would say that being “satisfied” or “dissatisfied’ is not a matter of choice for us. It is the French people who should say, “We like what they are doing,” or “we aren’t satisfied.” We are watching this with concern, because at times it seems that our European partners lack energy or political will in their decision-making. Then there’s this protracted debate about what's known as fiscal consolidation versus development (I still remember this discussion at the most recent G8 meeting) − a focus on the national economy or European solidarity.This also largely depends on who is in power in specific countries, including France. In this respect, I would say I feel there has been a certain change from the policy pursued by Nikolas Sarkozy to that of President Francois Hollande. It seems to me that our EU partners are finally reaching some framework agreements. I only hope that they won’t be too late.Allow me to stress that we are absolutely interested in the euro being used as a reserve currency, because it is not a matter of ideology for us, but a matter of pragmatism. We believe that the euro’s potential has not been exhausted. Although I know that there are many Euro-skeptics, we still insist that there should be as many reserve currencies as possible. This would make the global economy far more stable. The dollar, the euro, the Swiss franc, the British pound, and potentially, the yuan and the Russian rouble. The more stable this structure, the better. The rest is up to the EU citizens.Q: France is debating a plan to raise taxes for the wealthy…A: We are aware of this debate. I would like to emphasize that this is certainly up to the French Government and the French people. I think that, when it comes to tax policy, one should always stick to reasonable conservatism so as not to weaken the system, especially in times of crises. I could cite an example from the Russian tax system – we introduced a so-called flat rate a decade ago. Therefore, every Russian citizen, from low-income Russians to the super-rich, pays a tax of 13%. This idea has been much criticized. “Rich people and oligarchs should pay more,” we were told. This is fair. On the other hand, we do not want capital to flow out of the country or into the shadows. I am referring to the so-called grey wages, which are also quite common in Europe. We know that in Greece, for example, a considerable part of wages and salaries are distributed under the table, “in envelopes” – that is, they are not accounted for. Russia used to have this problem as well. However, after we changed the tax rate, most of the wages were legalised. Isn’t this a good thing? When reforming the tax system, one should consider such consequences as the outflow of capital. At the same time, one should not think that the Russian tax system is something that will exist forever and will never change, like a dogma. It can certainly be changed if needed. We are also continuously thinking about our tax system and its future. Between these two poles, as between Scylla and Charybdis, is where the truth lies. In any case I think that interfering with the tax system during a crisis is not a good idea. But that’s my personal opinion.Q: France was the first major world power to recognize the new opposition coalition in Syria as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people and spoke in favor of arms supplies to the coalition. What is your estimate of this position?A: It’s a very controversial one. This is France's own affair: France is a large, strong sovereign state, a nuclear power, and a member of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, let me remind you that in keeping with the principles of international law, which the United Nations approved in 1970, not a single country, not a single state, not a single government should undertake any action directed at the forcible replacement of an acting government in any other country. This is a principle of international law. Therefore, when any state sides with a force that is not formally in power, this decision, at a minimum, is directed at tipping the balance of power in another country. I won’t speculate now, who should be blamed and who shouldn’t. In spite of existing perceptions, Russia supports neither the Assad regime, nor the opposition. We are neutral. As is only natural, we had and still have ties with the existing leadership. But, in fact, that’s not the point. The point is how correct it is at some moment in time to decide in favour of supporting another political force, if this political force is in direct opposition to the existing and officially recognised government of another country. From the point of view of international law, this seems to me absolutely unacceptable. What will be the fate of the Assad regime and Mr Assad’s personal fate? It’s up to the Syrian people to decide. Let this be decided, among others, by the opposition forces as well. It’s advisable that they should come to power via a legal procedure, not as a result of being supplied with arms by some other country. Therefore, the desire to influence another county’s government by recognizing some political force as the sole bearer of its sovereignty doesn’t seem to me entirely civilized.We, at any rate, didn’t and won’t act in this way, even though we condemn what’s being done in connection with, let’s be frank, a very difficult situation in Syria. We also condemn the government’s actions because of the level of violence that has been allowed in the country. But we equally condemn the actions perpetrated by the opposition because they are also engaging in bloody confrontation. As a result, there has begun what, in effect, is a civil war. Therefore, the key to the problem is in talks at the negotiating table, elections, and the coming to power of the popularly supported political forces. And finally, the last thing we want to see is Syria falling apart, something that will lead to yet another source of tension in the Middle East. The religious extremists are certain to take advantage of this, which is not good for any country, be it Syria, France or Russia.  Q: But why is Russia, which has repeatedly emphasized its neutrality in this conflict, so actively cooperating with the Syrian government militarily?A: I will answer this question because, first, I was the Commander-in-Chief not so long ago and all military decisions were my responsibility. But you know what job I have now. The thing is that military cooperation is a long-lasting affair, and this particular military cooperation has always been absolutely legal and open. We have never supplied anything to the current government that doesn’t conform to international conventions. What we have supplied are weapons intended for defense against an outside aggression. Second, we have contracts that must be honored. We don’t know how long a given political regime will exist; it’s up to the country itself and its people to decide. We would cease any supplies only in the event of international sanctions. I remember having to accept a decision in keeping – let me stress this point – with a UN Security Council resolution (there is nothing related to Syria in this respect) banning the delivery of certain types of armaments to Iran. This was done entirely under international law. So what now? Iran has sued for damages and now we have to deal with this problem. Yes, we did honour the Security Council resolution, but simultaneously we have fallen into a legal dispute with Iran. We knew what was going to happen, but nevertheless made our choice in favor of the international community. It’s a very fine point. It is for this reason that we still maintain a very limited scope of cooperation with the Syrian government in this area.Q: I would like to touch on the issue of modernization. We currently see structural economic problems, continued dependence on energy resources, lack of progress towards a rule-of-law state and other problems which were not addressed during your presidential term. Many analysts believe that a kind of moratorium has been introduced … Hasn’t the policy of modernization, which you proclaimed, come to a halt?A: I find it hard to argue with you. Indeed, modernization has not yet become a national precept, and we have failed to achieve any real progress. But, most importantly, we have started this work. All of us admit that Russia’s economy is not ideally balanced, that there is a disproportion, and that we rely too much on hydrocarbons, on crude oil and natural gas. We must modernize the economy, we must create an innovation economy, and we must introduce state-of-the-art technologies. Can this be accomplished in two or three years? Of course not; that’s impossible. But we have begun this work, and we continue to do it. The Government prioritizes this issue. Incidentally, the President also focuses on this issue. An ad hoc Presidential Commission, which I established, and which was retained by President Vladimir Putin as the Council for Economic Modernization and Innovative Development, continues to function. However, we are not moving ahead as quickly as we would like. Some organizational projects can be implemented more quickly, and some projects are more difficult. We have established special development institutions, including the Russian Direct Investment Fund, which should accomplish many of these objectives. We are establishing new innovation clusters, including a technology park and a largely new centre at Skolkovo. By the way, I have repeatedly discussed this issue with my French colleagues. I have discussed this with the President and the former Prime Minister during a previous visit. We are interested in the experience of your technology parks, which are also quite modern and interesting. I hope that we will be able to continue our cooperation in this area.So we are moving ahead, although not as quickly as we would like. Most importantly we should not feel upset. On the contrary, we should continue to move ahead in the directions we’ve charted. We have identified some very important directions for the Russian economy, including the development of the nuclear power industry. And by the way, Russia and France compete with each other in this area. But there is nothing terrible about this; it's normal. Other efforts include bioengineering, the creation of a modern pharmaceutical industry, aerospace technology and many others. We consider these directions to be quite promising, and we have  positive experience in these areas from the past. We will address all these issues, as well as new technologies.   Q: Your Government has actively advocated privatization in Russia and has launched a major program to privatize state assets. Does the purchase of TNK-BP by state-owned Rosneft run counter to this policy?A: The Government is still advocating privatization. We continue to believe that privatization is an important economic process for Russia. On the other hand, this is not a straightforward process, and we don’t need privatization for the sake of privatization, although this is important symbolically. In what context? I have repeatedly discussed this. Privatization is an economic development tool. We don’t need a state-owned economy, we don’t need the majority of companies to be state-owned. However, the state has the right to maintain its presence in key and important sectors, including the nuclear power industry and the defense sector. This is standard international practice.The deal you mentioned is something exceptional. In my opinion, it was motivated by trivial reasons. The shareholders should not have quarreled among themselves. One day, TNK-BP, which is an absolutely private company, became engaged in a deadly battle. They probably made a mistake by establishing a company on a fifty-fifty basis. When I was a lawyer, I always told my clients that they should never create anything on a fifty-fifty basis because it inevitably ends in a quarrel, and because they would be unable to agree on a director. Well, they created this successful and large company. But they decided to sell their shares within the context of these developments. And who will buy these assets? This is a good question. To be honest, we are not indifferent as to who will buy one of the largest oil companies in the Russian Federation. We were content when this company belonged to Russian and British business leaders. But we are paying attention to any possible suitors. So when Rosneft showed an interest in this asset, it seemed a better fit than the arrival of some hard-to-understand investor. I won’t name names, but you can guess.And one more thing. Rosneft is a state-owned company, but this doesn’t mean that this will last forever. A substantial percentage of Rosneft shares are being floated freely. And this trend will continue. Rosneft will continue to sell shares. To be more exact, the Government will continue to sell Rosneft shares. Incidentally, a directive on selling a certain amount of Rosneft shares is sitting on my desk.Q: When will you sign this document? Will you sign it next week, or next year?A: Yes, perhaps I will go back and sign the document, after speaking with you.Q: Does this mean privatisation?A: Yes, this means privatization. In reality, this is part of the proposed deal. But, anyway, it implies privatization. And this does not mean that this will be the last transaction. Consequently, the Government should decide what is profitable, and to what level its involvement should be reduced. First, this might imply a level that’s more than a controlling interest.  In the future, this could amount to any level, depending on various factors, including the priorities of any specific company and its economic state, as well as the state of the global economy.Q: The detention of the Bolotnaya riot protesters on May 6 was strongly criticized in the West. Now the detainees are facing long prison terms. Don’t you think this response was too severe?A: Whether it was severe or not is a matter of opinion. You know I’m not going to give examples of how European officials respond to violations of the law, what sanctions they impose, who is punished and how. It is absolutely useless to say “but look how you do things” and very unproductive in any relations. But I don’t think officials responded too harshly to this blatant violation of the law. You know, in foreign countries any protester who assaults a police officer would go to prison, no matter what their claims are and which side they are on, the opposition or the ruling party. In any country, if someone hits a police officer, he or she will be regarded as a criminal and will go to prison. I think all protest organisers should be well aware of this fact, regardless of whether they belong to the ruling party or the opposition. It is common practice.Q: Is it true that after the new Russian president is sworn in, a major clamp down followed? There have been many new laws recently e.g. on foreign agents, protests. How do you see this?A: I don’t know how you see it. If you feel that we are clamping down on the mass media to restrict its freedom then maybe it is true. But I disagree.You know, priorities are always a political choice. Of course, everyone is free to analyse what is happening. But you should remember that our political situation is completely different from the political situation in 2008. The current system is different. Now we elect governors by a direct vote. Now we have many parties and 25 parties were represented in the last October’s local elections. We have received tens – no, hundreds of party registration applications. They will all be registered. The political landscape has changed and it will be followed by changes to the law.You mentioned some specific acts and I can explain them. With regard to protests, it is the responsibility of the Government to regulate protests. I have to admit our society is not the best developed in this respect. We are only starting to understand the idea of an orderly protest. The purpose of protests is not to end up in a mass fight, but to express one’s view of the ruling power or something else. Therefore, the law must be observed. Changes to the law are totally natural, I think. I think you also mentioned…Q: Foreign agents…A: Foreign agents. As far as treason is concerned, I think we are talking only about formalities with regard to the changes to qualifying certain circumstances in a criminal case. This is nothing out of the ordinary. It is a pure formality.As for foreign agents, our legislators actually borrowed it from foreign legal practices. The most important aspect is not the concept, but how it affects the spirit of the civil society. If I found out that a number of NGOs had to close or faced problems it would be a strong argument for both the legislators and me. But I haven’t heard of such cases so far. So this is a concept that has proved neither wrong nor right yet. The law is a living organism and it will continue to develop.Q: So you mean freedom is not being restricted?A: I think not. Although you know, everyone has their own idea of freedom. I remember talking about this in a speech – maybe in my annual address as a president if I recall it right. Who is a free person? It is not someone that the state defines as free by saying, “Of course you are free.” No, it is someone who can call themselves a free person whether they live in Russia, in Europe or in Africa. If one has internal freedom, one is a free person. If not, no liberal laws will make one free. It seems to me this is a very important idea for any regime and any rule of law, any democracy, including our young democracy, which still has many flaws and needs to be worked on.Q: You have called for the release of Pussy Riot but the girls are still sitting in prison. What is preventing their release?A: I didn’t call for their release, I simply stated my view. I am always precise in my judgments, being a lawyer by training and mentality. Actually what I said was the following: I detest what they have done and I detest their public image. From the moral point of view, it’s a very, very bad thing. But considering the fact that they spent quite a long time in custody during the pre-trial detention, I think they know the taste of prison full well. In this sense, the state has demonstrated to them its punitive capabilities and has explained to them that they should behave properly, from both the criminal-legal and moral points of view. Therefore, I don’t think that they need to serve a prison sentence any longer. But this is my personal view. The position of the court differs.  There is a division of power in Russia: there is the judicial authority, there is the executive branch (including the Government), there is the President and there is Parliament.Q: And the authorities cannot influence the courts?A: Can they in France?Q: In principle, no.A: Nor can they in my country, in principle. It’s a very good answer. In principle, they can’t. Of course, we have the right to state our views, but, you know, I think the further the authorities (let me stress this – any authority, be it the executive branch, the legislature or even the President) are from the judiciary, the stronger the judiciary will be.Q: I’d like to ask you about Mr Khodorkovsky…A: Do I have to answer?Q: Yes. Do you think that Khodorkovsky has been in prison for too long?A: You know, any imprisoned person deserves pity because imprisonment is a very harsh punishment. On the other hand, there is the liability that the court determines. Where the Khodorkovsky and Lebedev case is concerned, the court has administered a lawful punishment. Whether the term is long or short is a very complicated matter because, as is obvious, any day spent in places of confinement is a long and difficult day. On the other hand, there is the court ruling. I, at any rate, while serving as President, said repeatedly that there was the court ruling, which everyone must respect. There is an opportunity to appeal. As far as I know, the second sentence is still in the process of being appealed. Finally, a convict has the right to a pardon. The said convicts have abstained from this right. I am not interested in analysing their reasons for doing so at this moment. The fact is, they didn’t use this right. If they had appealed to the President, the President would have decided whether to pardon them or not. But they didn’t appeal to me.Q: Do you mean that the ball is still in their court?A: Absolutely, as in the case of any person convicted by a court. If recognised as guilty, a person can apply for a pardon. People did so time and again when I was President. I rejected some lawsuits and accepted others. I think it’s absolutely normal.Q: Nearly a year haspassed since the December 4 parliamentary elections and the first big protest rallies in Russia. How did you feel when these rallies began?A: Well, to be honest, I felt many different emotions, but they were all centred around one thought: Our civil society has changed. It has become more active and the authorities must take this into consideration and react to this change. Everyone must respect the law, including those who do not like the current authorities or the policy of a given government, president, prime minister or party. But the authorities should change too, because a reasonable government that wants to maintain the ability to influence the situation should adjust to the level of development of civil society. I believe that I found the correct answer to that challenge: I proposed changing some very important foundations of our political system, which I have mentioned here, including the election of governors, new election legislation, and some other institutions, and these changes are being implemented now, including simplified rules for creating a party. As I see it, this reassured those who were dissatisfied with the political structure, because they saw that they could influence the political situation. They can create a party. When it is difficult to create a new party, you have to choose between four, five or seven parties, as it happened in the past. Today it is very simple to create a party. You want to start a party and promote it? Go ahead! There are many examples of this kind in history. I don’t think we will have a bipartisan system any time soon. Anyway, our political and party system is much closer to the European system, including the French system, where the number of parties is much larger. There will be political alliances, which is normal, which actually is the authorities’ answer to changes in civil society, the answer to public demand and the stance of the people.Q: As President and as Prime Minister, you have censored Stalin’s actions more than once. But if Stalin is a criminal, why is he still buried by the Kremlin Wall?A: You know, I am not only a man in the government and a former president, I am also a citizen of the Russian Federation. I have a personal stance on some issues, including Stalin and a number of his colleagues, his comrades. I have a strong negative opinion on this. But by no means does everyone support me on this issue, and there are some people who find [Stalin’s] methods of ruling the country very attractive. We had another discussion on this quite recently and I even had to post on social networks that these ideas can only be advocated by those who are sure that they will not be whisked away in a Black Maria and sentenced to 10 years in prison without the right of correspondence. You know what this phrase means, right?Q: It means execution.A: Yes, execution. So it’s easy to advocate tyranny when you live in an open country and know that you will not be arrested at night. However, some people believe that this is an effective method of governance. In general, nostalgia, or even yearning for the deceased dictators, is a widespread aberration. I believe there are people in France who yearn for some past regime or an authoritarian ruler. But this is my personal belief. I’d like to say again that a large number of people, a substantial number of people in Russia think differently. But this is what democracy is all about.As for Stalin’s grave, this is a very delicate issue. No matter how negative my attitude to Stalin, I cannot close my eyes to what happened in the country during certain periods of its history and to the obvious achievements of the country’s political leadership, for example during the Great Patriotic War. Victory in this war was secured not only by the people, but also by the country’s leadership – these are inseparable elements. However, this is not the key issue: A huge number of very delicate aspects should be considered before a decision to rebury a major historical figure is taken, and this should be done with due consideration for the law and the basic need for tact and morals. This also concerns the graves of other Russian and Soviet leaders, from Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin to those who are buried along the Kremlin Wall.Q: Can this issue be resolved quickly?A: Again, I think that these decisions must be considered thoroughly so as to avoid clashes arising between different groups of people. In general, all aspects must be considered very carefully before disturbing graves. I see this as a major imperative. The rest is the issue of the authorities’ competence. We’ll see what eventually comes of it.Q: You must understand that it is very strange when the leadership, when Mr Medvedev says that Stalin is a criminal, yet his grave is in the most prestigious place in Moscow. And this is alarming…A: I have just said that, firstly, only a court can declare a person a criminal. But it is absolutely clear to me that the persecution campaigns carried out during Stalin’s rule claimed the lives of a huge number of people, no matter what our political opponents and the supporters of that Communist idea may say or write. This is one moment. Secondly, any grave is protected by law. It so happened that this particular grave is located in the centre of the country. But if we take the decision to rebury Stalin, it could raise questions about other graves. We cannot say that some of the people who were buried were bad and hence should be reburied, while others were apparently nice guys and so should be allowed to lie peacefully in their graves. There is a very difficult ethical question involved: Is it really right to have a cemetery in Red Square at all? On the one hand, all these decisions were taken before our time. But on the other hand, it is a question of symbols. What I definitely don’t want to happen is for political decisions to pit one group of people against another. I’d like to remind you that little over 20 years ago the country was ruled by the Soviet Communist Party, the overwhelming majority of the Soviet elite were Communist card-holders. A considerable part of modern society still believes in the victorious socialist idea of the old model. Any government must take this into consideration, because these are our citizens, these are our people.Q: And our final questions, Mr Medvedev. Do you feel comfortable working as Prime Minister under President Vladimir Putin?A: You know, I could hardly imagine myself serving as Prime Minister under any other President. Vladimir Putin is probably the only person with whom I would feel comfortable working after serving as President. I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would have never agreed to serve as Prime Minister under any other President. Having been President, it is rather difficult to work as Prime Minister, even though it is a very challenging, ambitious, and interesting job. So, I am quite comfortable in this position.     Q: Do you miss the Kremlin?A: The Kremlin is not an easy place to be. It is the heart of Russia and a very beautiful place, but to be honest with you, I don’t think of it as an architectural monument. It was my workplace for four long years. I believe that I did my job fairly and openly. I have long since decided for myself that you should not get attached to any specific job, since if this is the case you would never be able to work elsewhere. People, who think otherwise often have problems when they need to change jobs. And you should never think that you have been elected to any job indefinitely, whether it is as a village head or a President. Therefore, for me the Kremlin is a beautiful place and the heart of our country, but I also feel quite comfortable working at the Government House or the residence, where we are meeting today.   Q: A question about your political ambitions. Would you be interested in returning to the Kremlin in the future?A: I certainly am not ruling out this possibility, provided I am in sufficient health and strength, and that people want to see me in this position in the future. But this will depend on many factors. I have said this before that you should never rule out anything. As the saying goes, never say never – especially since I have already stepped into this river once, and this is one of those rivers in which you can step twice. Q: And in that event, your Prime Minister would be …?A: This is a good ending. We’ll have a completely different political situation then, because nothing like this is happening yet. Today, we are working in specific political conditions, and we need to repay the trust that the people have given us. I am referring to the mandate that was given to President Putin and, accordingly, the trust and powers that were transferred to me as Prime Minister.     Q: Will Russia be different then?A: Russia is different every day and every year. Everything is changing. Thank you.Q: Thank you.

Below is the full text of the interview the head of the Russian government gave ahead of his visit to Finland.Q:Mr Medvedev, to start with could you outline the nature of the relationship between Finland and Russia, and tell us what are the most important topics you intend to discuss in Finland?A: Relations between us are good. Sometimes it seems to me that we share the same view on very many positions – both in bilateral relations and in international relations. Whatever the case, during the time when I was more actively involved in foreign policy than I am now, I had many opportunities to discuss our relationship with my Finnish colleagues.There are probably some points where our views diverge. I recently attended the summit in Laos, and I learned that there is one big difference between myself and Prime Minister Katainen. I usually use Apple products and he took a Nokia phone out of his pocket, which caught my attention. I said that I admired the way technology has developed in Finland in recent years, how telecommunications and modern communication technology projects have developed. This is a great example, given how 20 or so years ago no one in Finland would have guessed how this industry would develop. And this is just one potential area for cooperation. We have pretty good relations in this area within the Skolkovo project. So overall things are looking good, and I am looking forward to my trip, looking forward to our talks and attending the Forestry Forum with Prime Minister Katainen, and my meeting and talks with President Niinistö. Q:Mr Medvedev, my first question is concerned with custody of Russian children in Finland. You probably know about recent unpleasant events in Finland. Unfortunately, the information that was published about it in Russia is false and does not reflect reality, for example, about the amount of custody time… Finland tried to correct that information, but with very few results. Of course, this is a very serious question. A: The media enjoy the freedom of speech. I don’t know who wrote what, but the efforts to correct the information failed. This is indeed a serious question.Q:Of course, it’s a serious question. There is concern in Finland, the fear that Finland’s reputation in Russia will be affected. As a result, there will be fewer Russian tourists in Finland, which would be an unwelcome consequence. Can you say who would benefit from this and how badly can this situation impact Finnish-Russian relations? How do you think these issues should be addressed? Do you think there is a need for a joint commission on the children’s welfare?A: I agree this is a very difficult issue in our relations and one that arose rather unexpectedly. I can tell you that I have discussed it several times with my former colleague Ms Tarja Halonen (former President of Finland) and other colleagues. You have asked who will stand to gain from this. I don’t think anyone can benefit from this. This cannot benefit interstate relations, or the overall spirit of cooperation, or, as you have said, the tourists who are planning to travel to Finland or to Russia. But the worst part is that this will not benefit the children who these decisions concern or who are affected by the distorted information published in newspapers and broadcast by radio and television. It would be best if family issues were resolved in strict compliance with the family legislation. We have such legislation in Russia and you have it in Finland as well. If the issue concerns Finnish families and Finnish laws on marriage and family, it should be dealt with in accordance with the Finnish legislation, no one questions that. But the trouble is that due to a variety of reasons, both subjective and objective, a number of such cases have great resonance. It is believed – at least, some experts on marriage and family and journalists think so – that some of the people involved in these cases (mostly present or former citizens of Russia) receive biased treatment. I am not a judge or an expert on this type of conflict, although at the dawn of my teaching career I studied the marriage and family legislation, so I know a little about it. Unfortunately, all this is developing into a trend, which is not good at all. I know that the Finnish laws on marriage, family and custody are very strict. However, we were taught that such decisions should above all take into account the children’s interests. And when a child is made hostage to a family conflict, and especially if this conflict is taken up by media outlets, it is the child who suffers first of all. And this is truly lamentable. Of course, we are not trying to encroach on Finland’s sovereignty in the field of marriage and family; these are your laws. But since such conflicts arise from time to time, the best solution apart from signing a relevant convention (which is still a long way off, and I see that my colleagues are not eager to sign it) would be to create a commission that would submit proposals for improving rules and for resolving practical problems. I believe that this would be a good solution. We set up such a commission with France in 2011, and it has been efficient. I believe that it helps to resolve some questions. We could apply the same solution to the recent collisions over marriage disputes in Finland. On the whole, I believe, as I have said, that when considering a decision, the court in any country and any custody agency should above all take into consideration the interests of children, and not how the parents will look in this or that situation. Mind you, I don’t want to interfere in any particular case, as this would be wrong on my part.Q:Thank you. Now the investment climate. One of the main goals of the Government is to break the economy’s dependence on commodities. This year Russia joined the WTO, which was a very important step. Russia is a very important market for Finland, and many Finnish companies are interested in manufacturing consumer goods or food products in Russia, but they often encounter problems here. Opening a plant in Russia requires too much effort, especially to organize the required papers. What else are you planning to do to improve the investment climate in Russia, and which Finnish companies would you like to attract?A: I just said that on the whole, Russia and Finland have established solid trade, economic and investment ties, which is clearly evidenced by the figures: bilateral trade reached about 20 billion last year. I hope the level will be just as high this year. Anyway it is higher than what we have with many European countries. So I think that our relations are good. But there is always room for improvement. Since Russia has joined the WTO, we believe we are beginning to be guided by the common rules. Until recently, we had a certain number of issues that we had to agree with the Finnish Government and the Finnish President. So we used to say we’ll wait until Russia joins the WTO and that will provide a basis for resolving most of them. So it has become a fact – Russia has joined the WTO, which has opened a path towards working on these rules.As to the investment climate, I have never tried to disguise the truth, and I know that it is not ideal in Russia. We are constantly working to improve it, even today I chaired a long meeting (that’s why this interview had to be moved to a later time) devoted to this issue. What is most important here? First of all, the registration process for companies has to be simplified. Actually, it is not too complicated now as it is, but when you need licenses and permits, there are certain requirements that need to be observed. Some of them are clearly excessive and need to be changed.Speaking of imports, in a normal business climate an important role is played by customs. Therefore, we are working to optimize its operation. Some efforts are more successful than others I should say, but we have worked out several roadmaps aimed at improving the work of customs as well as other administrative agencies. I believe this should influence the general situation and make things better for our Finnish partners.Now, your question as to which Finnish companies we would like to see here in Russia – well, we will welcome anyone who comes with goodwill or proposes good investment projects. We already have a very good history of cooperation, and I am not only referring to the industrial giants that I mentioned earlier, but I also have in mind medium-sized companies, which have established many joint ventures with Russian producers, and small businesses too. As someone who has spent much of his life in St Petersburg, I remember that, just as the Iron Curtain was lifted, and Russia began introducing market reforms, the majority of newly registered joint ventures were with Finnish partners. Some of them are still there, while others have probably disappeared. Therefore I would not like to name all those companies I would like to see. We have some large projects in the works, but we will be just as happy to do smaller projects if they are good ones.Q: I would also like to ask you about Russia’s domestic policy because you’ve had a very interesting year. A lot of things happened after the parliamentary elections.A: Yes, it was a cheerful year…Q: Yes. There were many protests, rallies, civic to-do, reforms, and new laws, of course. The Pussy Riot case, new criminal cases involving the opposition… How do you see this country’s development? Where is Russia moving? Is it a direction you endorse or would you like it to be totally different?A: If I thought that Russia was moving in a direction other than the one that seems correct to me, I wouldn’t be sitting here. I would be somewhere else, for understandable reasons. No, I think we are on the right track. There are problems, of course, like the economic complications we have spoken about, and political irregularities that will find a solution… But if we speak about our political system, I think that it has been developing. The transformations that followed the Duma elections – the package of amendments to the election laws, to the laws on political parties, which I introduced – these haven’t been modified or repealed; and they are working. And now we have a totally different political scene. As an observer, you may have noticed that the October 14 elections involved 25 political parties rather than six as before. Yes, their achievements have been modest so far, but the first step is the hardest, as the saying goes. They will obviously gain additional political dividends and popularity and at some time later they will emerge as strong political rivals. So, the political environment is changing.As far as the gubernatorial elections are concerned, I was in two minds for a long while to be honest about whether or not to bring back the elections of governors. Russia is a very complex country. We have very many totally different regions. Not so long ago, some of them went through rather dramatic events. From the point of view of state governance, it would have been simpler to retain the previous system, where the President empowers a top-level official. But after I talked to different people – politicians, journalists and members of the public – I saw just one thing: people are keen to vote. If they are, let them vote. In this case, incidentally, they will bear the full burden of political responsibility. If they elected a fool, he is their own choice. But if they voted for a good governor, that’s much better.This issue is no longer on the agenda. Voters elect those people for whom they are ready to vote. I am pleased, for example, that the party I head gained the majority of votes and won in all the regions that held gubernatorial elections, this despite fierce political rivalry. Will this always be this way? I don’t think so. Some very mature, experienced and tough opponents will emerge, who will be able to win. Let it be! This is also a good thing, even though every party’s goal is to hold on to its positions. That is why I think that generally the situation is normal. There are, of course, some current problems. You mentioned the opposition with their grievances against the authorities. In my opinion, the very fact that the civil society has become more active is a positive thing. This is first. Second, some of their grievances may be fair and the authorities must respond to them. Third, any grievances directed at any authorities should be presented in a polite and legitimate manner. Rallies and protests are absolutely normal things, but they should be held in specially designated places on the basis of relevant decisions approved, like elsewhere, by government authorities. Violations of the law are out of the question. If everything happens in this way, there is one old and succinct word for it: democracy. Q:You have a new Government, and you know very well that it is being closely watched…A: Watched?Q: …closely watched in Russia. I have two questions about the Government. Firstly, what are the Government’s key goals? And secondly, what about the relationship between the Government and the President, and between the President and the Prime Minister? Two ministers have been dismissed already. To an outside observer, it looks as if the Government and the President have opposing views on the economy. Is this really the case?A: I see. Of course, I will comment on all this. I will begin with the Government’s key goals. The key goal of the Government – and it doesn’t matter what Government it is – is to improve people’s lives, the lives of the citizens of Russia. The Government which I lead has the same goal, to improve people’s lives, to improve the quality of life for the citizens of Russia. This is our main goal. There are, of course, other goals, but they all stem from this main goal. Firstly, we need to maintain macroeconomic stability in the face of the global financial instability. This is a difficult goal: there is no crisis now, but you know from the situation in Finland and other countries that the situation is far from ideal. Most countries are reporting slight growth, and growth in Russia is a little better but still not what we would like it to be. So we need to maintain the key indicators, which is why we had to introduce strict budgetary rules. It is true that this limits our opportunities, although not in all areas, but on the other hand, this will make our budget predictable and less dependent on the fluctuations of hydrocarbon prices. Unfortunately, the Russian economy is to a large extent dependent on prices of hydrocarbons, such as oil, gas, and so on. Another goal of the Government is to ensure the rights, freedoms and security of the state and the people who live in it, which explains why considerable amounts are being spent in these areas – maintaining law and order, improving the Armed Forces and providing them with modern armaments. This is normal, because it has been a long time since our army had new weapons. This has nothing to do with militarism, as some of our neighbours have suspected. But you can’t ride in tanks that were made in the 1970s, and you also need new submachine guns; that’s how the world is. Russia is also a nuclear power and so has a special responsibility to keep its nuclear capability in proper order. Until the world gives up nuclear weapons, our nuclear arsenal has to be kept up-to-date. Hence, security and defence are clear key priorities of the Government. Of course, social issues are another important area; this goal stems from the common objective. We are currently trying to resolve many questions in the area of education, healthcare and the pension system, which is not ideal and which needs to be improved. We are now discussing ways to modernise our pension system, which is never a simple process and you know that it invariably provokes different emotions, but we need to come to a final decision. In short, the Government has many goals.As for relations between the Government and the President, we have normal working relations, quite good relations, as they should be between the President and the Government. I know this because I was President once, and I developed relations with the Government which at that time was headed by Vladimir Putin. They had their own complex tasks at that time – they were fighting the crisis. So there is nothing unusual [in our relations], and there is nothing unusual in the fact that some people join the Government and others leave it – it happens in all countries, and it happens in our Government too. We all know the reasons why a cabinet member leaves or joins the Government, they are public knowledge: someone’s nerves get frayed because this is difficult work, and they say: “No, we are not ready for it.” It happens, and there is nothing unusual about it. In other cases, people leave because we need to ensure transparency, to conduct investigations and take the necessary decisions. This is also normal. This also happens in other countries. As for my [personal] relations with the President, I can only repeat what I have said before: nothing in them has changed since I accepted a Government job and my colleague Vladimir Putin was elected President of Russia. We have long-standing relations. When I was recently congratulating him on his birthday, I told him that we had known each other for 21 or 22 years, which is a long time for anyone. In my case, this is the whole of my adult, conscious life. This is a long time, as you see. In short, everything is fine between us.Q: I have a question about cooperation between Finland and Russia. I know that there are plans to launch some new short railway transit routes between Finland and Russia, including a route to Petrozavodsk. Tell me please, do you think that these routes are really necessary? And how will Russia be able to implement these plans? Because, of course, it calls for changing the status of several border checkpoints. And, of course, we must see to it that these checkpoints have enough personnel …A: This is an important issue. In my life, I have crossed the border between Russia and Finland many times, by train, by air and by car. It was not always pleasant, especially when you have to stand in line and wait for hours for the borders to open. We have focused, are focusing and will continue to focus on improving trans-border traffic between Russia and Finland. The rather good Allegro train started running from Russia to Helsinki not long ago, in 2010. I don’t know whether you have taken this train or not …Q: Yes.A: But there were many debates when they were introducing this service. They wanted to know whether anyone would ride this train with only a two-hour travel time improvement. Actually, two hours is quite a lot. Although the difference is not very substantial, the price is, naturally, higher because the train is more comfortable. And I can say that all the pessimistic forecasts didn’t come true. Ridership continues to increase since it was launched. To the best of my knowledge, this train carried about 300,000 passengers last year. About 260,000 to 270,000 passengers rode this train in the first eight months of 2012. This means the route is becoming popular, and that it is profitable to invest in these infrastructure projects because they will eventually pay back on the investment. I’m not talking about the fact that this is very convenient for people because there are fewer border-crossing problems. But this does not mean that we should not improve the procedure. We have reviewed this question many times. I have repeatedly discussed this with our Finnish counterparts, and I have gathered the customs officers, and have instructed them to draft proposals on re-equipping checkpoints on the Russian-Finnish border and on providing these checkpoints with additional equipment in conjunction with another department, the Federal Agency for the Development of the State Border Infrastructure (Rosgranitsa). I’m referring to the well-known Brusnichnoye, Torfyanovka and other checkpoints. This project would require additional funding. But what can we do? Anyway, these are important through passages and lines of communication between Russia with Finland. We realize that this must be done.But, at the same time, we realize that these projects are usually mutually beneficial, and that they can be done with a public-private partnership and using foreign investment. I mean for road construction, etc. Therefore I believe that our Russian-Finnish joint ventures justify themselves in this respect. Q:On foreign policy. What are the most burning issues in international relations? Barack Obama has been re-elected: will this influence the future of the reset policy?A: Currently, I am mostly responsible for internal issues, because according to our Constitution it is the President who is responsible for foreign policy. I have had four years of it, when I travelled a great deal and attended numerous talks. It is an interesting and very difficult job, which, frankly speaking, is also physically taxing, because when you need to keep moving from one meeting to another… I recently returned from the summit in Laos and after that I visited Vietnam. I understand that this is a large part of my job, but it draws attention away from everyday issues. The Government has very many routine issues on the agenda; I sign about a hundred documents every day. This is how things are done in our country; there may be too much bureaucracy, but unfortunately, many decisions cannot be implemented without internal documents, without Government orders. I hope that a more active use of e-Government will simplify the situation.As for international problems, I would say that they are obvious to all of us. The biggest knot of contradictions is probably North Africa and the Middle East. It is certainly Syria. Our stance on Syria is well known: Russia does not support anyone in this conflict, neither President Assad (contrary to popular belief) nor the rebels. We only tell them that they must sit down at the negotiating table and come to an agreement, rather than shoot at each other, which is the worst possible scenario. But unfortunately, some countries have a more one-sided approach: this one must leave immediately, and we will send weapons to the other ones. We believe that this is not right, that this will never bring peace to Syria. Or the state will ultimately disintegrate – we have seen this happen in North Africa. Certainly not all the events that have taken place in the Middle East and North Africa over the past two years have brought peace and tranquillity. In terms of Palestine, there is still a long way to go before all its problems are resolved. We recently met to discuss the situation in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a very important region to us. We recently hosted the APEC Leader’s Week in Vladivostok, attended by the APEC heads of state and government. The event was held at a high level, and I believe that it went quite well and gained Russia a certain position. But there are problems in the region, such as the North Korean nuclear programme, which we discussed at the recent ASEM summit, the Asia-Europe Meeting in Laos, which the Finnish Prime Minister also attended. In short, there are more than enough problems in the world. Our relations with America are an important part of international politics, for one because Russia and the United States are the world’s largest nuclear powers. I am pleased with the fact that we have achieved some of our goals over the past few years: Barack Obama and I signed the New START Treaty. No matter what you may think about it, that treaty has helped to lower the level of confrontation and to resolve a number of issues, though not all of them. There are some problems that still persist in our relations with America. The biggest of them probably concerns the architecture of the European ballistic missile defence system. I am not going to delve too deeply into this subject, which everyone knows very well, but it will definitely be on the agenda when we discuss our relationship with the new/old US administration. I have already expressed my personal feelings about Obama’s re-election. I can say again that the current US President is someone you can do business with; he is a man who listens to other people’s arguments, knows how to communicate and can take decisions. We do not always agree, but if he adopted decisions he ultimately implemented them. By the way, I appreciate this; I appreciate the years when we worked together. I hope that he will adopt the same approach during his second term. As for the reset policy, it is mostly symbolic. You know, we have reset everything we could. We don’t need to reboot anything, to press the Reset orReload buttons, what we need is to develop our relationship. Speaking about the issues that are the direct responsibility of the Government, trade between us and the United States is almost the same as with Finland. But the United States is bigger than Finland! This may mean that this issue is not that important to them. So make the most of the opportunity while the Americans are showing so little interest in the Russian market. Everything is fine in our relations with Finland in this respect. Q: You’ve visited Laos and Vietnam. What role does Asia play for Russia? Apart from problems, it may include many new customers, etc., and this is important for the economy …A: Of course. I believe that Asia now plays an important role for everyone, including Finland. That’s why I also attended the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) summit. On the one hand, Russia is a European country, and, on the other, an Asian country. We have always realized that our economic interests lie both in Europe and in Asia. And, of course, we consider it very important to develop Russia’s Far East and Eastern Siberia. These sparsely populated Asian territories are very rich, and we believe that they can be developed in cooperation with other countries. And, of course, we need to establish the right economic ties with them. That is why we maintain multi-faceted relations with all the Asian players, Asian countries, both big and small. I am talking about China and Vietnam, which I have just visited, and even Laos, which is in effect not a big country, but nonetheless a very colorful and interesting one, with whom we enjoy long-standing relations. There is of course also Japan and other countries with whom we maintain good-neighborly, normal relations. So we can say that the road to Asia is now open, and we are thinking of how to diversify a variety of trade flows. We are regularly reproached for delivering too much natural gas and oil to Europe, and that Europe is tired of this energy dependence on Russia. All right, we will go to Asia, which hasn’t tired of us yet, and we will deliver our products there. Asia is very appreciative of this. That’s why I’m alluding to the fact that it’s high time we stopped all the conflicts and arguments on this issue, and that the European Commission should do the same. Instead we must look to the future.Q:There is currently a lot of talk about exploiting the Arctic. Can you tell us whether you think there will be new opportunities, new prospects there for the Finns?A: Of course. We aren’t just neighbours, we are also Arctic countries, we work in this region, we live in this region, we know this region, so therefore we, both Russia and Finland, have a special responsibility for its future. We have always been talking about this, and I have talked about it with my partners. In exactly the same way that we have a special responsibility for the fate of the Baltic Sea, and we also constantly talk about this. And we hold summits, and attend summits, and we take decisions, sometimes difficult decisions, but important ones, so for us this is a fairly clear-cut matter. The development of the Arctic should be a matter for the Arctic countries, taking into account our responsibility towards future generations. Q:Are you going to talk about visas to Finland?A: What is there to talk about? They need to be abolished, not talked about. You all know this perfectly well. Incidentally we have never had any serious differences of opinion on this issue with the Government, the Finnish leadership, because you all understand the absurdity of the situation, since there is definitely no threat to Europe from Russia in this area. But unfortunately this issue has become politicised, a number of countries are using it for their own internal purposes. And there are countries which are simply scared of their internal problems. By that I don’t mean Finland of course. However, I am confident that sooner or later we will be there to witness the abolition of visas and we will be able to visit one another without needing any kind of visas or having any other restrictions imposed on us. In actual fact the opportunity is there, we have long been discussing the roadmap with the EU. Unfortunately there is little progress in this direction at present, even though we have signed agreements with a number of countries on easing visa restrictions and they are in force. On the whole, the ball is not in our court.Q:Is there time for a final question? A question about the health of the President.Here in Russia there are lots of rumours…A: I’m no doctor.Q:You know about this: are these just rumours or do you know of any health problems the President has?A: Listen, every person has the right to be concerned about his/her own health. I’ve said to you: I was asked, is it difficult being President or Prime Minister? And I replied: yes it’s a difficult job, which is why you have to get a lot of exercise and do sport. And President Putin is also the kind of person who wants to stay in shape, so he has to do a lot of physical exercise. This is what he does in fact. So he is alive and well, and thank God everything is fine with him. Q:So he has no serious injuries of any kind?A: Nothing serious. We all have our little aches and pains that we have to deal with. Q: Okay. Thank you very much! And welcome to Finland!A: Thank you.

On Saturday, Russia will host the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit for the first time, and that means for almost a week, Vladivostok will be the epicenter of business and politics among the 21 nations in the Pacific Rim. APEC is a platform for leaders to discuss the most pressing global and regional problems.Since APEC discussions are open in nature, it’s only appropriate that I reveal the priorities we are proposing to our partners as the summit draws near. While the leaders always want to give momentum to fresh ideas, decisions must be made on a consensus basis. Such an atmosphere of trust has become one of the hallmarks of the integration processes in the Asia-Pacific region and was key to past successes.APEC’s experience is a good example of how integration contributes to economic development, giving a positive signal to businesses. We suggest that the dialogue in Vladivostok focus on freeing up trade and investment flows to stimulate economic growth, taking into account new realities such as Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization.Membership in the WTO gives us the ability to participate more broadly in setting the global trade rules—an issue that has been a focus of attention for APEC in the past. I am confident that Russia’s fresh outlook on the objective difficulties and internal contradictions of the WTO will be useful. The very principle of free trade is undergoing a crisis. We regularly observe recurrences of protectionism and veiled trade wars instead of lifting barriers. In these circumstances, it is imperative that we develop common approaches to clearing the accumulated imbalances.We have made food security a particular priority for discussion at the summit, a proposal that the other participants supported. Instability in global food markets can lead to serious economic and social risks. We must jointly offer answers to this challenge.One development that gives Russia new room to expand dialogue with its Asian-Pacific region partners is the creation of a common market between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The Customs Union and Common Economic Space agreements, which already have been implemented, as well as the prospective Eurasian Economic Union are all designed to improve efficiency among its members, and also to play an active part in shaping the regional and international agenda. By building it in accordance with WTO principles, we have prepared the way for new partners to cooperate with Belarus and Kazakhstan on the same terms and conditions.The initiative could play a significant role in global development and become a bridge between the European Union and the Asian-Pacific region. Closer integration of economic models, regulation and technical standards among the EU, APEC and the Eurasian Economic Union would offer businesses the ability to operate seamlessly across a vast area.This idea will take time to come to fruition, but we and our partners can bring it closer by discussing a “transport profile” for such an integration project, aiming to build an efficient system for managing logistical risks and diversify trade routes. In this regard, Russia has much to offer. We are already building modern ports in the Russian Far East, modernizing the transportation and shipment infrastructure, and improving national customs and administrative procedures.According to assessments by experts of the APEC Business Advisory Council, the implementation of these projects will increase traffic flow between Europe and the Asian-Pacific region via Russia’s territory no less than fivefold by 2020. Such shipments are cost-competitive with the traditional routes through the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal, and offer advantages in terms of speed and safety.Today, the key challenge for Russia and all the APEC economies is supporting sustainable growth rates. The quality of growth matters, and that means putting emphasis on innovations and the development of human potential. I believe we must use all the advantages of partnership in these areas, remove barriers to the circulation of ideas, expertise and technologies, coordinate science policy, and jointly shape promising innovation markets.Special attention must certainly be given to education. Russia proposes organizing a network for university cooperation that would promote student and teacher exchanges and create environment for increased academic mobility. In our view, the time has already come to address the idea of forming a common educational space of the Asian-Pacific region.Russia has long been an intrinsic part of the Asian-Pacific region. We view this dynamic region as the most important factor for the successful future of the whole country, as well as development of Siberia and the Far East. We expect that the upcoming Vladivostok summit will once again demonstrate to the world that Russia is a nation of broad opportunities and ready to join forces with our neighbors to advance our common creative goals.

Speaking in London, host of the 2012 Games, Medvedev fielded a number of questions, including his impressions of the opening ceremony, the trials and tribulations of Pussy Riot, and his prospects for making another presidential bid.Q: What did you think of yesterday's Olympic opening?А: You know, actually, I liked it for several reasons. First, of course, it was a huge and expensive show. It was very, very well organized. Most importantly though, it was a British show. It was not Chinese, or American, or Russian. The atmosphere was genuinely British. I think the central theme (of course, apart from sports, Pierre de Coubertin’s ideas and various historical reminiscences) was British music. It was presented in all its glory. Considering that people all over the world, including Russia, love British music, I think it was a very good idea to use it as a common language, as a communication tool that a large number of people understand. I took a few pictures and posted them on Instagram. Most Russian people who watched the opening ceremony enjoyed it totally. They write in their comments basically the same things I’ve just said.Of course, as we watched the ceremony, we thought about the future. Our opening ceremony in 2014 will be different, of course. It will be a Winter Olympics, and I think it should not be as long, because this one was more than three hours long. But anyway, I think the specialists who will be staging our ceremony will analyze it and pick up some general principles.So to summarize, it was very interesting, and they had many good ideas. Rowan Atkinson’s appearance, for example, was really funny. I didn’t expect I would laugh at the opening ceremony. But he was really good and did a good job.And, of course, the key moment, that is, the lighting of the Olympic Flame, is always very important. Each time, it is a big secret, because the organizers want to surprise everybody. This time, too, it was impressive, as we saw the baton passed from the older generation to young athletes. And, of course, when they lit this great number of petals and the flame went up, this was also unique and really impressed me. And then, of course, there were outstanding athletes like Steve Redgrave. We know him because he was in Russia for our regatta, and I even unveiled a rowing club together with him. So it was very interesting and highly symbolic. My congratulations!Q: Will Sochi be learning some things from the London Games in terms of organization? Are you cooperating quite closely with London at this point?A: I think it is absolutely necessary. We are already cooperating, and part of the reason for coming here was to see some things and discuss some things with our colleagues. We have a large delegation here. Some of these people, of course, are here to help the athletes, but apart from that we have the top officials from the Russian Olympic Committee and the key members of the government responsible for the Sochi Games here as well. And they came here not only to promote our Games, but also to exchange ideas and develop cooperation with our partners. I think this is very, very helpful. But actually we have been doing this for quite a long time.Q: Mr. Medvedev, did you have a chance to talk to David Cameron? Have you had discussions about the state of Anglo-Russian relations? And how would you assess those relations at the moment?A: When you come to the opening ceremony, your purpose, of course, is not to have fully-fledged talks. But thanks to the schedule our British partners had kindly prepared, I had a chance to talk to about 20 presidents and prime ministers yesterday. The first person I talked to was David Cameron. Given the circumstances, we had a pretty extensive conversation at Buckingham Palace. I can tell you frankly that we discussed everything from British beef exports to Russia, to Syria, of course. We talked about all sorts of things. Of course, I wished David and all the British people good luck with the Games. I said I was certain the XXX Olympic Games would be remembered by all, even though it is not easy for the city and the country in general to organize such an event.Q: How would you characterize Anglo-Russian relations? They had a very difficult few years. You hosted Mr. Cameron as president. How would you say relations are now? Are there periods of tension that have remained?A: On the whole, I think our relations are not bad. We did have a period of tension, but this was not the first time in the history of our two countries that this had happened and each time our countries and their leaders were able to turn the page and look to the future, because time goes on and the state of our relations has a serious impact on global affairs. Historically, our countries have been partners. At some points, we were rivals, but then at other points, like at the time of war, we were partners. So short-term difficulties should not make us forget the main thing. We have no other option but to cooperate in all sorts of areas, including economic issues, because we are all concerned about the situation on the global financial markets and in the eurozone. It affects both Russia and the UK. Fortunately, neither Russia nor Britain is part of the eurozone. But we trade with those countries a lot, and Britain is an EU member. This alone is enough to keep us in contact all the time.As for other issues, there are always some international affairs on the agenda. We have consultations. I can say that it was quite easy for me to work with Mr. Cameron’s predecessor, Mr. Brown. We had a good working relationship, even though he often said, “We have differences on this subject.” This formula was used a lot, but still we had a good relationship. And now, I think both Vladimir Putin and myself have a good working relationship with David Cameron, and we can have a frank discussion on any subject.There are some difficulties, but we don’t need to emphasize them. Otherwise, we may end up in a deadlock. Actually, I think those difficulties are temporary and insignificant. So on the whole I would say everything’s fine.Q: You mentioned Syria. This is clearly one of the big international worries at the moment. Russia has had a number of initiatives in trying to solve the situation there. I think David Cameron has a very different point of view from your own point of view. But both sides agree that the Annan plan is perhaps the only political way forward. Do you think that plan still has a chance to succeed given the fact that things are moving so swiftly on the ground?A: I don’t want to be overly optimistic because the situation is very difficult and very complex. But I don’t think that the Annan plan is no longer relevant, and the reason is because it is a political, peaceful plan. In fact, it may seem that the positions of Russia and Britain, or Russia and the US, are vastly different, but actually they are not that different. We all agree that a full-scale civil war in Syria would be the worst-case scenario. And what we have today is, if you will, the premonition of civil war. A huge number of people have been killed. As usual, both sides are to blame, because they would not listen to each other and come to the negotiating table.I reminded David yesterday that I had told President Assad more than a year ago that he should act promptly and carry out reforms and, most importantly, build a relationship with the opposition, even though it may be difficult for him, even though he belongs to the Alawite minority, and most opposition activists belong to a different branch of Islam. Syria is a very complex state. It’s much more complex than Egypt or Libya because of all the communities living there: Sunnis, Shia, Alawites, Druze and Christians. They will either find a way to get along or civil war and killings will go on indefinitely. So both sides are to blame. They should come to the negotiating table and find a solution to this very difficult problem. I don’t know what the future political situation in Syria will be like, and I don’t know what role Mr. Assad will have in this future arrangement. It’s up to the Syrian people to decide.The difference between Russia and Britain on this issue is that we believe talks are the only way, and our partners want to take more drastic measures. But the question is – where is the line between resolutions and a military operation? We saw that with the resolution on Libya. It basically led to international intervention. This is a bad way. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron assured me this is not what they want. So I think the plan is not over, and we should cooperate and continue consultations.By the way, I discussed the subject yesterday with the Lebanese leader and the Turkish prime minister. So as you can see, the Syrian issue remains high on the agenda even at the Olympics. And since according to the constitution it is up to the president to shape foreign policy, I think Vladimir Putin will present Russia’s position on this issue.Q: You were president at the time of the Libyan intervention and the diplomatic proceedings that went before the Libyan intervention. Is that experience actually now influencing Russia’s position on Syria? Did you feel that you were somehow betrayed over the Libya scenario and that you don't want to see a similar situation in Syria?A: Of course, this is influencing our position. In fact, when the situation with Syria started, I said from the very beginning that we would adjust our approach because of what happened with Libya. When the resolution on Libya was adopted, we thought our countries would hold consultations and talks and at the same time we would send a serious signal to the Libyan leader. But unfortunately it ended up the way it did. They kept telling us there would be no military operation, no intervention, but eventually they started a full-blown war that claimed many lives. And most importantly, I think it is a bad way to determine a country’s future. We all share democratic values, but imposed democracy usually does not work. Democracy must grow from inside. Only then does it enjoy popular support. So, what happened with Libya has definitely affected my position and continues influencing Russia’s position on the Syrian conflict.I believe the past few years have been the most productive ones in Russia-US relations. And I am glad that during this period I had a chance to work with President Obama on resetting our relations. I think we have achieved a lot, even though we still have differences on a number of issues. This is how international politics works: each state is guided by its own national interests the way it understands them. The Americans understand them in their way, the British in theirs, and Russia understands its national interests in its way, too. As a whole though, those were very positive years.I don’t think that we’ve entered a new era or that Russia is now taking a harder line with regard to the US, as the media claim. I don’t think that our priorities have changed or that the reset is over, that it hasn’t produced any results. This is completely wrong. It has produced many useful results, like the New START treaty. We had no treaty in place but we have one now, and it will determine our interaction for the years to come, even though we have our differences on missile defense. We’ve managed to reset a number of useful mechanisms. We’ve had many consultations on international issues.This is the first US administration to help Russia join the WTO, and I will always be grateful to Barack Obama for being fair. I remember how one day we were in a car together, talking without interpreters, and he told me, “You know, I’ll help you join the WTO.” And he did. You don’t forget such things. This shows he’s a man of his word.It is not like something terrible, or extraordinary, is happening in our relations. When some people say our position has changed, they usually do so for ideological reasons. I hope President Putin also has a good working relationship with Barack Obama. In fact, this is already happening. They keep in contact and they write and call each other. This is perfectly normal. Of course, I will do my best to help develop this dialogue as much as I can within the constitution. So everything’s fine.Q: You mentioned missile defense as a sort of outstanding difficulty that remains between the two sides. Is there any sign that you will come to agreement on this? Or that the US is willing to accommodate your concerns?A: I think the problem is that no one understands entirely what missile defense actually stands for. What about you – do you have a profound understanding of what missile defense is? I’m sure not. Nor do the Americans, as in, American taxpayers. And as far as Europe is concerned, I’ve been told in private by some of the European leaders, “We don’t want that at all, but the Americans as our senior partners in NATO are insisting.” And that means a lot of money!But most importantly, there is a question that never seems to get a proper answer: who is the threat that the missile shield is intended to counter? If it’s meant to check nations that pursue unauthorized nuclear programs and design new missiles, then it’s something we can understand. But in that case you need to explain to us why this missile shield and its interceptor missiles can intercept targets coming from Russia – which means they affect our nuclear capability. Now, if the architecture is intended against us, you should go ahead and say so. But that would constitute a disruption of the nuclear parity that Russia has maintained with the United States to this day, and this parity has been a key factor in ensuring security since World War II.And this is a question we’ve had trouble getting an answer to. The US administration and some European partners keep telling us, “You don’t need to worry, you and we are certainly friends and we collaborate through the NATO-Russia Council, so everything will be alright.” But at the same time, US lawmakers on Capitol Hill are openly saying, “Of course it is against Russia, who else?” There are certainly different people in the Congress, and I prefer not to specify, but the trend itself is very telling.So I believe NATO should first make up its mind: what is it they really want from their Phased Adaptive Approach? That’s number one, and number two is, what is Russia’s intended role? Because they’ve already turned down the proposal I made at the Lisbon Summit, regarding a joint missile defense architecture that would involve Russia. This is truly regrettable, because that initiative would have enabled us to get past this debate and effectively secure ourselves against the nations that may pose a genuine threat to both Russia and NATO member states. So you’ve turned down that initiative, now why don’t you tell us what’s going to happen next?There is still time. I’ve mentioned it, and so has our incumbent president. But that time is naturally running out. And unless we manage to agree on something by 2018, a new arms race may become a possibility – which would be extremely bad for all of us, expensive and badly inefficient too.Q: Mr. Medvedev, I remember listening to you a year ago at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, where you gave a very impressive speech about the future of the economy in Russia and, in particular, the dangers for your economy and the dangers from corruption. And you said that one of the things you would do is to make sure that if an official was accused of corruption, he would be removed from his job while an investigation was going on, to make sure there was no possibility. Do you think enough officials have been removed from their jobs to make it clear that you have overcome this problem? Or is there still a lot to do?A: I still consider corruption a systemic threat to Russia, or any other country at that. But it is especially true of Russia, because we are a young democracy, and our economic institutions are still largely in the making. That is why I don’t see much progress on our part lately in combating corruption. Yet I have said publicly on many occasions that I’m very proud of having initiated a number of anti-corruption institutions that had simply been non-existent in Russia before. My years of serving as president and promoting the relevant initiatives have resulted in Russia developing anti-corruption laws. And that in itself is important, because it means we’ve acknowledged there’s a problem. Some five or seven years ago, it rarely even made it into public debate: well, yeah, we have corruption, but we’ve always had it. We had it in the Russian Empire, and we had it in the Soviet period. It’s still with us today, so just let it be – that was the sentiment.Today, we are aware that this is a real systemic issue. We have the necessary regulatory instruments to deal with it. Thousands of public servants have already faced criminal investigations on charges of corruption, and a fair share of those cases result in actual prison sentences. Is that enough? No, it isn’t. We need to work harder and get down to the root causes, we need to upgrade our institutions, and we need to bring perpetrators to justice. By the way, I presided over a session of the Open Government recently, and this is essentially an expert panel set up specifically for such purposes. And the experts have come up with a whole list of new ideas, which I will certainly share with my fellow Cabinet members, and some of those proposals may eventually be implemented by the government.But we need to keep on working. In principle, any society is confronted at some point or another by new forms of corruption, which government institutions and security agencies turn out to be unprepared for. I studied a review of the British press today, and I’ve noticed that corruption is a popular news topic in Britain, and corruption-related cases are given a lot of attention in London and in other places. This doesn’t mean corruption has gained in scale in the UK, but nevertheless, people are concerned. And that’s natural; people are also concerned about it in Russia. An absolute majority of Russians – no less than half, I’d imagine – regard corruption as a systemic risk for our society, and they believe the government should commit its efforts and its assets to combat this kind of crime. I am sure we’ll continue our work.Q: You mentioned that Russia is a young democracy, and in recent months we've seen a real flowering of civil society activities, many of which you have responded to and encouraged through changes in the law to make it easier for political parties to register, and other things like that. More recently there's been concern though about laws which appeared to be going in the other direction, registering NGOs as foreign agents for example, imposing tighter restrictions on demonstrations, and the most recent case involving the Pussy Riot girls who are accused of hooliganism. Do you feel that that this criticism is justified, that Russia is somehow becoming less free, or do people really not understand what's happening in Russia?A: You know, it seems to me that sometimes people just start believing in some phantoms and following some stereotypes. Personally, I don’t think anything special has been happening in Russian legislation in recent months. But if someone wants to prove that Russia has returned to totalitarianism and is rolling back civil rights, it will be very easy for them to find some proof because actually you can do that anywhere, in any country. For example, you mentioned the NGO bill. But the bulk of the bill the State Duma has adopted merely repeats what similar laws in a number of other countries, including the US, say. That’s my first point.Second, the term “foreign agent” in itself is not a charge. It just reflects the fact that this NGO receives funds from abroad. It is only natural for a state to be concerned by political activities financed from abroad. It is the same all over the world, including the UK and the US. So I think there is nothing wrong with introducing some regulations in this situation. In fact, this law has yet to be applied. I am absolutely convinced that it will have no significant effect on the activities of NGOs involved in politics, let alone those involved in economic and cultural issues. So, we have this bill, but it hasn’t been implemented and so I think there is nothing to argue about. And even if we run into some problems, our lawmakers will be able to adjust this law and this includes the majority party that actually passed this law.As to other high-profile issues, including the trial you’ve mentioned. Again, I think there is no reason to get excited. No sentence has yet been passed. The case is still under investigation. Indeed, there is a wide spectrum of opinions. In some countries such actions would have entailed far greater criminal liability. In fact, in some countries anyone who committed an act like this in a temple could have come to a rather sad end, no matter what religion the temple belongs to. But in any case, let's wait for the investigation to be completed and for the court to pass its verdict, and then we will be able to say whether there was a crime or not. It is easy to understand why this case has sparked so much controversy. It has to do with how we understand individual rights and freedoms. As I see it, there will always be differences on where to draw the line between ethics and law and how to define when an immoral act becomes a crime. And this is up to the court to decide. It is up to the court to rule whether there is a corpus delicti, in other words, elements of a crime. If there are none, this is a piece of real luck for the perpetrators: they hit the headlines and got away with what they did. But I do understand that for some of these girls being kept in prison is a real ordeal for them and their families.Q: I was going to ask – you clearly as president introduced quite a few reforms to encourage civil society. Do you feel that civil society is healthy in Russia or is there more that could be done to promote political diversity, political pluralism?A: On the whole, I think our civil society is getting more and more mature. When I ran for president in 2008, our civil society was less developed. Today our civil society is much more developed, diverse and active. This means our democracy is maturing and our civil society is growing.Our people were extremely active during the Duma and presidential elections. This shows that they care about their outcome. This doesn’t mean I agree with everything that was said during that period, or that all the accusations against the authorities were false. But in any case it is good that people are so active in expressing their position, provided of course that they don’t break the law. And the authorities should engage in a dialogue with people.By the way, all the changes to our political system that I presented in December are another result of the development of our civil society. So, I find it ridiculous when people talk about a “rollback” in Russia, or that Russia has abandoned democratic reforms, as we have actually solidified the foundation of our political system in recent years and even improved it.We have radically changed our regulations for political parties. There will be many political parties now and they will be free to do what they want – again, as long as it is legal. We have reinstated elections for governors. Has anybody cancelled that? No, on the contrary, we are getting ready for these elections, together with the leaders of other political parties. I’ve recently met with the leaders of a number of other parties besides United Russia – of which I am the leader – and they are all preparing for the elections. They all are considering their chances in different places and they are very hopeful. Don’t you agree that this means our political system has changed? Don’t you agree that civil society is developing? So, I think we are doing fine.Q: Just a final question – two final questions, one from me…A: Three final questions?Q: Thank you. You are famous for sending out tweets and directly responding to people who have called in to you. This is direct democracy in action. Do you have time to do that? Do you have time as prime minister now do you think to respond to all the young people who want to talk to you?A:  Absolutely. Right now, absolutely.Q: Do you think Russia has embraced the whole Internet revolution? Oh, goodness, here we are – broadcast live. Do you think that the older generation has fully understood the complete need for absolute transparency in this kind of direct response from senior officials?A: You know, this thing I’ve just shown you, and the new information environment in general, is the best safeguard against totalitarianism and a return to our sad past. No government in any country, even in some very complex areas like the Arab world, can ignore the omnipresent communications network that is emerging and developing whether the authorities like it or not.By the way, the reason the authorities don’t like it is simply because people use it to criticize the authorities, and nobody likes that. I remember what some said about Twitter when there were riots in London. But nobody can do anything about it. We just need to create a proper legal framework for social networks. But you can’t block them. This means that a modern and up-to-date leader can’t afford to ignore this new information environment. Every leader should keep track of what’s going on there.I think a successful politician must have direct contact with people. In the past, you had to physically go some place, step outside and meet people, and everybody, from emperors to prime ministers and presidents, did that. But this way you can only meet with people once or twice a month and you have a crowd of people standing around you, screaming something, and, of course, you can hear something but there are many things you can’t hear. As a result, all you can get is just bits and pieces. This is totally different.Every day, I read at least 50 messages left for me via Facebook, Twitter, other social networks or even my website. If it is something important, I issue direct instructions. Sometimes in the morning, before I go to work, I go online and see something very urgent, something truly important. And then I print it out and write my instructions right on this sheet of paper.In the past, it was unthinkable that the authorities could have this kind of direct interaction with people. I think this is very important. I repeat, if a politician can’t master these tools, he has no future.Q: That leads actually very nicely to my final question which is: clearly you had an opportunity for a second term as president instead of becoming prime minister. Do you have any regrets about not pursuing the second term and might there be a second term in your future?A: You’ve answered the question yourself. I am not that old. I am not going to resign from politics any time soon, and I have never said I will never run for president again – of course, as long as our people want me. If our people decide that they have had enough and they tell me good-bye, I’ll take up writing my memoirs.But I strongly believe that at present there’s no reason for me, or for the political force I represent, to quit politics. So, I don’t rule out anything. Even today, I am very actively involved in politics, I work a lot, and I expect to keep doing that.Thank you very much. I wish the people of Britain a wonderful Olympics I am sure people will remember it as another achievement in promoting the values of the Olympics, will remember its brilliant victories, the spectacular athletics events and British hospitality.

An unprecedented crisis hit the global economy four years ago, sending visible ripples around the entire world and affecting every country to some degree. To meet a challenge of this scale the world’s leading countries had to radically change their approach. For the first time in history, the leaders of the countries that account for almost 90 percent of global GDP showed genuine desire and ability to coordinate economic policy. Most importantly, they prevented the world from taking the dead-end road of trade wars and all-out protectionism, and began putting the international currency and financial system in order. Thus, the G20, which before 2008 existed only through the format of regular meetings of finance ministers, gained the status of a leading global forum for addressing economic and financial issues. It was thanks to the G20 that measures were taken at the height of the crisis to increase the capital of all of the multilateral development banks and bolster the IMF’s resource base, thus enabling these institutions to support the countries worst affected by the crisis. The G20 proposed a long-term agenda for reforming the financial regulation system and outlined principles for protecting the rights of consumers of financial services. The G20 leaders’ decision in 2009 to establish the Financial Stability Board as the coordinating body for drafting new rules of the game in the financial sector was without question a significant event. But the systemic problems are still far from all solved. The effects of the 2008 crisis are still visible today. The imbalances that have built up are evident in budget shortfalls, troubled banks, and a debt-to-GDP ratio in developed countries that has clearly gone beyond reasonable limits. Moreover, recent months have brought us negative trends on the markets and other worrying signals that now have the analysts making very pessimistic forecasts. These developments are unfolding against a backdrop of change throughout the entire global country. The experts predict that growth in developing markets will outstrip growth in the established developed countries more than 3.5-fold right up until 2017, and more than 2-fold over the 15 years to follow. Not only are the powerhouses of global growth shifting in location, but the geography of goods and financial flows is changing too.What position does Russia take in this situation? Over recent years, Russia, which is the world’s sixth-biggest economy in terms of purchasing parity power, has strengthened its financial and budget system. We have the third-biggest currency and gold reserves in the world. With a growth rate of 4.3 percent, Russia’s economy is one of the fastest growing big economies in Europe. Unlike in 2008, Russia’s banking system is now much better protected against fluctuations on the global financial market. Russia is not burdened by dangerously high debt levels. Household debt levels in Russia are considerably lower than that of other countries. Total household debt came to 10.6 percent of GDP as of April 1, 2012, compared to approximately 60 percent of GDP in Germany and France, 87 percent in Spain, and 92 percent in the USA. As for Russia’s public debt, at 9.2 percent of GDP as of May 1, 2012, it is minimal compared to the other countries in the G8, G20, and the BRICS Group. For comparison, public debt is 81 percent of GDP in Germany, 86 percent in France, and 104 percent in the USA. Last year we succeeded to get a deficit-free budget and to even make a small profit of 0.8 percent of GDP, we therefore earned more money than we spent. Russia’s trade surplus stood at $198 billion.At the same time however, if revenues received due to favourable oil and natural gas market situation are deducted, we will see high budget deficit figures. Such deficit resulting from oil and gas revenues deductions has grown over the years of the crisis to the maximum level which may be allowed.We are very much aware that we need to speed up the pace of change. We need to do this in order to guarantee sustainable development and reduce our dependence on raw material exports. We are therefore working on radically improving the investment climate, making Russia a globally competitive place to do business, reducing infrastructure bottlenecks, building up our human capital, and modernising the economy in general. At the same time, we are continuing to respect all of our social commitments. These reforms are all a crucial part of the agenda of the Russian authorities at all levels.This upcoming G20 summit takes place at a time of growing uncertainty. Aside from taking measures to correct the serious financial situation in individual European Union countries, most of the world’s countries also need to strike a reasonable balance between fiscal consolidation and strict budget discipline on the one hand, and job creation, economic growth, and tackling social problems, including maintaining pension system stability on the other hand.The problems that have emerged in the banking sector and the scale of speculation that has brought down markets show that the global financial architecture is still in need of reform and still contains many internal risks and contradictions. It has yet to gain a firm foundation and be tied to real assets and values. Indeed, recent trends on the financial markets show an ever-growing divergence with the fundamental indicators in the real sector of the economy. This only serves to further fuel the general lack of confidence and instability that, as we know, can easily lead to outbreaks of financial panic.The need for new steps is evident. Above all, we need to tighten regulation of derivatives trading. We need to ensure consistent implementation of the new Basel III financial regulation that reduces the risk of bubbles arising. I believe it is in our common interest to facilitate the emergence of new reserve currencies and expand their use in global trade and investment. Finally, the G20 must fulfill its commitment to reform the international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank, in particular by moving from talk of increasing the developing countries and ‘new’ economic powers’ role in these institutions’ management to actually taking practical steps in this direction and giving them a greater say in drafting and adopting the major basic decisions.In this context I want to stress one point in particular. We all know that financial instability inevitably leads to increased trade protectionism. In 2009, global trade fell by 12 percent, the biggest slide in the entire post-World War II period. This was largely because, despite the public statements to the contrary, some countries made extensive de-facto use of tough protectionist measures to protect their own markets. It is time to recognise that governments are on the one hand declaring protectionism unacceptable, but on the other hand are devising ever more sophisticated ways to protect their own economies, disguising protectionist measures as environmental or technical restrictions, for example. It is time to stop pretending and come to an honest agreement on the acceptable level of protectionist measures that governments can take to protect jobs in times of global crisis. This is particularly important for Russia as our country will join the WTO this year and we intend to take an active part in the discussions on the future rules for global trade. In particular, we will make every effort to break the deadlock in the Doha Round.All of these various issues will be on the agenda at the summit in Mexico. They will be among our priorities when Russia takes over the presidency in the G20 next year, as will global energy security issues. We realise how important it is to maintain confidence in the G20. Confidence in the organisation will be devalued if our joint decisions remain nothing but lofty declarations, suspended in mid-air, without real implementation and oversight.It is equally important to ensure that the G20 does not become just another elite club that selfishly looks after its members’ interests alone. The sense and purpose of our work together is to lay down fair rules for sustainable development throughout the entire global economy. This is the line that Russia will offer its partners at the upcoming summit in Los Cabos.

I am pleased to have this opportunity on the eve of my state visit to China and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit to address the millions of readers of one of the world’s most influential newspapers, Renmin Ribao. I value this chance to share my views on the future of our countries’ partnership and the role Russian-Chinese relations play in today’s world, which is in the midst of complex transformation, faces big global and regional security challenges, attempts to dilute the principles of international law, and economic and financial upheaval.  All of these issues are the subject of much discussion and attention at the big international forums and summits that take place, and I am confident that reason and collective approaches will prevail in tackling today’s problems. The main thing is that all clear-headed politicians and experts in economics and international relations realise that it is not possible to set the global agenda today behind Russia’s and China’s backs and without taking their interests into account. Such is the geopolitical reality of the twenty-first century.In this context, we are aware of our common responsibility for the Russian-Chinese partnership’s long-term development and the importance of our common efforts within the United Nations and other multilateral organisations and regional bodies.   We therefore have high hopes for the intensive programme of meetings we have planned with the Chinese leadership, and we also hope for fruitful work at the upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit that will conclude China’s successful presidency of this organisation.

‘Russian-Chinese relations free from prejudices and stereotypes’

Russian-Chinese relations have been deservedly called an example of the new type of relations between states. Our relations are free from prejudices and stereotypes and this makes them stable and not subject to short-term considerations, which is valuable indeed in today’s world, where stability and mutual trust are so clearly lacking.  The 2008-2009 global financial crisis showed us how important it is for us to understand and listen to each other and pursue common, consensus-based policies. Joint infrastructure and energy projects, big contracts and orders, and reciprocal investment are the resources that enabled our countries and our business communities to overcome the difficulties, create new jobs, and keep factories and businesses working.Russian-Chinese bilateral trade reached the record mark of $83.5 billion in 2011. We have now set the medium-term target of $100 billion by 2015, and will work towards reaching $200 billion by 2020. If we keep up today’s dynamic, we will be able to reach these targets even earlier.  What must we do to achieve these goals? Above all, we need to optimise our bilateral trade structure and improve its quality by increasing the share of high value-added goods. We have the objective conditions we need for this. Our national markets have big capacity and growing demand for modern goods and services. We have good fundamental positions in education, science and technology, and a wealth of experience in production cooperation. We will actively develop big joint projects in civilian aircraft manufacturing, space, and other high-tech sectors. We will also pursue projects in techno-parks, industrial clusters, and special economic zones in both countries. In my view, what we need here is a genuine technological alliance between our two countries, a genuine interweaving of our production and innovation chains so as to forge the links between our companies and our research, design, and engineering centres. We need to continue these efforts by working together in other countries’ markets too.We need to build a modern infrastructure for our financial and investment ties and our bilateral business relations. It is clear now that we must make quicker progress in moving over to using our national currencies to settle reciprocal trade, investment and other operations. This will also insure us against various currency risks and will strengthen the ruble and the yuan’s positions.The energy-sector dialogue between our two countries also has a strategic dimension. Our joint projects have a big impact in shaping the global energy market’s entire configuration. They offer China more reliable and diversified energy supplies for its domestic needs, and offer Russia the chance to open up new export routes to the fast-growing Asia-Pacific region.Among the results already attained, I note the launch of the Russian-Chinese oil pipeline that delivered 15 million tons of oil last year, and the conclusion of a long-term contract – 25 years – for electricity supplies to China. Russia also increased its coal exports to China to 10.5 million tons in 2011, and have plans for joint development of coal deposits. I hope that we will soon begin large-scale deliveries of Russian gas to China.Our cooperation in the nuclear energy sector also offers many opportunities. Russia took part in building the first section of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, which the stress tests results show to be the safest in China. Last year, our specialists helped to launch China’s first fast-neutron experimental reactor, thus making China the fourth country, after Russia, Japan and France, to possess this technology. Construction of the fourth section of a uranium enrichment plant was completed ahead of schedule. We hope to continue our cooperation on building the Tianwan power plant’s second and subsequent sections, and to take part in building other energy sector facilities in China.   The source and driving force of our relations is the friendship and mutual understanding between our peoples. We held very successful reciprocal national years and language years. Now we are holding the Year of Russian Tourism in China, and next year our attention will be on the Chinese Tourism Year in Russia.I think the time is ripe for us to draw up a long-term action plan for developing our bilateral cooperation in the humanitarian sphere.

‘Russian-Chinese partnership plays effective part in strengthening stability’

Naturally, current international affairs will be on the upcoming visit’s agenda. They include strategic stability, disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and countering the threats and challenges to sustainable development, and our peoples’ lives and wellbeing, including terrorism, separatism, organised crime, and illegal migration. Russia and China share very similar positions on all of these issues, positions based on the principles of responsibility, commitment to the basic values of international law, and unconditional mutual respect for each other’s interests. This makes it easy for us to find a common language, develop common tactics and strategies, and make a constructive contribution to international discussions on the most serious issues we face today, whether the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, the problems in Syria and Afghanistan, or the Korean Peninsula and Iranian nuclear programme issues.I stress that the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership plays an effective part in strengthening regional and global stability. This is our guiding logic in our efforts to develop cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which marked its tenth anniversary last year.  I was one of the people at the origins of this group. Time has shown that we made the right decision in transforming the Shanghai Five into a full-fledged cooperation organisation.The SCO today is a rapidly-developing multilateral organisation. We have yet to realise its full potential, but looking back at the road travelled so far, we can say for sure that the organisation has already earned itself an influential place and speaks with a confident voice on the international stage. The SCO has brought much that is new and useful to global politics. Above all, it offers a partnership model based on genuine equality between all participants, mutual trust, mutual respect for each people’s sovereign and independent choice, and for each country’s culture, values, traditions, and desire for common development. This philosophy best embodies what I consider to be the only viable principles for international relations in a multipolar world.The SCO and its members’ efforts and cooperation with a broad range of foreign partners have been highly instrumental in substantially reducing terrorist activity in the region. But the challenges we face today are becoming ever more diverse, complex, and change constantly. Those who spread the ideas of terrorism, separatism and extremism continue to perfect their subversive methods, recruit new fighters to their ranks, and expand their financing sources. To respond to these challenges we must continue to develop the SCO’s capacity to ensure security and make our cooperation mechanisms even more effective. This is why the upcoming summit will pay particular attention to approving the 2013-2015 SCO member states’ programme for cooperation in combating terrorism, separatism and extremism, and the new draft provisions on political and diplomatic measures and response mechanisms in situations that threaten peace, security and stability in the region.The links between terrorism, drugs production, and drugs trafficking are another serious challenge. We must work together in coordinated fashion to combat this. We must develop this cooperation most actively through the SCO’s anti-drugs strategy.  The situation in Afghanistan is one of our common concerns. The SCO is making a big contribution to helping the Afghan people in rebuilding their long-suffering country. The decision to grant Afghanistan observer status in the SCO will be another concrete step that we will take at the upcoming summit. We will discuss the prospects for joint work within the SCO with Afghanistan’s leader, Hamid Karzai.The SCO was established as an organisation tasked with ensuring stability and security across the vast Eurasian continent. We think that any attempts by other countries to pursue unilateral action in the SCO’s region of responsibility would be counterproductive.At the same time, the SCO is an open organisation that is ready to work together with all interested partners. This is stated in the SCO’s charter. India, Iran, Mongolia, and Pakistan are all involved in the SCO as observer countries. Belarus and Sri Lanka are SCO dialogue partners. Turkey will join us at this upcoming summit. Given the growing interest in the SCO’s activities, we are currently settling how to strengthen the legal basis for the organisation’s continued enlargement.The SCO’s experience offers interesting and very promising solutions for the entire international community in terms of developing policies from below through a consensus-based process. Policies take shape within the different regional organisations first of all, and then become part of the dialogue between us all. Out of these regional ‘building blocks’ we can put together a more stable and predictable environment for global politics and the global economy. We think that this kind of network diplomacy will become a vital part of international relations. The SCO member states saw this trend in the making and have acted on it by developing a network of partnerships between multilateral organisations throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Today, the SCO is working hard to develop cooperation with the UN, CIS, CSTO, EurAsEC, ASEAN, ESCAP, and other international bodies.  We see great potential in developing cooperation between the SCO and the Eurasian Economic Community, and in the future, with the Eurasian Economic Union. I am sure that these organisations can mutually enrich and effectively complement each other in their work.There is no doubt that we must strengthen political cooperation within the SCO and step up our economic cooperation. The organisation is up to the task of implementing even the biggest joint projects. It would be in our common interests to make use of the obvious advantages offered by China’s fast-growing economy, the technological potential that Russia is developing as it modernises, and the Central Asian countries’ rich natural resources. I think we should concentrate particularly on cooperation in the energy, transport, infrastructure, and agriculture sectors, and in the high-tech fields, especially in information and telecommunications technology. But this requires us to put in place genuinely effective financial support and project management mechanisms within the SCO. We need platforms for developing joint plans, places for assembling multilateral programmes. The SCO energy club, which we have almost finished establishing now, could serve as a good example in this respect.Much of the SCO’s future development potential lies in developing direct ties between our countries’ business communities and companies. I am sure that the business forum in Beijing during the summit will demonstrate the broad range of opportunities for public-private partnerships in expanding our economic cooperation. It is important to actively involve our countries’ industrial and banking sectors in carrying out the plans we set. All of this requires more effective and intensive work from the SCO Business Council and Interbank Group. They already have quite a solid package of proposals.It is also in our common interests to develop cooperation in healthcare, culture, sports, education, and science. The opportunities in these fields are most convincingly embodied in the Network University, one of the SCO’s most striking initiatives, which now brings together 65 different universities in the SCO member countries. The university will have its rector’s offices in Moscow. We are ready to do all we can to help develop this very promising and much-needed project.  As it enters its second decade, the SCO continues to grow and develop. It will hold firm in its work to its guiding principles and basic goals, and at the same time will continue to take account of the changing international situation. This is the approach that will be reflected in the basic agreement we are set to discuss and adopt at the summit – the Basic Guidelines for the SCO Medium-Term Development Strategy.  

‘Russia needs prosperous China; China needs successful Russia’

We have high hopes for the Russian-Chinese talks and the SCO summit in Beijing. Russia needs a prosperous China, and I am sure that China needs a successful Russia. Our partnership is not directed against anyone, but is about construction and strengthening justice and the democratic foundations in international life. This partnership is thus something needed in today’s world.An old Chinese saying states that common hopes require common efforts. We are ready for these common efforts in the interests of our countries and peoples. This work will certainly produce worthy results.

Igor Shuvalov

According to media reports, Shuvalov will oversee the whole financial sector, privatization operations and housing construction – the branches of economy that the Russian leadership considers most important.

Shuvalov has worked as first deputy PM since May 2008. He also worked as board chairman of Sovkomflot – Russia’s major shipping company until 2010, when it was prohibited for state officials to occupy executive positions in commercial companies. Shuvalov has a degree in law with a thesis on government’s role in lawmaking.

Vladislav Surkov

Vladislav Surkov remains deputy prime minister and gets the post of the head of the government’s staff.

Surkov worked in the presidential administration from 1999 and was deputy head of this body from 2004. He was responsible for relations with political parties and public organizations and was relieved from this post in late December 2011, after the parliamentary elections and mass protests against the allegedly-rigged vote and many observers suggested that Surkov’s dismissal was the authorities’ sign to the opposition that they were ready for talks and cooperation.

Surkov is considered the author of the “Sovereign Democracy” concept – the strategy of Russia’s development in accordance with major democratic principles, but with minimum foreign influence at its political structures.

Dmitry Kozak

Aleksander Khloponin

Khloponin started his career in business and in mid-90s, becoming chairman of the Russian metals giant Norilsk Nickel. In 2001 he was elected governor of the Taimyr Autonomous Region and in 2002 – the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory (the place where most of Norilsk Nickel’s assets and enterprises are located).

He remained in this position till 2010 when he was appointed deputy prime minister and presidential plenipotentiary to the freshly-formed North Caucasus Federal District. Khloponin is an active member of the United Russia party and the Terek Cossack Troops.

Dmitry Rogozin

Rogozin retained the post of deputy prime minister in charge of the defense sector which is not strange as he has just received this position and only just begun to establish the control over the sphere. Before that Rogozin worked for a long time as Russia’s envoy to NATO and became well-known for his flamboyant and provocative statements made mostly on the Twitter microblog.

Rogozin is also a seasoned politician, with such projects as the moderate nationalist party Rodina and the public organization Congress of Russian Communities, which defends the interests of ethnic Russians abroad.

Arkady Dvorkovich

Arkady Dvorkovich worked as an aide to the president before his appointment to the government, advising mostly on economic issues. Dvorkovich is a trained economist who worked in think tanks and, from 2000, in power structures – first as an aide to the economy minister and then to the president.

Since 2008 he also worked as presidential representative for ties with the leading industrial nations and the Russian Sherpa to the G8. Dvorkovich was one of people behind the idea of the national modernization center in Skolkovo (and he sits in the Skolkovo workgroup and sponsor committee) and the secretary of the Russian Commission for Technological modernization and development.

Olga Golodets

Golodets is also a professional economist who started her career at Norilsk Nickel. She worked there from 1999 till 2008 managing human relations and social policies and leaving the company in the position of deputy general director. In December 2010, Golodets became deputy Moscow Mayor for healthcare and education.

Read the full transcript of Dmitry Medvedev’s interview as translated by kremlin.ruMARIANNA MAKSIMOVSKAYA (REN-TV): Good afternoon,Mr President, thank you for the opportunity to conduct this live interview, which will be the last one of your presidential term. We hope everyone will find it interesting.DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Good afternoon, and thank you. I would like to welcome all of you and all our viewers.Let's get started.REN-TV: Mr President, you have been using absolutely liberal vocabulary during your entire term as president. You said that ‘freedom is better than no freedom’ and your Go Russia! article amounted to a liberal manifesto.I want to ask you about your work. Have you accomplished what you wanted? Do you think Russia has become a more liberal country during your presidency?DM: Freedom is such a unique feeling that each person understands it in his own way. Of course, freedom also has some objective aspects but generally speaking it is based on our feelings. I have once said in a speech that we are only free if we can say about ourselves: I am free.Let's look at what has happened in the past few years. I think we have made real progress in expanding civil liberties. Yes, someone may believe this movement is too timid, while others believe it has become inordinate, they say ‘we shouldn’t go so far, everything was all right before’. But, in my opinion, we have made substantial progress. I will not make comparisons to the early years [of modern Russian history], but will just refer to some events of the past few months.Let’s ask the people who participated in the recent political rallies if they are free of not. No matter who they support, the right, the left or the centre, I am absolutely confident that the vast majority of them will say, ‘Yes, I am free because I am here, I have my views, I do not like many things, or, maybe the other way around, I like almost everything, and you can’t take that away from me. But I am free’. Freedom is the way people perceive themselves, and in this sense, we have accomplished a great deal.ALEXEY PIVOVAROV (NTV): If I may, Mr President, I would like to steer this philosophical question towards the economy. The economic slogan of your presidency has been Modernisation and Competitiveness, as we all remember. Are you happy with the way these slogans have materialised? I can even narrow down the issue: during your presidency has Russia become more or less dependent on hydrocarbons?"We have made real progress in expanding civil liberties. Someone may believe this movement is too timid, while others believe it has become inordinate. In my opinion, we have made substantial progress."DM: Yes, this is a very important issue for us because one of the major risks usually mentioned in connection with Russia is our dependence on hydrocarbons. If we look at different assessments, two major risks are usually identified: demography and an excessive dependence on the export of raw materials.To be honest, I am not entirely satisfied with what we have achieved over the years. I did not have any illusions that within four years we would give up the export of oil and gas, and it would not have been a good thing. Just because we are a country with the biggest reserves of raw materials and we supply a huge number of countries with hydrocarbons. However, we needed to diversify our economy. On the whole, we have been making progress at a reasonable rate.I can tell you that over the past four years, the production of industrial and capital goods, and production in the main industries have grown by about 50%. The production of radio-electronics has grown by 30%. That’s a good result. However, if we talk about our export balance, hydrocarbons still make up 70% of our exports and only 5% is the sales of equipment. Therefore, the diversification efforts should continue. In fact, that is the focus of our economic modernisation programme.Let me remind you that the programme contains five elements: the space, IT, the nuclear industry, and many other very important areas, including the production of pharmaceuticals. If we can move forward in modernising these five key sectors and a few others, we will be able to achieve economic diversification.If we talk about macroeconomics, we can see that the current situation contributes to it because we have the smallest inflation in the entire 20-year history of our country. Last year it was 6%, and over the past 12 months it was 4%. We have a very good correlation between debt and gross domestic product, almost the lowest among all developed countries: about 10%.Under such macroeconomic conditions, we can diversify our economy. I have absolutely no doubt about it. This is a challenge for the coming years, and a task for the new Government.ANTON VERNITSKY (CHANNEL ONE): I would like to ask about the reforms.DM: Go ahead."If we talk about our export balance, hydrocarbons still make up 70% of our exports and only 5% is the sales of equipment. Therefore, the diversification efforts should continue. In fact, that is the focus of our economic modernisation programme."CHANNEL ONE: The former militia became the police during your presidency. The form is new but the content has remained the same, even though the personnel has undergone unscheduled attestations. The whole country has heard of the sadists from the Dalny police station. Similar reports about the beating of detainees are made almost every day. Yesterday a similar report came from Volgograd. Perhaps the time has come to reform the police as well?DM: You know, I think no one should expect that we will have a brand new police force or a new Interior Ministry agency six months after administrative changes are introduced because the police has a new name but the people working there are still the same.Yes, some police officers – a considerable part, in fact – did not pass the attestation. 200,000 people were dismissed from the Interior Ministry agencies. However, that does not mean that everyone else instantly became different. This is the first point.Second, we must not judge the overall level of the legal system, of law and order by the actions of individual scoundrels. Their actions have been given a principled assessment. In all such cases, criminal cases are opened and the law enforcement officers are taken into custody. This is the way it also happens in other countries.We are currently at the very outset of the process. It’s not an easy task. We’re not a tiny country, like the one people sometimes hold up as a model and say: “Let’s just get rid of everyone and hire new police officers.” Would you join the police force?ANNA SCHNEIDER (ROSSIYA): Do you mean Georgia?DM: I don’t mean anything. That’s what you said.I’m saying that we’re not a small country where you could do something like that. We’re a big country. We have nearly two million police officers, together with the civilian staff. That is a huge army. It takes a large number of people working for a single federal agency to ensure law and order across the entire territory of the federal state. These people cannot be changed by issuing orders. They need to be educated. And I think it is a very positive trend that all such cases are becoming public and transparent.After all, let’s be honest, such problems have existed before but nobody knew about them. Why not? First, society had a more detached attitude to them, and second, the communication means we have today did not exist. Now, everybody knows about every case of misconduct, not to mention a crime. That’s good. Potential offenders will be afraid, and those who have committed offences will go to prison.ROSSIYA: Could we continue with the theme of going to prison? I would like to ask about the personal liability of officials. Take Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliev. What is his personal responsibility for the Interior Ministry reform and the incidents at specific police stations? What is your response to the demands to dismiss Minister Nurgaliev?Rashid Nurgaliev is just as an example because there is a feeling that when we have a major emergency, a terrorist attack or an industrial accident, it is always the low- to medium- ranking officials who get the blame but never the top officials.DM: I cannot completely agree with this because in many cases when crimes were committed the people who bore the responsibility were at the level of Deputy Minister, and in some cases even higher.As for the Interior Minister, he takes full responsibility for the situation within the Ministry, and he understands this. He is also responsible for the implementation of the reform, just as I am responsible as the President and Commander-in-Chief.Furthermore, the ministers’ fate is clear: on May 7, all the ministers will submit their resignations. That’s all there is to it."Corruption must be fought on a mental level. Committing a corruption offence should not only be terrible but it should evoke other emotions as well: it must be seen as improper. Only in this case will we rout corruption."ROSSIYA: But a resignation is not the same as a criminal investigation. Is resignation the most severe punishment possible?NTV: And don’t forget this is a planned resignation.ROSSIYA: Yes, especially a planned resignation.DM: True, it is a planned event. Let me tell you this. If we dismiss a minister for every single incident, we will never be able to put together a strong team because we all understand the conditions in the country, the problems of our political system, the economic situation. Therefore, if we dismiss a minister for every case of misconduct, the system will collapse. I’d like to finish this point: yes, it is a planned event. But if you ask me whether a resignation is the worst punishment possible, I can tell you this: for many officials resignation is much worse than liability. So I think that dismissing an official should always remain an instrument of the state's response to certain issues.Let me remind you that during my term in office 50% of the regional governors were replaced. Try to think of some other period in our history when the rotation of officials was so quick. Some left because their term in office expired, others left on their own free will because they saw that things were not working out for them. In some cases, even when people submitted their resignations they did not do it voluntarily but because I told them: ‘Sorry, guys, things aren’t working out, so see you’. I’m not even talking about certain cases when investigations were launched against the heads of regions. Let’s not forget about that.MIKHAIL ZYGAR (DOZHD): Mr President, to continue with what you said about the resignation being the most terrible punishment for some officials, there is a feeling that the fight against corruption is mostly just talk.We have heard a lot of allegations and sometimes even accusations against high-ranking state officials. Your former Chief of Staff Sergei Naryshkin said that corruption in Moscow under Yuri Luzhkov was outrageous. And so what? There have been no consequences for Mr Luzhkov. This is not the only case but again, Luzhkov is a vivid example. We all know many examples of governors and other senior state officials against whom there is a strong prejudice and mistrust in society. However, there has been absolutely no response from the authorities.This isn’t only true of corruption offences but also concerns cases of unethical behaviour. But a person’s reputation has no affect on his political future. Volgograd Governor Sergei Bozhenov became famous throughout the whole country with his trip to Italy, yet we have no doubt that his reputation will not affect his brilliant political career in the future.Why is there no response to society’s demands? Why has the fight against corruption had no real results?DM: Mikhail, I realise that it is the media’s duty to state one’s position categorically, and that is absolutely right. But your statement was not completely accurate.I have just told you that I dismissed 50% of governors. Some of them left precisely because, for example, there was not enough evidence that they had committed a crime. The presumption of innocence has not been abolished; it is still in force. On the other hand, in some cases, I have had to make this decision for a variety of reasons (when I had reports from the Investigative Committee, and there were other materials too): to summon the colleague in question and say, ‘Look, you should resign or it will be worse’. This is the first point.Second. Criminal cases have been opened against a number of former governors. It is a mistake to believe that there are no criminal cases. This is not true – cases have been opened. I will not interfere with the prerogatives of the investigating authorities. If you want, look up the facts, they are all there, in the press.Third. If we talk about the number of corruption-related offences, their number, both registered and those being investigated, has been increasing every year. Currently the Investigative Committee has 17,000 corruption cases involving state officials. That does not mean that there should be free online access to all this information. Although I did receive such a proposal at an Open Government meeting. They said, Let’s do it like this: as soon as a criminal case is opened, information on the official involved should be posted online. But this is a controversial issue.CHANNEL ONE: It makes some sense."Judicial reform doesn’t mean the dismissal of all judges. It means creating conditions in which the conduct of judges is determined only by the letter and spirit of the law – and nothing else."DM: It makes sense that people should have the information but once again: there is such a thing as the presumption of innocence. If the case is dismissed in the end, this will cause problems.The Investigative Committee has established the existence of 53 organised crime groups that committed corruption offences. So it would be a massive exaggeration to think that nothing is being done.But if we look at the results, I will agree with you there: the results are still modest. Why is that? Frankly, because officials are a corporation, they don’t want others to interfere in their business. This does not mean that they are criminals. On the contrary, officials are citizens just like us. But we must create such conditions for the state apparatus that it will not be able to turn right or left, and its behaviour will be regulated by relevant rules: the law on state service and regulations for officials. In addition, they must learn a particular culture. After all, when we talk about corruption, note that the level of corruption is very different in the so-called advanced economies – I say so-called because Russia is also a developed economy, although we have more problems. Compare the level of corruption, for example, in Scandinavia and southern Europe. Why is it so different even though the standard of living is fairly close? Because they have different habits, different history and a different mentality.Therefore, corruption is also a set of stereotypes, and corruption must be fought on a mental level. Committing a corruption offence should not only be terrible but it should evoke other emotions as well: it must be seen as improper. Only in this case will we rout corruption.DOZHD: I think it would be logical if the people to tackle corruption at a mental level were not ordinary members of the public but, perhaps, the top state officials. You say that the fight against corruption has yielded results but they are just not very noticeable, and you even explain that this is because officials are a corporation. In other words, they do not hand over their own; instead, even if they don’t sabotage anti-corruption measures, they certainly obstruct them.DM: I’m sorry, Mikhail, but this is not limited to state officials. That is why we have divided corruption cases into two groups: major corruption offences, which involve high-ranking officials and which irritate the people the most…DOZHD: It’s on a massive scale.DM: It is on a large scale. But everyday corruption is on an even larger scale. Let’s not forget about it. When it comes to corruption offenses committed by teachers, when it comes to corruption in the medical environment, that poses an equal danger to society. But we are used to it and people don't feel remorse about giving money to teachers and doctors when that money is extorted. At the same time, corruption among officials bothers everyone. I’m just saying that the corporation doesn’t just protect officials; the corporate environment exists in other places too.DOZHD: It’s just that we all know about everyday corruption.DM: But we don’t fight it.DOZHD: You know, everyone does it in their own way. Some people fight and start by changing themselves. It would be good if everyone started with themselves.DM: Mikhail, do you bribe traffic policemen?DOZHD: No, I have never done it in my life.DM: So you’re fighting. That’s what everybody should do.DOZHD: On the subject of fighting: there are people, and we all know them, who are more interested in the fight against corruption than state officials, because it is difficult to fight oneself. Perhaps you should have from the start backed the people who publish incriminating materials online (we all know their names)? Perhaps you should have appointed Alexei Navalny, for example, the head of some anti-corruption committee, and maybe then the fight against corruption, not from within but on the outside, would have been more successful."We must increase the share of new modern military equipment to 50-70 per cent by 2020, to acquire new missiles, new armoured vehicles, new communications and everything that is necessary for ensuring defence and security."NTV: Or, for example, you could have launched investigations on the basis of his publications, since his name is widely known.DOZHD: Yes, at least you could have responded somehow to the materials that are published.DM: I just want to ask for one thing: let’s all agree that no one has a patent for the fight against corruption. We are all interested in it and we are all civil society activists in this sense, at least those of us sitting around this table. Most of you probably have a page on the social networking sites, or at least you follow someone, which is basically a positive thing.We talked about the situation at the Interior Ministry and said that a huge number of cases are now becoming public knowledge. Why is this? One of the reasons is the new information space.The same goes for corruption. It has become much easier to talk about it because it has become easy to find information on any such case. This does not mean, however, that everything written in the social networks is the truth, because you know how easy it is for feelings to escalate. It is a separate technology and, incidentally, it is quite manageable. But it is possible and necessary to rely on civil society activists.Only I would not recommend that anyone is made into an icon, because some of these activists are real fighters against corruption, driven by entirely altruistic motives, but others have a political agenda, sometimes it is even a political gamble for them, when the anti-corruption rhetoric simply conceals a desire to boost one’s political weight. Incidentally, I do not condemn it because that’s what political competition is all about. But this is not philanthropy. This is political competition and should be treated as such.My general attitude is simple: the more corruption offenses are revealed online, the better it is for the cause of fighting corruption, because whatever you say, the authorities at different levels should respond to it even if they don’t like it, including facts about procurement and facts about corrupt behaviour. Therefore, on the whole, it is a good thing.But the state must lead in the fight against corruption, which is the way it is all over the world. And we, as citizens, must help the state in its efforts.REN-TV: Mr President, may I narrow the broad topic of corruption to a specific area, because it is true that it is a fact of life for the whole country, and we all know it.DM: Marianna, is it a fact of life for you?REN-TV: It is true for the whole country, and I am a citizen of this country, so how else could it be?NTV: Only Mikhail does not give bribes.DM: Yes, he is a saint.REN-TV: Probably.DOZHD: Not at all.REN-TV: He’s not a saint.You have repeatedly criticised the judicial system and have even voiced some criticism about the Khodorkovsky case, although that didn’t lead to any changes. Mikhail Khodorkovsky has not been pardoned, his case has not been reviewed and he has not been released.You have raised judges’ salaries, you have introduced more lenient punishment for economic crimes, but I am sure that no one will say that our judicial system is independent. A wide variety of agencies use judges to address their own various issues. Ordinary people do not believe that they can find justice in court. Such a judicial system slows everything down: the economy and politics. Why did you not launch a radical reform of the judicial system? Is four years too short a term or were there some other circumstances that made it impossible to undertake such a radical reform of the judiciary and to make our courts independent?DM: I will try to answer your question. Four years is certainly not a very long time. Indeed, there is only so much you can accomplish in four years, but changes have been made in the judicial system, and they will continue in the future. In my view, we have improved the overall discipline in the judicial system, we have created the so-called disciplinary court tribunal, and currently disciplinary boards are being established to monitor judges’ behaviour.But, friends and colleagues, you should realise that when people talk about judicial reform, this cannot be understood too literally. What does it mean to reform the courts? Does it mean kicking out all the judges? But courts have a continuous flow of cases and justice must be served every day. You cannot get rid of the judges, especially since many of them have impeccable work records. And where do you want recruit new judges?Therefore, judicial reform doesn’t mean the dismissal of all judges. It means creating conditions in which the conduct of judges is determined only by the letter and spirit of the law – and nothing else. So that if a judge gets a phone call, he doesn’t say ‘Yes, all right, we’ll take care of it’. Instead he reports it to his superiors that such and such an official telephoned and asked for a certain decision on a particular case. That is how it is done all over the world. If someone approaches a judge, the judge immediately reports that he has received a request from a state official (which is almost impossible there) or one of the lawyers on the case (such attempts are sometimes made). After that the lawyer is disbarred and I don’t need to tell you what happens to the official. This must become the judges’ responsibility, but it should be done in such a way that judges can follow these rules without being afraid to report that they had received a phone call from the regional or federal authorities, or from somewhere else, or that businesspeople have approached him and offered money – that happens as well. Therefore, there must be the right conditions.As for the future of the judicial reform, I am absolutely sure that it will move forward. It is not enough to have the right legislation to create a modern court system. We have made significant changes in recent years. Our courts have reached a world level now, if you will. We must create a model of behaviour, and we must make sure that all judges follow it.REN-TV: But for now, it’s likethe famous quotation (as with the police, incidentally), “I don’t have any other writers.”"We are in the process of changing the way our armed forces recruit servicemen. Our objective is to recruit 85% of servicemen by contract, and conscript soldiers will account for 15 percent."DM: Yes, it’s true. “I don’t have any other writers,” it is true for all of us. Because to prepare a qualified judge, five years of university education is not enough – you also need five to seven years of practice. Do you understand what a judge is? A judge is not even a lawyer or a prosecutor; he’s the person who decides the fate of another person: he’s the one who makes the final decision. So his training, his qualification is extremely important.Now with regard to how people perceive the judicial system. I do not think that if we went to another nation and ask people whether trust their judicial system, everyone would say, “We trust it one hundred per cent.” There would be different opinions as well. But here isan interesting fact. Our population, our people, do not like to go to court. Only 5% of decisions in civil matters and 15% of sentences in criminal matters are appealed. Perhaps some people do not appeal because they do not believe in the judicial perspective, but the truth is, it’s not all that complicated. It means that a significant proportion of people receiving thoserulings feel they are either just or, at the very least, acceptable.REPLY: Or they understand that they cannot do anything more, and do not believe in the system.DM: As I said, some of them do not believe in the justice of this system.DOZHD: After all, we have statistics: the acquittal rate in Russian courts is lower than one per cent.ROSSIYA: A minimal percentage; there is a strong accusatory bias.DM: I think here I will wholly agree with you on the following: you see, it is also a reflection of a mind-set. Over the course of decades (I simply know this as a law school graduate, a law school faculty member, and a practicing lawyer), judges had just one patternin mind: any acquittal was seen as a sign of low-qualitywork.NTV: But he will be responsible, the judge.DM: Not the judge – the investigators are now the ones responsible. The judge is above it all.Nevertheless, the judge must still separate his or her own perceptions from those of the investigation and the defence. The judge should be above the process.I can tell you this bit of professional but interesting information. When I was still a student, there was a theory that we should not have adversary proceedings – as they do everywhere in the world – where the prosecutor competes with the lawyer, when the defence counsel competes with the prosecuting counsel. Why? Because they all personify socialist justice.You see, this is something that really sits very deeply. I hope that with every year, we will have more and more acquittals, because that is absolutely correct. We should not shy away from them. They are not a sign of bad work by investigators; they are a sign of something else: that the judge was not shy to end things and state that there was not enough proof to declare the defendant guilty. Either the judge or the jury. We have that problem.NTV: I would like to continue. Marianna mentioned Khodorkovsky’s name. Just recently, the Presidential Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights concluded that submitting an appeal for pardon is not mandatory to be pardoned. This week, you pardoned Sergei Mokhnatkin; he left prison yesterday. He sent you a request for pardon, although he did not admit his guilt, and we know he stated that he would fight to reverse his sentence.Mikhail Khodorkovsky has said many times that he will not make a request for pardon. It is clear that there probably cannot be a pardon without a request. But I want to anglethis question slightly differently. Don’t you feel that Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s lengthy prison sentences represent a kind of problem for our nation – perhaps they really could be pardoned even without a request?DM: Alexei, you yourself began by saying that it cannot be done, and are now asking if, maybe, it can?DOZHD: The Council for [Civil Society and] Human Rights said it is possible.NTV: As President, could you…REN-TV: The Constitution…DM: That’s right, Marianna.REN-TV: The Constitution is more important here.DM: Yes. We have article 50 of the Constitution, which states that each sentenced prisoner has the right to request a pardon. That is in the Constitution. In other words, it is mandatory to send a request. Moreover, that same article states that the sentenced prisoner has the right to seek a review of his sentence, but that does not mean that the court itself should initiate the process without a corresponding request from the prisoner. It should always be initiated by the prisoner, anywhere in the world. And with all my respect for certain colleagues who signed the corresponding papers, these papers are not based on either the Constitution or the spirit of the law. We can talk about pardon, but it should be connected to the will of the individual in question, the sentenced prisoner."The minority voice deserves our full attention but let us not forget about the construction supported by the majority. Democracy all around the world is about the majority’s decision, which becomes the general and binding decision for the entire country."I’m going into to wilds of jurisprudence now, because I find it interesting. Let’s just imagine: the President pardons someone who did not request a pardon, while at the same time the sentenced prisoner is seeking full rehabilitation, i.e., recognition that he or she is not guilty, then what happens? The President has granted a pardon, but the blemishessentially remains on that person’s record. And in this case, it turns out that in doing so, the President has infringed upon the desire of that individual for a blanket pardon – unless, of course, he or she was the one who requested it. In other words, the President wedged himself into the process of a person trying to prove his or her complete innocence. So in my view, this position is legally and factually groundless.But returning to Khodorkovsky and certain other people who are incarcerated, I can say one thing. You see, we should generally ask ourselves why we have so many people in jail. Do we really need – under current conditions, in the 21st century, – that many people convicted and put behind bars? When I was beginning my work as President, we had about one million people in prisons – one million people. In the time that I have been working, this number has decreased by 20 per cent, and today, we have about 800 thousand.You know, when I receive documents requesting a pardon (incidentally, I pardoned not just one person you mentioned, there were more people pardoned), I am sometimes simply surprised: a person steals a mobile phone and gets a two-year prison sentence, or fishes seven carps out of a pond – a real case, by the way – and is sentenced to eighteen months. What is the point? An individual who essentially committed something between an administrative offence and a crime is imprisoned for one or two years, and comes out a hardened offender with a criminal jargon and a criminal mind.NTV: Who certainly does not believe in the justice system.DM: Yes, this is a problem in the justice system. And then, we spend more money on these individuals’ social rehabilitation: we find them jobs and tell them that they can try to lead a different life. So this is truly a national problem and concerns not only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev or other specific individuals; it affects an enormous number of people who serve out prison sentences.But in this specific case, to make sure I don’t fail to answer your actual question… The answer to the question about Khodorkovsky and others is in the answer to the previous question: the case cannot be reviewed without a request. That is my firm position.REN-TV: Mr President, here is a very important legal issue. In current practice, the President pardons only those who admit their guilt (and incidentally, this is true for early release on parole as well).Just now, you yourself set a precedent with Sergei Mokhnatkin: he did not acknowledge his guilt, just as Mikhail Khodorkovsky does not acknowledge his. So according to existing practice, it looks like Khodorkovsky cannot be pardoned, because he doesn’t recognise his guilt. But now, you have pardoned Mokhnatkin, so the precedent has been set.DM: I will explain this position in greater detail, since everyone is so interested in it. I hope it is also of interest to today’s audience.The issue of requesting pardon is based on article 50 of the Constitution, and the President cannot work outside the Constitution. I think this is clear to absolutely everyone.If we are to discuss the admission or non-admission of guilt, then this is based on a Presidential Executive Order. And in this sense, I have always said that the President has the right to deviate from his own Executive Order when he feels it is right to do so. In this particular case, there were rather serious arguments that could be treated as an indirect admission of guilt, but that is not the point.This lies in the hands of the President. The question of admitting or not admitting the guilt falls under the President’s authority and has to do with the Executive Order currently in force. That’s my answer.CHANNEL ONE: In that case, I have a question on another topic: the military reform.DM: Go ahead.CHANNEL ONE: I recently saw the Ministry of Defence’s latest reports, which were that thick. They say that military hazing has changed radically and is declining. We know that service members’ compensation is growing. We do segments on the Vremya programme about how the issue of housing for service members is being resolved.As President, you have always championed high military expenditures (including in your speech two days ago): we plan to spend around 20 trillion rubles on army, right?DM: Even more than that, but through 2020.CHANNEL ONE: Still, these are enormous expenditures.As the future prime minister, will you take as firm a stance with the future Finance Minister, arguing that military expenditures should take precedent over spending on science, education and medicine?DM: I will be even firmer. I will just choke the money out of him. (Laughter.)"Every year, I changed rules concerning the political system. Let me remind you, that included the political parties’ access to mass media, lowering the threshold for State Duma elections, and changing procedure for granting authority to governors."You know, Anton, I never said that the army has priority over education, or conversely, that education takes precedence over the army. That just isn’t even a serious conversation. I simply said one thing: that we have to reform our Armed Forces so that they are powerful and efficient, so that the people serving there are highly motivated, so that these people love their nation and understand whythey are serving in the army. That is why we have earmarked such a large amount of money.In addition, we understand that until recently, our weapons have remained almost unchanged since the Soviet period. And as Commander-in-Chief, I have confirmed this repeatedly. Incidentally, the conflict unleashed by Georgia demonstrated this. We had to change our armaments quickly.And now our challenge is as follows: we must increase the share of new modern military equipment to 50-70 per cent by 2020, to acquire new missiles, new armoured vehicles, new communications and everything that is necessary for ensuring defence and security.But these expenditures should not be thoughtless; they should be aligned with our industry, which should, first of all, provide us with high-quality products, and second, handle that money. If we feel, for whatever reasons, that there is a problem, it means we will get back to this issue.As for education, it is no less a priority than defence spending. You mentioned the figure of 20 trillion. Let me remind you, it is 20-something trillion through 2020. Meanwhile, the yearly-consolidated budget for education is two trillion rubles. Every year.In other words, this is a significant amount of money. And by the way, it has also allowed us to change some important issues within our educational system in recent years. But defence and security will always be among the government’s priorities, and my priorities, if I continue to work in corresponding positions.ROSSIYA: Mr President, I would like to ask you about the army and about education from a more personal angle. As far as I know, your son Ilya will turn seventeen this summer…DM: That is correct.ROSSIYA: And so, the army and education are both issues that should interest you not only as president, but also as a parent. Do you think that all young men in Russia should serve in the army? As for your son, what university and profession did he choose, and what do you, as a parent, think about the National Final School Exam (EGE) and the education reform in general? DM: Let me talk about military service first, as it is a serious matter. Under our Constitution, this is the duty and obligation of our citizens, but the question is, what form this duty and obligation should take?We are in the process of changing the way our armed forces recruit servicemen, and I think these are the right changes. Our objective is to recruit 85% of servicemen by contract, and conscript soldiers will account for 15 percent.ROSSIYA: What are the respective proportions now?DM: It’s completely incomparable. Of course, at the moment, conscript soldiers still make up the majority, although the number of contract servicemen is growing. Our armed forces must be comprised of professional servicemen. This is a completely normal demand of modern life. At the same time, we will retain conscript service as a partial option so as to have reservists and give opportunities to people who want to devote their lives to serving their country in the armed forces, let them go on to become contract servicemen, and some of their number might then become officers or follow some other security-related career. This is all part of this constitutional duty.But we also have universities that set the rule that their students should be able to complete their course of study without interruption. There are two completely different views on this issue. The students, their parents, and many others, think this is the right approach, but some of the military officials and other people do not entirely agree. My position is straightforward. I think that we need well-qualified specialists. Interrupting one’s studies can have a very negative effect in some cases, though not in all. If you take a look at our higher education system today, to put it delicately, it is somewhat bloated. I think we have more than 1,150 universities today. I remind you that during the Soviet years there were 600 universities for the entire country of 300 million people. I am not making a call to go out right now and close anything down, but it is an issue that should set us thinking about the future of our country’s higher education system in general, and about how to make it a quality system.Regarding the EGE, I have talked about it with my son. I cannot say that I was particularly convinced by his arguments. This is because he has not experienced any other system, whereas I have experienced all kinds of different exam systems. He said literally the following: “It’s a nightmare! It’s unbelievable, the amount of work.” But these are normal feelings. For my part, we had one system before, and now this new system. My view of the EGE is that, overall, it is a modern and reasonable test, but it cannot be the sole and exclusive form of test. In other words, it would be wrong to have just this one national exam. It must be complemented with other kinds of tests, especially when we are talking about particular fields in which the EGE cannot adequately reflect a student’s abilities.   ROSSIYA: In the arts and humanities, for example…DM: Yes, in these fields, because you need to see how the student thinks, speaks, and so on. The EGE is therefore the mainstream road. Incidentally, all of the teachers with whom I have spoken have confided to me out of sight of the cameras and in the corridors, that the EGE is a good system, especially in the provinces. They say, “Our students are getting into Moscow and St Petersburg universities now, whereas in the past this was almost impossible unless you had connections or some other means of getting accepted and passing the exams.” And so we need to develop the EGE, while at the same time complementing it with a number of other tests in some cases.ROSSIYA: What university has Ilya chosen in the end?DM: We are still discussing this matter with him. He has several ideas. I won’t hide that he is interested in the fields I worked in previously.REN-TV: Law?DM: Law, yes, and economics too. He is still making up his mind."I feel that any party leader should be a member of that party. If he is not, for whatever reason, a member, then at some point, he will begin to separate himself from the party. This is possible for people in certain positions, such as the President, but in principle, it isn’t right."NTV: Mr President, you have said a lot today about the work to be done, the tasks still to be completed, and about future plans. But on September 24 last year, you announced your decision to step down from office. This was followed by the parliamentary election in December, which many have said were unfair, and by the biggest protests in the last decade. My question is, what do you think of the people who were on Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Avenue? Do you think that before September, many of them were, if not your voters, then at least people who sympathised with your views and words? Is it possible that if you had known earlier how many people would come out to rally, your decision last September might have been different?DM: Alexei, I did not say that I was stepping down from office. What I said was something else: I said that looking at the reality of the political situation it seemed to me that a different construction would be the best choice, and it was this construction that was subsequently chosen. Some may like it and others may not – that is a matter of choice and that is what democracy is all about – but whatever you think of it, this construction has withstood the test, as we achieved the political result we hoped for and received the support of the majority of voters.Regarding the people who rallied at Bolotnaya, Sakharov Avenue, and other places, first of all, as President, I take a good view of all of our country’s citizens. They are people with their own particular views. As for the fact that they protested against the authorities, say, on whatever issue, I respect their right and I think this is perfectly normal.   I do not entirely agree with everything that the speakers at these meetings said, because I have a different political view, but the fact that they came out to express their views deserves respect. The vast majority of these people behaved as law abiding citizens. They came out and expressed their thoughts. This is their right. Others later held rallies of their own to express their disagreement with the first lot. This is all normal.To answer your question, I think that the decisions we announced in September have been confirmed by the political events that have taken place since then, and this is the truth criterion. We did not think this whole thing up just for the sake of it, for making a splash, but in order to obtain a concrete political result, and we obtained it – the mandate to govern. Yes, the minority voice deserves our full attention but let us not forget about the construction supported by the majority. Democracy all around the world is about the majority’s decision, which becomes the general and binding decision for the entire country. NTV: Did the size of this minority at different locations impress you?DM: Yes, it did.REN-TV: What about their quality?DM: I was impressed by both the quality and quantity. I was impressed also simply because these were the biggest meetings organised by people to voice their position in recent years, and this means that the authorities have a duty to listen and react to their views, and I think that this reaction has been forthcoming in many different areas, and we will continue this. DOZHD: Mr President, at the very start, you said of the people at the rallies that each of them could say, “I am free.” But I had the impression that people came to these meetings precisely because they felt they were not free in their right to choose. They said their votes had been stolen and that the elections were unfair.What’s more, we later saw that discontent and doubts over the elections is not just a disease afflicting Moscow alone. We have seen how people are willing to take desperate measures in other parts of Russia too. There was a hunger strike in Lermontov, which was successful, and in Astrakhan too, people took the desperate measure of going on a hunger strike.Do you understand the feelings of these people who are willing to go to such extremes, people driven to such desperation? And one other question: over these last years, have you ever felt despair?DM: Me, no. As president, I do not have the right to give in to emotions. It happens that I have a bad mood, a very bad mood, but never despair. Whenever I have a bad mood, I go work out or play sport for a while and my mood stabilises again. And then I make decisions, maybe the most difficult and unpleasant decisions.On the question of elections, yes, people’s attitude towards elections has changed. People themselves have changed, the general level of political culture has increased, and we now have new information sources, new media. The authorities are obligated to react to this.It is good that this has happened because it will mean change for everything, from the way we hold elections to the way we count the votes, so as to avoid any suspicion that the authorities have cheated anyone.Let me say straight away that substantial fraud at the national level is impossible. There is simply the logic of big numbers here, and so the result obtained at this level is always the one that reflects the people’s will. But even small instances of fraud spark protest, even cases of a single vote stolen at some particular polling station – all of this gives cause for discontent. We did not see this kind of discontent in the past, in the 1990s. It was all building up inside and now it has come to the surface. We therefore must change the laws and make use of better technology. I decided a while ago to have polling stations equipped with special digital vote-counting devices. I confess that before the elections, influenced by the talk of the economic crisis, I allowed the Finance Ministry to postpone this project until 2015, although I could have insisted that it go ahead as originally planned. It involved a big sum of money to be honest, tens of billions of rubles.We decided to use this money for other needs instead, for social spending. Perhaps if we had actually carried out this project there would have been fewer issues over the elections, because no matter how you look at it, these digital vote-counting systems make fraud that much harder. Perhaps we should have sped up this work. But we will do it now, along with the cameras at polling stations and so on. Regarding the people who are protesting, first of all, this is their right. The question is that there are sincere protests, and then there are calculated political gestures. I am not accusing anyone here. But let me recall the rather mediocre Hollywood blockbuster, The Hunger Games. I don’t know if you have seen it; I have. People doing this sort of thing are often acting in pursuit of a clear political objective. I think that the political objectives have been reached now and everyone is eating away hungrily and preparing for the State Duma session, and for getting their deputy’s mandate. This is all normal if it stays within the law. This is my position.DOZHD: You say that large-scale fraud is not possible, but in Astrakhan, for example, it was precisely those digital vote-counting devices that caused such a reaction, because one candidate won at the polling stations where they were installed, and another won at the polling stations where it was easier to stuff the ballot boxes.NTV: And there was a huge difference in the figures, too."Public television, unlike other channels which belong to a particular owner or owners, is actually the only resource that effectively belongs to no one, and for that reason is independent from government sources. We want to push this resource so that it can start to live off its own funds."DM: This all illustrates what I just said. I am not saying that there was no fraud, whether in Astrakhan or other places.DOZHD: And it’s not a case of just one vote being stolen.DM: Let me say again that elections – modern elections, big elections – cannot be ‘stolen’ because there are always exit polls that match up or not with the final result. It’s impossible to imagine that the exit polls give a candidate 50 percent of the vote, but in the final count he gets 20 percent, and another candidate gets 70 percent. This just isn’t possible. People would not buy this kind of manipulation. But you are right. This situation illustrates what I just said: digital vote-counting systems will make fraud that much more difficult than is the case with ordinary ballot boxes. We therefore must equip all polling stations with these devices. It is a job for the authorities, for the president and parliament, to put in place this system over the next few years to minimise the possibility for fraud.We know that doubts and allegations often can be part of political technology strategies. After all, following a reasonable logic, someone with doubts about an election’s fairness would first go to court, and if the court does not satisfy his demands, might start a hunger strike. This I can understand. But when people first go on hunger strike and only then go to court, it looks more like a political programme.CHANNEL ONE: Mr President, then I have another question on the rallies topic brought up by Mikhail.DM: It seems our discussion today is entirely focused on politics.REN-TV: Well, you are the number one politician in our nation. What else would we discuss?DM: The economy or the social sector, which probably interests people.CHANNEL ONE: I think we will move on to those later.REN-TV: Yes, we will.CHANNEL ONE: Returning to direct gubernatorial elections, simplifying State Duma elections, simplifying party registration. You mentioned all these proposals in your Address to the Federal Assembly just a few days after the events on Bolotnaya Square.When and how did you make these decisions? And are they related to the protests on Bolotnaya?DM: I launched the process of reforming our political system back in my first Address, and did so every year. And each year, I heard more or less the same thing. Somebody would say to me, “It doesn’t go far enough” and “he’s taking his time and worrying, but he should just get straight to the point and change everything,” while someone else would say, “don’t touch it, everything is fine, don’t rock the boat.”This was my position from the beginning. Every year, I changed rules concerning the political system. Let me remind you, that included the political parties’ access to mass media, lowering the threshold for State Duma elections, and changing procedure for granting authority to governors (not the new procedure we have now, when we moved to a party-based approach) and many other things. Incidentally, there are many of them. Each time, I would name about ten positions.At a certain point (this was probably about a year ago), I decided that my final actions should be more powerful, because the system has matured. After all, two years ago, I sincerely stated that I was against a return to direct gubernatorial elections. Why? Because that is what I felt at the time. I felt that within the context of a large nation, a very complicated nation with many contradictions, there really are dangers. Indeed, they remain today.But at a certain point, I understood that people want to elect their leaders. I think that it’s great, because this way, we will remove this responsibility from the top authorities. Let people get a feel for it themselves and learn to differentiate responsible leaders from the demagogues; people who are capable of pursuing their own policy from those who will trail behind the problems.And now, this model will be implemented specifically because our society has matured. It has matured to a new level. Why am I speaking about this today, and why did I bring it up several days ago? I am certain that today’s accelerated movement toward democracy will not lead to chaos, because society has changed. It was different in the 1990s.REN-TV: Mr President, with regard to the top authorities.You are once again ‘castling’ with Putin…DM: To use chess terms.REN-TV: That is the way many people talk about how you are swapping positions.Now, Vladimir Putin is giving you, as the future Prime Minister, his current post as the head of United Russia. Clearly, in this way, Putin is released from the burden of an unpopular party. But why do you need this?And another thing. Like him, you will head the party, but are you going to shamefully avoid joining it, or will you join it and chair it, and change something internally?NTV: Or will you become a member, but not its chairman?DOZHD: Or will you become a member, but not feel shame?DM: This line of questions could go on.We are not swapping positions. Naturally, I understand that for the purposes of political science and journalism, this is a normal way of seeing it. But in order to exchange anything, you need to first receive it. Mr Putin won the post of President in the election and received significant support from the people. If the people had refused, then there could be no talk of castling, as you put it. The same is true of the Prime Minister position. I need to earn it and get the State Duma to vote for me. I won’t hide that United Russia is a party I am associated with, which I sympathise with, and which I hope, sympathises with me.Now as for what will happen with the party flanks and the party centre… I absolutely do not understand it when people say that United Russia is an unpopular party. Listen, it received 50 per cent of the vote in the State Duma, as confirmed by various sociological surveys. It has a current support rating of 45-47 per cent, and some assessments give as much as 52-53 per cent. What party is more popular? All the others are clearly less popular.Moreover, it is the biggest party. I am not saying that it is the most perfect party. It has plenty of shortcomings, as does any party. So I perceive United Russia’s prospects as those of a powerful centrist conservative force that needs to exist in a nation such as ours.For example, the fact is, we still do not have a party of social democrats. And that’s bad, because in general, most nations develop two main parties. On the one hand, you have conservative centrist forces, and on the other hand, the social democrats. But perhaps this will change as part of the new political reform, in the process of developing the party system.So for me, it is entirely evident that our nation had, has and will have a centrist party, a conservative party that answers to the aspirations of a large number of people. Other people may not love it, they may hate it, and they may reject it. That’s normal, that’s what democracy is about. There are pure right-wing parties, there are left-wing parties – that’s normal."After the transition to digital broadcasting, all levels of government will need to finalise the numbers of government-owned media. In my opinion there are a great deal of these, and we need to reorganise the public network."As for me personally, if I am offered the chance to head the party (and the current Prime Minister has expressed this idea), I will not turn it down.And another thing. I feel that any party leader should be a member of that party. If he is not, for whatever reason, a member, then at some point, he will begin to separatehimself from the party. This is possible for people in certain positions, such as the President, but in principle, it isn’t right. So I feel that the head of the party should also be its member.REN-TV: So you represent a kind of small political sensation. In essence, we can say that you will become a member of the United Russia party and the party Prime Minister.DM: Given the preconditions I spoke about. For that, I would need to receive an offer and the party would need to support me.NTV: But, frankly speaking, there is little doubt that you will not.DM: Political life is a complicated thing.DOZHD: We will keep our fingers crossed.DM: Great. All hope lies on that. (Laughter.)ROSSIYA: Bringing the topic of politics to a close, one of the most discussed aspects of political reform involves the so-called filters: the Presidential, and now the municipal filters as well. You just said you think society is already prepared to return to direct gubernatorial elections. But these filters – particularly, as far as you’re concerned, the Presidential filter – don’t you think they contradict the very idea of direct elections? And why, how do you explain it to yourself? Why don’t other mechanisms work, such as the Criminal and Administrative Codes, which could also allow us to filter out bad people?DM: The political framework is very specific in nature. There is no such thing as an abstract democracy. It is my deep conviction that democracy must be connected to specific ethnic grounds and the political culture that has evolved. Here is ours, in its current state. It is, without a doubt, currently better than in the 1990s. But in my view, it is nevertheless less evolved than in certain other nations. I think that you would agree with me.Now with regard to filters. There are no filters (if taken to mean barriers) in these draft laws, including the law on electing governors. But there are qualification conditions, or more specifically, one condition in particular. Which one? That the gubernatorial candidate must garner support from municipal deputies. We were not the ones who came up with that. Let me remind you that right now, our friends in France are holding their Presidential election. This is essentially the French pattern. And we are talking here about Presidential elections, when a candidate must prove that somebody holds him or her in high regard, that he or she is recognised by deputies and mayors, that he or she is not just a random person. Because – and you also know this – let’s recall who was elected in the 1990s and how; at times, it was quiete sad.So I don’t think it would be bad in any way to confirm a politician’s standing by receiving 5 to 10 per cent (that was the municipalities’ idea). And frankly, I do not see most of the serious parties having any problem achieving that in various ways. Beyond that, I have no comment.ROSSIYA: And what about the presidential filter?DM: Regarding the presidential filter: no such filter exists in the law. It only states that the President may – not must – hold consultations in accordance with the relevant executive order. Whether a future President will use this or not, I do not know. It seems highly possible that they will not. This is the first thing.And the second refers to the outcome of these qualifications and consultations held by the President. It is absolutely not a given that these consultations will directly lead to elimination of a candidate. On the contrary, as provided by the draft law, these are simply consultations.DOZHD: Mr President, I would like to move a little bit away from politics – as maybe you would like to as well. You recently signed an executive order.DM: No, I don’t want anything. If you want to, let's talk about politics. I simply don’t know whether this is what our audience wants.DOZHD: I think that our viewers will be interested in this because it will directly affect them.Just recently you signed an executive order on creating a Public Television network.  REN-TV: Not very far away from politics.DM: Yes, that’s right.DOZHD: Does this mean that the existing public television channels cannot perform the functions invested in them, cannot properly inform our citizens, and that the money the government spends on their financing is wasted? If so, perhaps taxpayers do not need to spend their money financing public channels? And perhaps once a Public Television channel is created, other public channels could then be privatised?DM: Mikhail, these are all good arguments coming from someone who works for a private channel. Now if my colleagues from public channels were asking similar questions, that would be more interesting.  DOZHD: As taxpayers they are also paying.DM: They are; I agree with you.With regard to Public Television, I have repeatedly said that I have never had a fixed opinion on this issue, and I think that’s normal. Anyone who says: "These have been my views ever since I graduated from university" is lying.My opinion about Public Television has also changed. At one point I thought that our existing public channels were enough. In fact, there is only one state-owned holding company: VGTRK [National State Television and Radio Company]. There is Channel One, where the state holds a controlling stake, but from a legal point of view it remains a limited liability company, and that is a bit of a different story. And so only VGTRK receives government funding directly. So even as I thought we had enough, I became convinced that we should create a public television channel. And then for various reasons I began to think about the fact that the government is the same kind of owner as a private one, such as the owner of your channel (to Mikhail Zygar), your channel (to Anton Vernitsky), or your channel (to Alexey Pivovarov). Even though your owners are very big, they are still owners. So, the state is the largest owner of all, and every owner always has their own will.I don’t think you'll disagree with me that an owner always has their own will: this is true in Russia, in America, or in France. Sometimes it is very manifest – this is probably damaging for the media – and sometimes it is more subtle and displayed more correctly. And this is the case all over the world."For us the question of civil peace and religious toleration is absolutely critical. I did everything possible to preserve peace in this regard. These are issues relating to our national survival."So public television, unlike other channels which belong to a particular owner or owners, is actually the only resource that effectively belongs to no one, and for that reason is independent from government sources.What do we want to do? We want to push this resource so that it can start to live off its own funds, and create an endowment fund that will generate income. And in that case the managers of the Public Television channel will not come to government offices or to the Kremlin and say: “Please give us more money.” Instead, they are going to live off their own money. This creates a very different degree of independence; excuse me, but I would go so far as to say even more than for a private channel.DOZHD: But it’s still the President who appoints the channel’s director-general. This means that the channel's source of legitimacy remains the government.DM: Not so, because the President is always a consolidating figure. You can like this figure or hate it, but the fact remains that it’s the consolidating figure, the guarantor of the Constitution. In France, the head of public television is appointed by the President, in the UK this is done by the Prime Minister, if I remember correctly. No one is outraged by this and calls it an infringement of our rights. As a whole this seems to be a product of entirely different experiences and expectations. I think this is normal.And in this case money comes from different sources, while with public or private channels this is impossible. It is also why I think it’s necessary to create a Public Television channel.Now regarding the future of existing public channels: I believe that after the transition to digital broadcasting (and this will occur very soon), all levels of government will need to finalise the numbers of government-owned media. In my opinion there are a great deal of these, and we need to reorganise the public network. Some of these channels should be sold, while some should be integrated with existing government structures. Let me remind you that I even sent out certain signals to the regions. To be honest, I am not really happy with how these signals have been interpreted, because naturally every regional leader wants to have their own media source.NTV: Sorry but I have to intervene, Mr President. It is clear that there are different forms of ownership: there are public television channels like VGTRK, there are those that appear private, but we are all aware that there are so-called federal television channels where, as a rule, it is obvious that the government is exercising control over editorial policy.I would therefore like to draw our collective attention to the fact that our distinguished colleague, Mikhail Zygar, is here among us. Looking at it, Dozhd TV would seem to be a very small channel compared to federal ones and their huge financial resources. Yet it is absolutely logical that Mikhail is here too. Dozhd is really on trend: newsmakers are happy to appear there, you yourself were there, Mr President. Most often, people go there much more eagerly than they do to large public channels. Why? Ask anyone and the answer is simple: there is no censorship on Dozhd. Journalists there are limited only by their ideas about which news is interesting and which is not, whom to invite and whom to leave out.I will only speak for myself because this is an issue that affects me and my colleagues at NTV. As a journalist on a public channel I am regularly confronted with restrictions that prevent me from fully carrying out my professional duties, and competing with Dozhd. These limitations are related to what is called political expediency: "There is no time for that now, my friend."And in addition to artificially limiting competition, it seems to me that this really impinges on my ability as a journalist to carry out my professional duties, and inform viewers about current events. I would like to know how you feel about this situation, Mr President.DM: Somewhat differently than you because I am not a journalist. But of course I will comment on what you're talking about. I was on Dozhd; it is a modern, nice, yet relatively small channel. I do not believe that its management has no political opinions – they do. I would repeat that a different question concerns the form in which they are presented. Every media always has a political position, and it's usually pretty easy to determine. It is possible that if we run it properly our Public Television channel might be able to be absolutely neutral, even though a fully neutral medium does not exist. Even Dozhd takes a political position. That is the first thing.The second. Why do newsmakers, as you said, go willingly to our esteemed colleagues at Dozhd, for example, and are less likely to appear on your channel? Not because there is censorship somewhere – there are places where there is no censorship, though political influence is of course natural in the major channels. It is for other reasons: mainly because some call them and others don’t. And as soon as you call them, people come with pleasure for still another reason: because while the reach of federal channels is still bigger than that f Dozhd – despite the fact that it is very good – I would say that the channel is targeted at a future premium audience. Namely young people who watch Dozhd using cable networks, satellite TV, and the Internet. Nevertheless, federal channels are still much bigger. And in my opinion, if you simply call any politician it is much easier. Give them space.NTV: We invite you.ROSSIYA: Come and see us, Mr President.DM: I am here. (Laughter.)And now the last thing. Of course you know that the question of political expediency is a very subtle thing. Censorship, let me remind you, is prohibited by our Constitution, and if it appears anywhere it is a cause for government intervention.As to questions of expediency, this really concerns the management responsibility of a given mainstream media and, if you want, is a matter of the internal chemistry between the managers, the journalistic team and, naturally, the television consumers. All these elements must be in harmony. How is this achieved? This is a question not for me, but for the heads of the respective media sources.NTV: We'll have to ask them.DM: You did; I think they heard.REN-TV: And not only them. To continue with the topic of television censorship, or let’s use the term political expediency, you yourself recently commented on how the Internet and TV have very different news agendas, and it’s like having two parallel realities. For example, as a rule those who do not use the Internet barely know anything about the violent disputes concerning, for example, the arrest of the members of Pussy Riot and the Church’s reaction to this, are hardly aware of the scandals surrounding the Church and the property of its hierarchs, and so on; the list is a long one. Do you yourself use the Internet or TV when you want to hear the news?DM: I can say frankly that I mostly use the Internet, not because I don’t like TV, but simply because the Internet is often more convenient for me. If I'm already sitting in front of the computer, with just one click I can get to the site of any of the channels listed here, or just look at a news feed. But you asked the right question about their respective agendas, and this worries me too. What are my feelings about this?It is true that the two media have different agendas. But I would try to approach this from another angle and ask: is this a bad thing? The issue at stake is who is interested in what. Here there are a few points you mentioned. Some topics interest all our citizens, while others are only interesting to a fairly limited number of people. I have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the headlines, the most discussed topics in the blogosphere, and so-called Twitter hashtags include things that are irrelevant to the concerns of 95 percent of citizens. But they create a huge wave of interest, and through them an event simply takes on a universal scale. Assuming that this is a common reality, is there really an urgent need to run to the managers of a TV channel and say: we absolutely have to put this on air, the blogosphere is talking about it. I'm not so sure that this is the right thing to do.But on the other hand, you’re right, Marianna, that there should be interaction between the media. Sometimes things happen, and in my opinion they cannot just be limited to one world, the online world or the televised world. Because even events that interest a relatively small number of people are significant nonetheless, and should therefore get TV airtime. So I would say that there can be different realities, but that there needn’t be different agendas.ROSSIYA: Marianna recalled the band Pussy Riot. Since we are all active Internet users, this topic is of great concern to us. Are you following the trial, and what do you think about the case as head of state, as a lawyer, and, finally, as a church-going person?And in my opinion, a very important point is the following: the girls called their performance in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour a reaction to the Russian Orthodox Church’s involvement in the presidential campaign. On what do you think today’s relationship between the secular and religious authorities should be founded, in light of the fact that in our country there are regions where it is not Orthodoxy that predominates, but Islam, for example, and where the topic takes on a completely different connotation?DM: This is a very sensitive issue that we should all treat very, very carefully. Our country is extremely complicated in this regard: it is a multifaith nation, a place where crimes are motivated by religious intolerance, and where people are sometimes killed for their religious beliefs. I would like everyone, absolutely everyone, to think about this regardless of their religious affiliation. It is horrible and yet it still happens. And we absolutely need to protect the fragile peace that we were able to maintain in recent years. Because otherwise the consequences for our country could be quite simply disastrous.But we all know that no country in the world is a federation constructed according to national principles. And yet we have a federation in this sense, and for this reason we are a unique country. And so for us the question of civil peace and religious toleration is absolutely critical."We are all interested in peace in Afghanistan, in eliminating the terrorist threat emanating from there, and making sure there is less terrorism there. We have always supported the relevant peacekeeping operation. And we will continue to do so."I did everything possible to preserve peace in this regard. I am confident that the authorities will continue to do so. These are issues relating to our national survival. With regards to the specific question and topic at hand, I would say the following: as President I will not comment on the legal aspect of the case, because consequences would ensue. And I always try to avoid legal comments until a conviction or acquittal has been made.If I were to comment from my position as a church-going person, as you said, then I would say very carefully, so as not to offend anyone, that in my view those who participated in what was done got exactly what they expected.NTV: Imprisonment?DM: Popularity.DOZHD: Mr President, you said yourself, and gave examples concerning stolen carp.NTV: It is unlikely that they hoped to end up in jail.DOZHD: About initiating an individual who does not pose a threat to society to criminal culture, and the fact that this is a systemic error: do you really think that these girls represent such a threat to society that they should sit in jail for a few months?DM: I repeat that I did not make the decision, the judge did. If I start to comment on the judge's verdict (even on its resonance), then quite frankly this amounts to interference in justice. At the end of the day I am the President. You know, this transmits a signal such as keep them in, do not let them out, or release them immediately. So I would say again, as head of state, that I will not comment on the specific situation until the sentence comes into force. And here you probably won’t find me guilty of something. For instance, I commented on the verdict in one case, when I visited the Journalism Faculty [at Moscow State University]. One woman had been convicted.RESPONSE: Taisiya Osipova.DM: That’s right. But at that point a sentence had already been given. I said that I thought it was too harsh. If you noticed, the law enforcement system and prosecutor responded to this. Why do I bring this up? To show that the President should be very sparing when he makes comments of this kind. But this does not negate what I said, namely that prison has no re-educational capacity, in the sense that a different person emerges from it; that is true.CHANNEL ONE: Then I will change the topic, if you'll let me. To put it mildly, social networks on the Internet contributed to the so-called Arab spring in the Arab world, the revolution that swept across it. How do you think the Arab spring will end, what will Russia's position in the region be, and what political season is beginning in our country?DM: The Arab spring will end with a cold Arab fall. Spring has come to Russia, and I would like to congratulate everyone on this: it is spring in both the literal and figurative senses.RESPONSE: They are predicting a cold wave after tomorrow.DM: This will only be temporary, as it has often been in our history.ROSSIYA: Incidentally, if we talk about the Middle East, about the Arab spring, we have often said that foreign policy must be pragmatic. Have Russia’s business interests changed or not in connection with events in the Middle East? For example, have we become more focused on China as a result? What were the effects for Russia of the events in the Middle East?NTV: Have we lost money as a result of the Arab spring?DM: Of course we want to be friends with everyone, and we want to trade with everyone. This is absolutely normal: it is in our foreign policy interests and rightly so.Regarding the situation in the Arab world, despite some short statements that I made, of course the situation there remains very unstable. Radicals are coming to power in many countries and working with them will be much harder – that’s a fact. I have talked about this with everyone, with our American and European partners, and said that the goal of any change, even the best kind, is not to transfer power to extremists. But such a threat exists. Let's hope that people in all these countries will make the right choices.We have interests there, we want to be friends with these countries and trade with them, both conventional products, so to speak, and weapons, what our country is famous for. And we will continue to do this as much as possible. No reorientation has occurred in this respect. But of course we must take geopolitical realities into account, and in some cases we have simply stopped delivering supplies.DOZHD: If we talk about foreign policy interests, we all remember that at the beginning of your term in office, there was the ‘reset’ policy and an agreement on strategic offensive arms was signed. But at the end of your term there have been no major recent breakthroughs with the United States, including in the economic and political spheres. And there is a feeling that this is because it is uncomfortable to simultaneously improve relations with the United States, while blaming the Washington ‘regional committee’ for provoking and financing protests in the streets of Moscow.DM: Taking into account the fact that our relations have never been perfect, neither in the Soviet nor the post-Soviet periods, together with the Americans we have accomplished quite a lot lately. I've already talked about this, but I’m ready to repeat it here in the studio. I think that the last four years were the best in the history of Russian-American relations, simply the best. That is the first thing.Second. This does not mean that we have no topics of discussion left. You all know this just as well as I do. There is missile defence, an issue on which we have parted ways with our American colleagues. We try to convince them that they should not disturb strategic parity. They answer: “Yes, yes, yes, we will take your interests into account," and continue to promote their own position.By the way, not all Europeans, their partners in NATO, agree with them. The issue is not closed and must be resolved. I hope that we can move forward in the next few years, as there are still five to seven years for making final decisions. If all else fails we will deploy rockets. There is no other choice; life is life.Now regarding the Washington ‘regional committee,’ which is a valid name for it. Soon there will be elections for the committee’s first secretary. I have certain sympathies for one of the candidates, but this is a private matter. I hope that he will continue his glorious task of leading it.DOZHD: So is its hand still meddling in the streets of Moscow?DM: The workings of the hand of the Washington committee are visible in different places.You know, if we talk about the situation in our country, we do not need to demonise Americans and it is even more meaningless to talk about how Americans are orchestrating some major political processes that occur here.We are a large sovereign country and no one can dominate us – this is clear to everyone. But the notion that they are trying to influence political processes is true, just as it is true that we are also trying to influence certain political processes.The question at hand is rather the moral evaluation of these things and the tact with which they are conducted. It is true that we are not indifferent to what happens in America. It is also true that we have less means at our disposal than the Americans do. This is still the case. And they probably do care about what happens here. But the important thing is to behave tactfully.Along with this I have never supported the idea that people join whatever might exist, and set up a regional committee, a municipal one, or something else. This is not serious, because you can organise two, three, five people, twenty-five or five hundred, but you cannot involve larger numbers of people. And this is true whether it concerns people protesting against the government or those voting in support of the existing power."My intention, and it completely coincides with the view of President-elect Vladimir Putin, is to substantially renew the current Government."ROSSIYA: What about those people who, for example, took to the streets in Ulyanovsk? This is also an international issue. What is going on there? What will it become?DM: You mean regarding the [NATO] logistics centre?ROSSIYA: The transit hub, as it was called, or is it a full-fledged military base?DM: Of course it is a transit hub as you said. It's simply a chance to help fulfil the mission of the peacekeeping force stationed in Afghanistan. We are all interested in peace in Afghanistan, in eliminating the terrorist threat emanating from there, and making sure there is less terrorism there. So that is our public position.It’s true that we occasionally argue with NATO, but as concerns Afghanistan we have always supported the relevant peacekeeping operation. And we will continue to do so. No member of the military or civilian from NATO will be in Ulyanovsk, it's simply a technical operation. Talking about it is a normal thing, part of the political process.Naturally, some political forces decided to exploit this issue. We have people in our country who are extremely hostile to America, and this sentiment can periodically be fanned. The relevant political forces took advantage of it and there is nothing new in this. In America too, there are people who do not like Russia and some politicians there regularly whip up anti-Russian hysteria.REN-TV: Mr President, until recently Russia's relations with almost all of its closest neighbours seemed to be ruined beyond repair. Just think of the cold war with Ukraine, the real war with Georgia, the war of words with Belarus, and the information war with the Baltic states.Do you think that during your term as President relations with our neighbours have changed for the better?DM: You're right, they have changed, and they were different to begin with. In Ukraine, it all started from a point where the relationship was really very hard, and the relationship with President Yushchenko was very, very difficult. Now relations have changed, and despite certain outstanding controversies and arguments with our Ukrainian partners, we still have partnership, companionable relations.I hope that when making decisions both the Ukrainian establishment and President Yanukovych will, first of all, overcome certain stereotypes that weight upon them, and simply be more pragmatic, more responsive to the interests of the Ukrainian people.Regarding Georgia, the story is much more tragic. There was an armed conflict, an attack on small parts of the former state of Georgia, and how it ended is well-known. They were smacked on the head, and we were forced to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent subjects of international law.We – me personally, my friends, my associates, and my colleagues, as well as Russians in general – have no hard feelings towards Georgia. On the contrary, Georgia is a country that is close to us, and the Georgian people are near and dear to us. And incidentally, we have come to their rescue more than once, no matter what certain Georgian politicians might say. So for that reason Saakashvili is simply a blank space, a zero. Sooner or later he will leave political history, and we will be ready to build a relationship with any other political leader who comes to power there, to restore diplomatic relations, and to go as far as they are ready.Regarding Belarus: there too things went from love to hate and so on. Nevertheless, we still have a special relationship and the Union State. We will not hide the fact that we are often at odds with President Lukashenko; he is difficult and emotional. But you know, I can say one thing: he has taken important decisions. He looked at different options and made important decisions.He was one of the initiators behind the signing of the Agreement on the Customs Union, and is now one of the active forces behind the implementation of the idea of ​​the Eurasian Economic Union. I think these are worthy positions and it is natural that we will develop all possible relations with Belarus.With the Baltic states, the story is more complicated. I will not hide the fact that I have often thought about visiting them. And as soon as I give corresponding instructions to an aide and say "Let's see …" something nasty always occurs. This behaviour is unacceptable. Of course we are a big country and they are small ones, but this does not mean you have to be so rude or support the Nazis.Therefore everything is in the hands of the leaders of those countries. If they adopt more responsible positions, then we will not hear on every street corner that "The Russians are coming! Tanks are rolling in, let’s hurry and install defence missiles," and everything will be fine. We are historically linked and we are highly integrated economically. I am confident that contacts at high and highest levels between Russia and the Baltic countries will resume. You simply do not have to see Russia as a terrible bear who is always ready to tear these countries apart.NTV: If you don’t mind, let’s return to the Russian domestic affairs. I should probably begin with the cliché “if you’re appointed Prime Minister,” but we all realise that you will be appointed Prime Minister. Could you please clarify the role of the entity called the Open or Big Government? Let’s say you have become Prime Minister and you have a real Government now.REMARK: A closed one.DM: A completely buttoned up one.NTV: Made up of ministers.REMARK: A closed joint stock company.DM: Closed joint stock companies don’t exist anymore, or rather they won’t exist once the changes to the Civil Code are adopted.NTV: So, you are the Prime Minister and you have a Government. What will this Open or Big Government be: will it be another body like the Civic Chamber, which is full of highly respected people, quite decent folk, and it’s very interesting to listen to what they say but it is not entirely clear what their powers are, their initiatives disappear in the sand, it is unclear who supports them, and their range of responsibilities is not formalised anywhere. This is my sincere personal feeling, and I may be wrong. Why do we need another such body?DM: Alexei, I think you understand the point of the Open Government, which at first we called the Big Government for some reason and scared everyone: it’s not enough that the regular government is full of freeloaders, now we need another Big one, which is just a nightmare."We have a reasonable figure for unemployment when compared with other European countries but we can make it even smaller, less than 5%."So, this Open Government is basically an expert platform. The Open Government will not and cannot make decisions instead of the Government, which is empowered with authority, otherwise it would be simply ridiculous.At the same time I must agree with you that it will be an ordinary platform for discussions of certain pressing issues.My intention now, if I am appointed Prime Minister, is as follows. I want to pass virtually all key socioeconomic decisions through this expert forum. This is the first point.And if the experts point out to me that there are all kinds of problems associated with the implementation of these decisions, I simply will not adopt them. That’s the point. By the way, the Civic Chamber is not a bad venue either but we need to approach it critically.NTV: Like I said, it’s full of very interesting people and it’s always fascinating to hear what they say.DM: Yes, but it's more than that: they really have an impact on different processes.NTV: They don’t have enough powers.DM: Public bodies cannot have any powers other than to say “Dear government (or not so dear), this is our position, and if you adopt this decision, you will be creating problems.” That is their primary responsibility. They cannot move the pen in my hand, and they cannot say: “We are blocking it.” That would be impossible.The second point related to the Open Government is, in my opinion, just as important. By the way, this topic is very important in the whole world, and there is even a convention about it now. The Open Government is a career lift for a large number of intelligent people who can be plucked from the expert environment, and most importantly, from within the environment of active successful managers: business managers and mid-level managers in regional bodies. I will do it, have no doubt.And finally, the third and equally important point. Any kind of Open Government will always be an information environment. We have been talking for an hour and 35 minutes about the fact that society has changed, and the information technology is such that as soon as something happens, it becomes known to everyone. Therefore, it is an environment for communicating with the authorities.People used to make fun of the governors, saying that they were just copying the President with their blogs, Twitter and all that. But there’s a big advantage to this because I have seen for myself that when people start bombarding a governor with messages on a particular issue, he cannot avoid it anymore.In some other situation he may have said, “All right, stop by my office next week and we’ll have a look.” Let’s say, he gets a message: “There’s an urgent problem, a sewer pipe has burst.” That’s it, he has to respond.  This is very important. So that’s what the Open Government is all about. Therefore, I believe that it will be a useful resource. I hope that it will work to the full extent.CHANNEL ONE: If you get the mandate, as you said, who will get a seat on your Government? Do you know already? I am ready to write down who will be on it, who is certain to stay and who is certain to leave.DM: Anton, start writing. Deputy prime ministers: seven items. (Laughter.)REMARK: Everybody is writing this down.DM: Let’s keep the mystery for a while longer.I can say only one thing for sure. My intention, and it completely coincides with the view of President-elect Vladimir Putin, is to substantially renew the current Government.The two of us have discussed it many times. We get together and draw little squares on a piece of paper, it’s true, and we discuss which configuration would work and who would be better at which job. In my opinion, everything is clear. We need a powerful impetus created by new people.At the same time I cannot come into the Government (if I am appointed) and say, “Right, let’s just sit around for a month, leave us alone for a while until we come up with a perfect configuration, and then we’ll make the decision.” Practical work must begin immediately. It cannot be interrupted even for a single day. That’s obvious.Therefore, there must be people who will ensure continuity – I stress that. Perhaps not for the entire period, just one or two years – I don’t know. And that balance between those who provide the continuity and an influx of new people will amount to a new Government.CHANNEL ONE: Will there be many new people?DM: Yes, many.DOZHD: Mr President, as a future Prime Minister you will receive a very difficult legacy: everybody is saying that a very serious economic crisis could begin next year in Russia, and maybe not only in Russia.For example, former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said that this could be a crisis of such magnitude that it may lead to a change of regime unless the Government implements some very painful and very unpopular reforms. As a future Prime Minister, are you ready for such painful and unpopular reforms that may theoretically amount to your political suicide? Are you ready to sacrifice yourself?DM: First of all, any politician should be ready to sacrifice his political career for his country’s interests. I'm absolutely serious. This is the first point.Second. I cannot agree with you about the difficult legacy. It is an absolutely normal legacy. If it were 2009 now, you would be right because the situation at the time was extremely acute. The Government did a great job, they managed to cope with it, their measures were successful and our country recovered from the crisis with the least, and I emphasise this, the least problems. That is a fact.But the 4% inflation over the past 12 months – is that a difficult legacy? Let me remind you that inflation was 12% or 13% four years ago. And that was with the same Finance Minister, by the way. Is 10% debt to GDP ratio a difficult legacy? In my opinion, everything is absolutely normal. But that does not mean that the situation cannot be destabilised.The world economic recession continues and we must be fully prepared. As for predictions, it’s always easier to make them from the outside, though, if you mention the former Finance Minister, he is not Vanga or Nostradamus to make such predictions. He should focus on his future career, that would be a more productive pursuit.ROSSIYA: Are you clear on the macroeconomic challenges facing the Government? What tasks will you assign to your Government?DM: The tasks remain the same: to keep the macroeconomic indicators as they are at present and improve them as far as possible. But when it comes to GDP growth, it has stabilised at 4%. Not bad when compared with the United States or the EU, but it’s not enough for us: we should have 6 or 7% ideally, like China or India.Inflation: I have already mentioned the 4% accumulated inflation. That’s just great! This is what we need. If we manage to keep in the 4-5% range, we will be able to address many issues, including mortgages. Because 4% added to the Central Bank’s mortgage loan refinancing rate doesn’t end up at 12 or 11%, but a more manageable 7 or 8%. This is quite acceptable. And so on.Therefore, the challenge is to develop the country while maintaining the macroeconomic conditions that we have and improve them where possible.DOZHD: You won’t raise the retirement age?DM: I think we have a collection of horror stories…DOZHD: Yes, there is, and it is a symbol of painful reforms.DM: Yes, a symbol of painful reforms which in fact has absolutely nothing to do with the pension reform.Pension reform, ladies and gentlemen, though it won’t concern you personally for many years since you are all young people, has nothing to do with the pension age. Yes, it is one of the issues that require discussion. But you can carry out a pension reform and create a fundamentally different pension system without changing the retirement age.We can discuss retirement age but this topic should not overshadow the other, more acute matter. What is our pension system: is it an old-age benefit that is paid by the state or is it compensation for a loss of earnings? These are two different models. A benefit is just that, a benefit: if the state has given it to you, you should say thank you whether it is 100 rubles, 200 rubles, 10,000, 20,000, whatever. But if it is a system of compensation for lost earnings, that is a completely different model.I emphasise that both models exist in different countries, but they tend to operate in a mixed form. Even in the United States, where the pension system is completely private, there is now a leaning in the opposite direction. It is also happening in other countries.Therefore, we need to choose an optimal model for the development of our pension system. There will be no shocks here. As in all matters, I would like the public to hear me first –we will consult with the people of the Russian Federation, with our people.REN-TV: Your presidency is coming to an end but everyone is interested in the fate of the tandem. Since you are changing places with Vladimir Putin again, I would like to ask: will the tandem become a constant in Russian politics? Who will influence whom in decision making, and how effective do you think the tandem is as a form of governance?DM: All these buzzwords used to irritate me but I got used to them. I want to say that Vladimir Putin and I are bound by 20 years of friendship, and not only political cooperation. This is the first point.Second. I believe that in general it is a good idea when the country’s fate and its political processes don’t depend on just one person (who does whatever he feels like), that any decisions are made following a discussion and that there are several people in the country who influence the political process. I think this is normal and it is progress towards democracy."It is necessary to implement the political reform that has already been adopted. If we implement it, we will make a huge leap in political development: we get a new quality of Russian democracy."If there are two people like that or three, five, seven, ten – it is a certain safety net for the state, if you will. We didn’t invent it and we didn’t write the Constitution, which states that there must be people who, under certain circumstances, are required to stand in for each other (as it is the case in Europe and the United States). These people must work in cooperation, they must trust each other and be political partners. So there is nothing out of the ordinary about it.As for our prospects, we have already voiced them, so I think that everybody's should relax: it’s here to stay.NTV: If I may, I would like to ask all a non-political question.DM: Go ahead.NTV: This issue concerns absolutely every citizen of the Russian Federation. During the presidential campaign, we have heard many demands to revoke your decision to cancel the summer (winter) transition to daylight saving time.DM: You don’t even know which transition.NTV: Everybody is confused, or at least I’m confused. I’m talking about the clocks moving one hour forward and backward in spring and autumn. Are you ready for this decision to be reconsidered? Do you think it deserves to be reconsidered? Are you ready to return to this issue and to other decisions?DM: Alexei, what does the fact that you are asking this question tell us? What is harder for you, when the clocks stay the same or when you have to change them twice a year? You said, “to cancel the summer (winter) time transition.” Now we don’t need to make any transition. What is more comfortable for you?NTV: It’s not about me, Mr President.DM: Tell me anyway.REN-TV: The iPhone, which you like so much, changes the time automatically.NTV: I am more used to the way it was before because all the gadgets change the time automatically and you have to change them back.DM: I see. This makes sense. I know because I also use electronic devices. But it’s not just the question of electronic devices and convenience. When this decision was made (it wasn’t just pulled out of thin air), we consulted with scientists, with different sections of the population and different regions.The majority supported the abolition of the daylight saving time as it has been done in many countries, by the way. Naturally, some people said, “No, we are genetically linked to Europe, and if they change the time so should we.” Who is opposed to this decision now? Those who travel a lot. That’s absolutely understandable because during the period of the daylight saving time there is a bigger time difference, so you need to plan for it when you’re travelling to Europe, for example, and other countries. Also football fans don’t like it. REN-TV: Fans watching football into the night…DM: I do not belong to the first category because I don’t travel that often. But I do fall into the second category: it is true, sometimes it’s inconvenient when you want to watch a match but it starts at midnight our time. But there are many people who like the new system. These are the people who live in rural areas. These are the people who live in our ordinary medium-sized cities, small towns. It’s convenient for them. They go about their lives and have no problems with it.In short, it is a matter of choice and expediency. If the majority of people support changing the system back, then we will do it. It is not a matter of my personal ambition because I see both the pros and cons of this decision.DOZHD: Are we going to hold a referendum?ROSSIYA: I was just going to say, perhaps we should hold a referendum?REN-TV: Which is a problem, incidentally, because we haven’t had a referendum on any issue for a long time.DM: I agree that we should hold referendums from time to time, and we should also seek new forms of referendums because the huge process with the preparation of ballots should eventually be replaced by electronic polls.Here’s what I think we could do on the issue of daylight saving time: we could hold electronic polls in several regions. Perhaps not everywhere but to make a representative sample, at least this kind of electronic poll will reveal the general attitude to the issue. If it shows that people still want to change clocks backward and forward, then we can do it.CHANNEL ONE: Gadget lovers will vote.DM: No doubt.REN-TV: Only cows will vote against it because it doesn’t disrupt their milking schedule. DM: No, not only cows.REN-TV: But they will not take part in an electronic voting.DM: Not just cows. There will be people who are against it.We have looked at this issue and I have discussed it with Vladimir Putin, by the way, who said: “My information is that the preferences are split fifty-fifty.” So, it is a matter of choice.ROSSIYA: What about some other decisions, such as zero blood alcohol or the technical inspection, which was cancelled but now people are saying it may return.NTV: They say zero blood alcohol will also be abolished.DM: I can tell you my view on this issue. In the end, it is a question of authorities’ consistency and responsibility.If we talk about zero blood alcohol, I think this is the right decision, and my attitude to this is not the same as to the previous topic we discussed: that it’s something we should all agree on. To put it plainly, the drivers in our country are not yet mature enough to be allowed to drink before they drive.Motorists will be offended but I think that we mustn’t do it yet. And if we skip all the nonsense such as that the meter will show something anyway, that it reacts to kefir in the system – that’s all nonsense and I think this decision was completely justified in our environment.Likewise, I feel very strongly about another issue: I believe that we cannot allow free circulation of arms in our country. Let the Americans practice their elocution skills, fighting for or against gun control. But we can’t do it in our country for a variety of reasons.REN-TV: That is, we shouldn’t even hold a referendum on these issues?DM: That is my position.REN-TV: And if we do hold referendums in the future, who will tally up the results? Churov? He is a magician, of course…DM: With regard to big referendums, as long as Vladimir Churov is Central Election Commission Chairman, he must take part in them. If we talk about regional referendums, it will be a corresponding regional election commission. There is no need to demonise the members of electoral commissions. They are just counters.As for the problems of the electoral system, then, to get back to the beginning on this topic, if these problems arise, it is in the places where people vote, not where the votes are counted, although one of the classics of Marxism-Leninism believed otherwise. Do you remember? It’s not the people who vote that count; it’s the people who count the votes.NTV: Comrade Stalin.DM: That’s right, you remember. In this case, this doesn’t apply to us. Technology has changed.ROSSIYA: Mr President, we are probably getting close the end of our conversation…DM: It has been an hour and 50 minutes.ROSSIYA: Perhaps we could return to our first philosophical question in these remaining minutes.Freedom is better than no freedom: you talked about this four years ago, and you talked about it two days ago, at the final meeting of the State Council.When you answered Marianna’s first question, you spoke about the past four years, and I want to ask you a question with an eye to the future. What do you think that you personally and your Government should do to give every person in Russia more freedom in the near future? Just philosophically speaking.DM: If we started with this issue, let’s also end with it. It is my sincere conviction that freedom is better than no freedom. I believe that all of you present here share this conviction. It is absolutely true no matter how much some may accuse us that it’s just philosophy and empty words. We are all used to living in a free country, even if we do not fully realise it or if we are very critical about the events taking place around us.  To live in a free country is happiness. I say this with all responsibility, as a man who lived in very different conditions for more than 20 years.Second. What should we do? We must fulfil all our promises or try to fulfil them. In the social sphere, unfortunately, we have a lot of poverty. Yes, we have increased average wage, many categories of people have greatly increased their incomes, but, unfortunately, the poverty rate remains significant and we must reduce it as much as we can. This is a vitally important task.It is the same with unemployment. We have a reasonable figure for unemployment when compared with other European countries but we can make it even smaller, less than 5%. This concerns a vast number of people.In the economy we must finally fulfil our promises, which we haven’t been able to do so far: to significantly improve the investment climate and create a system of property rights protection. We are moving in this direction. I am not a supporter of dramatic statements but the current state of affairs is considerably better than it was. I worked in business for 10 years, so I know the situation. There’s no need to idealise the 1990s: everything was extremely difficult then. But our progress has been slow, and I am not happy about it, as I have repeatedly said. We must continue working on it.In the political sphere, everything is clear: it is necessary to implement the political reform that has already been adopted. If we implement it, we will make a huge leap in political development: we get a new quality of Russian democracy.And, perhaps, my last point. I am ready to work on it and I will work on it if that is my destiny. But I cannot succeed alone; it should be a joint effort of our entire nation, and only then will we achieve success.ROSSIYA: Thank you.DM: You’re welcome.REN-TV: Mr President, thank you very much for answering our questions. I am sure that we were all happy to catch you at your word that you will have no objections to coming here for a live interview to all of us together or to each separately. So please come and join us on the air. Thank you.DM: Thank you.I think that in this sense we all need to change our behaviour model a little. Of course, top leaders are top leaders but they must appear on the air, both on the major networks and the smaller TV channels. It’s just refreshing and shows our life as it is, and most importantly, it stops us from losing touch from reality.REN-TV: Thank you and the best of luck to you.DM: Thank you.

In my articles I have already mentioned the key challenges that Russia is facing internationally today. Yet this subject deserves a more detailed discussion and not only because foreign policy is an integral part of any national strategy. External challenges and the changing world around us affect our economic, cultural, fiscal and investment policies.Russia is a part of the big world, economically, culturally and in terms of information flow. We cannot be isolated, and we do not want to be isolated. We expect our openness will bring the people of Russia more prosperity and culture and will promote trust, an item that has been in short supply lately.At the same time, everything we do will be based on our own interests and goals, not on decisions other countries impose on us. Russia is only treated with respect when it is strong and stands firm on its own two feet. Russia has practically always had the privilege of pursuing an independent foreign policy and this is how it will be in the future. Furthermore, I strongly believe that the only way to ensure global security is by doing it together with Russia, not by trying to “demote” it, weaken it geopolitically or undermine its defensive potential.The goals of our foreign policy are strategic rather than short-term. They reflect Russia’s unique role in international affairs, in history and in the development of civilization.We will certainly continue our active and constructive efforts to strengthen global security, to avoid confrontation and effectively neutralize such challenges as nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and crises, terrorism and drugs. We will do all we can to help Russia obtain the latest technological advances and help our businesses achieve a decent position on the global market.We will also seek to avoid unnecessary shocks as a new world order emerges based on the new geopolitical reality.Who undermines trust?As before, I think that indivisible security for all nations, unacceptability of the disproportionate use of force, and unconditional compliance with the fundamental principles of international law are indispensable postulates. Any neglect of these norms destabilizes the world situation.It is in this light that we view certain aspects of US and NATO activities that do not follow the logic of modern development and are based on the stereotypes of bloc mentality. Everybody knows what I am alluding to. It is NATO expansion, including the deployment of new military infrastructure and the bloc’s (US-sponsored) plans to set up a missile defense system in Europe. I could have ignored the subject had not they been playing their games in the immediate proximity of Russia’s borders, undermining our security and upsetting global stability.We have presented our arguments more than once, and I will not repeat them in detail here. But unfortunately our Western partners ignore and dismiss them.We are concerned because, even though it is not yet clear how our “new” relationship with NATO will work, they are creating facts on the ground. This definitely does not promote trust. Furthermore, this kind of conduct has a negative effect on global issues, as it prevents us from developing a positive agenda in international relations and stalls the process of readjusting them in a constructive vein.A string of armed conflicts under the pretext of humanitarian concerns has undermined the principle of national sovereignty, which has been observed for centuries. A new type of vacuum, the lack of morality and law, is emerging in international affairs.We often hear that human rights are more important than national sovereignty. This is definitely true, and crimes against humanity should be punished by an international court. But if this principle is used as an excuse for a presumptuous violation of national sovereignty, and if human rights are protected by foreign forces and selectively, and if, while “protecting” those rights, they violate the rights of many other people, including the most fundamental and sacred right, the right to life, this is no longer a noble effort. This is merely demagoguery.It is important for the UN and its Security Council to be able to offer effective resistance to the dictate of a few countries and to lawlessness in international affairs. Nobody has the right to hijack the prerogatives and powers of the UN, especially as regards the use of force with vis-à-vis sovereign nations. I am referring primarily to NATO, which seeks to assume a new role that goes beyond its status of a defensive alliance. All these matters are extremely serious. We remember how the nations that fell victim to “humanitarian” operations and the export of “airstrike democracy” appealed in vain to international law and even simple decency. Nobody listened, and nobody wanted to listen.It seems that NATO countries, and especially the United States, have developed a peculiar understanding of security which is fundamentally different from our view. The Americans are obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability for themselves, which, incidentally, is a utopia, for both technological and geopolitical reasons. But that is exactly where the root of the problem lies.Absolute invulnerability for one nation would mean absolute vulnerability for everybody else. We cannot agree to this. Of course, many nations prefer not to raise this question openly for a variety of reasons. But Russia will always call a spade a spade and speak openly about such matters. I would like to stress once again that violation of the principle of common and indivisible security (accompanied by repeated assurances that they are still committed to it) may have extremely serious consequences. Sooner or later, those consequences will also affect the nations that initiate such violations, whatever their reasons are.The Arab Spring: lessons and conclusionsA year ago the world witnessed a new phenomenon – nearly simultaneous demonstrations against authoritarian regimes in many Arab countries. The Arab Spring was initially received with hope for positive change. People in Russia sympathized with those who were seeking democratic reform.However, it soon became clear that events in many countries were not following a civilized scenario. Instead of asserting democracy and protecting the rights of the minority, attempts were being made to depose an enemy and to stage a coup, which only resulted in the replacement of one dominant force with another even more aggressive dominant force.Foreign interference in support of one side of a domestic conflict and the use of power in this interference gave developments a negative aura. A number of countries did away with the Libyan regime by using air power in the name of humanitarian support. The revolting slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi – not just medieval but primeval – was the manifestation of these actions.No one should be allowed to employ the Libyan scenario in Syria. The international community must work to achieve an internal Syrian reconciliation. It is important to achieve an early end to the violence no matter what the source, and to initiate a national dialogue – without preconditions or foreign interference and with due respect for the country's sovereignty. This would create the conditions necessary to introduce the measures for democratization announced by the Syrian leadership. The key objective is to prevent an all-out civil war. Russian diplomacy has worked and will continue to work toward this end.Sadder but wiser, we oppose the adoption of UN Security Council resolutions that may be interpreted as a signal to armed interference in Syria's domestic development. Guided by this consistent approach in early February, Russia and China prevented the adoption of an ambiguous resolution that would have encouraged one side of this domestic conflict to resort to violence.In this context and considering the extremely negative, almost hysterical reaction to the Russian-Chinese veto, I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to this simple, previously used tactic: if the UN Security Council approves of a given action, fine; if not, we will establish a coalition of the states concerned and strike anyway.The logic of such conduct is counterproductive and very dangerous. No good can come of it. In any case, it will not help reach a settlement in a country that is going through a domestic conflict. Even worse, it further undermines the entire system of international security as well as the authority and key role of the UN. Let me recall that the right to veto is not some whim but an inalienable part of the world's agreement that is registered in the UN Charter – incidentally, on US insistence. The implication of this right is that decisions that raise the objection of even one permanent member of the UN Security Council cannot be well-grounded or effective.I hope very much that the United States and other countries will consider this sad experience and will not pursue the use of power in Syria without UN Security Council sanctions. In general, I cannot understand what causes this itch for military intervention. Why isn't there the patience to develop a well-considered, balanced and cooperative approach, all the more so since this approach was already taking shape in the form of the aforementioned Syrian resolution? It only lacked the demand that the armed opposition do the same as the government; in particular, withdraw military units and detachments from cities. The refusal to do so is cynical. If we want to protect civilians – and this is the main goal for Russia – we must make all the participants in the armed confrontation see reason.And one more point. It appears that with the Arab Spring countries, as with Iraq, Russian companies are losing their decades-long positions in local commercial markets and are being deprived of large commercial contracts. The niches thus vacated are being filled by the economic operatives of the states that had a hand in the change of the ruling regime.One could reasonably conclude that tragic events have been encouraged to a certain extent by someone's interest in a re-division of the commercial market rather than a concern for human rights. Be that as it may, we cannot sit back watch all this with Olympian serenity. We intend to work with the new governments of the Arab countries in order to promptly restore our economic positions.Generally, the current developments in the Arab world are, in many ways, instructive. They show that a striving to introduce democracy by use of power can produce – and often does produce – contradictory results. They can produce forces that rise from the bottom, including religious extremists, who will strive to change the very direction of a country's development and the secular nature of a government.Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. We are ready to develop these contacts further under the current conditions. We are interested in stepping up our political and trade and economic ties with all Arab countries, including those that, let me repeat, have gone through domestic upheaval. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends.As for the Arab-Israeli conflict, to this day the "magic recipe" that will produce a final settlement has not been invented. It would be unacceptable to give up on this issue. Considering our close ties with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders, Russian diplomacy will continue to work for the resumption of the peace process both on a bilateral basis and within the format of the Quartet on the Middle East, while coordinating its steps with the Arab League.The Arab Spring has graphically demonstrated that world public opinion is being shaped by the most active use of advanced information and communications technology. It is possible to say that the Internet, social networks, cell phones etc. have turned into an effective tool for the promotion of domestic and international policy on a par with television. This new variable has come into play and gives us food for thought – how to continue developing the unique freedoms of communication via the Internet and at the same time reduce the risk of its being used by terrorists and other criminal elements.The notion of "soft power" is being used increasingly often. This implies a matrix of tools and methods to reach foreign policy goals without the use of arms but by exerting information and other levers of influence. Regrettably, these methods are being used all too frequently to develop and provoke extremist, separatist and nationalistic attitudes, to manipulate the public and to conduct direct interference in the domestic policy of sovereign countries.There must be a clear division between freedom of speech and normal political activity, on the one hand, and illegal instruments of "soft power," on the other. The civilized work of non-governmental humanitarian and charity organizations deserves every support. This also applies to those who actively criticize the current authorities. However, the activities of "pseudo-NGOs" and other agencies that try to destabilize other countries with outside support are unacceptable.I'm referring to those cases where the activities of NGOs are not based on the interests (and resources) of local social groups but are funded and supported by outside forces. There are many agents of influence from big countries, international blocs or corporations. When they act in the open, this is simply a form of civilized lobbyism. Russia also uses such institutions like the Federal Agency for CIS Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, International Humanitarian Cooperation, the Russkiy Mir Foundation and our leading universities who recruit talented students from abroad.However, Russia does not use or fund national NGOs based in other countries or any foreign political organizations in the pursuit of its own interests. China, India and Brazil do not do this either. We believe that any influence on domestic policy and public attitude in other countries must be exerted in the open; in this way, those who wish to be of influence will do so responsibly.New challenges and threatsToday, Iran is the focus of international attention. Needless to say, Russia is worried about the growing threat of a military strike against Iran. If this happens, the consequences will be disastrous. It is impossible to imagine the true scope of this turn of events.I am convinced that this issue must be settled exclusively by peaceful means. We propose recognizing Iran's right to develop a civilian nuclear program, including the right to enrich uranium. But this must be done in exchange for putting all Iranian nuclear activity under reliable and comprehensive IAEA safeguards. If this is done, the sanctions against Iran, including the unilateral ones, must be rescinded. The West has shown too much willingness to "punish" certain countries. At any minor development it reaches for sanctions if not armed force. Let me remind you that we are not in the 19th century or even the 20th century now.Developments around the Korean nuclear issue are no less serious. Violating the non-proliferation regime, Pyongyang openly claims the right to develop "the military atom" and has already conducted two nuclear tests. We cannot accept North Korea's nuclear status. We have consistently advocated the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula – exclusively through political and diplomatic means – and the early resumption of Six-Party Talks.However, it is evident that not all of our partners share this approach. I am convinced that today it is essential to be particularly careful. It would be inadvisable to try and test the strength of the new North Korean leader and provoke a rash countermeasure.Allow me to recall that North Korea and Russia share a common border and we cannot choose our neighbors. We will continue to conduct an active dialogue with the leaders of North Korea and to develop good-neighborly relations with it, while at the same time trying to encourage Pyongyang to settle the nuclear issue. Obviously, it would be easier to do this if mutual trust is built up and the inter-Korean dialogue resumes on the peninsula.All this fervor around the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea makes one wonder how the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation emerge and who is aggravating them. It seems that the more frequent cases of crude and even armed outside interference in the domestic affairs of countries may prompt authoritarian (and other) regimes to possess nuclear weapons. If I have the A-bomb in my pocket, nobody will touch me because it's more trouble than it is worth. And those who don't have the bomb might have to sit and wait for "humanitarian intervention."Whether we like it or not, foreign interference suggests this train of thought. This is why the number of threshold countries that are one step away from "military atom" technology is growing rather than decreasing. Under these conditions, zones free of weapons of mass destruction are being established in different parts of the world and are becoming increasingly important. Russia has initiated the discussion of the parameters for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.It is essential to do everything we can to prevent any country from being tempted to obtain nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation campaigners must also change their conduct, especially those that are used to penalizing other countries by force without letting the diplomats do their job. This was the case in Iraq and its problems have only become worse after an almost decade-long occupation.If the incentives for becoming a nuclear power are finally eradicated, it will be possible to make the international non-proliferation regime universal and firmly based on existing treaties. This regime would allow all interested countries to fully enjoy the benefits of the "peaceful atom" under IAEA safeguards.Russia would stand to gain much from this because we are actively operating in international markets, building new nuclear power plants based on safe, modern technology and taking part in the formation of multilateral nuclear enrichment centers and nuclear fuel banks.The probable future of Afghanistan is alarming. We have supported the military operation on rendering international aid to that country. However, the NATO-led international military contingent has not met its objectives. The threats of terrorism and drug trafficking have not been reduced. Having announced its withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, the United States has been building, both there and in neighboring countries, military bases without a clear-cut mandate, objectives or duration of operation. Understandably, this does not suit us.Russia has obvious interests in Afghanistan and these interests are understandable. Afghanistan is our close neighbor and we have a stake in its stable and peaceful development. Most importantly, we want it to stop being the main source of the drug threat. Illegal drug trafficking has become one of the most urgent threats. It undermines the genetic bank of entire nations, while creating fertile soil for corruption and crime and is leading to the destabilization of Afghanistan. Far from declining, the production of Afghan drugs increased by almost 40% last year. Russia is being subjected to vicious heroin-related aggression, which is doing tremendous damage to the health of our people.The dimensions of the Afghan drug threat make it clear that it can only be overcome by a global effort with reliance on the United Nations and regional organizations – the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the CIS. We are willing to consider much greater participation in the relief operation for the Afghan people but only on the condition that the international contingent in Afghanistan acts with greater zeal and in our interests and that it will pursue the physical destruction of drug crops and underground laboratories.Invigorated anti-drug measures inside Afghanistan must be accompanied by the reliable blocking of the routes of opiate transportation to external markets, financial flows and the supply of chemical substances used in heroin production. The goal is to build a comprehensive system of anti-drug security in the region. Russia will contribute to the effective cooperation of the international community for turning the tide in the war against the global drug threat.It is hard to predict further developments in Afghanistan. Historical experience shows that foreign military presence has not brought it peace. Only the Afghans can resolve their own problems. I see Russia's role as follows – to help the Afghan people, with the active involvement of other neighboring countries, to develop a sustainable economy and enhance the ability of the national armed forces to counter the threats of terrorism and drug-related crime. We do not object to the process of national reconciliation being joined by participants of the armed opposition, including the Taliban, on condition they renounce violence, recognize the country's constitution and sever ties with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. In principle, I believe it is possible to build a peaceful, stable, independent and neutral Afghan state.The instability that has persisted for years and decades is creating a breeding ground for international terrorism that is universally recognized as one of the most dangerous challenges to the world community. I'd like to note that the crisis zones that engender a terrorist threat are located near Russian borders and are much close to us than to our European or American partners. The United Nations has adopted the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy but it seems that the struggle against this evil is conducted not under a common universal plan and not consistently but in a series of responses to the most urgent and barbarian manifestations of terror – when the public uproar over the impudent acts of terrorists grows out of proportion. The civilized world must not wait for tragedies like the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001 or another Beslan disaster and only then act collectively and resolutely after the shock of such cases.I'm far from denying the results achieved in the war on international terror. There has been progress. In the last few years security services and the law-enforcement agencies of many countries have markedly upgraded their cooperation. But there is still the obvious potential for further anti-terrorist cooperation. Thus, double standards still exist and terrorists are perceived differently in different countries – some are "bad guys" and others are "not so bad." Some forces are not averse to using the latter in political manipulation, for example, in shaking up objectionable ruling regimes.All available public institutions – the media, religious associations, NGOs, the education system, science and business – must be used to prevent terrorism all over the world. We need a dialogue between religions and, on a broader plane, among civilizations. Russia has many religions, but we have never had religious wars. We could make a contribution to an international discussion on this issue.The growing role of the Asia-Pacific RegionOne of our country's neighbors is China, a major hub of the global economy. It has become fashionable to opine about that country's future role in the global economy and international affairs. Last year China moved into second place in the world in terms of GDP and it is poised to surpass the US on that count, according to international – including American – experts. The overall might of the People's Republic of China is growing and that includes the ability to project power in various regions.How should we conduct ourselves in the face of the rapidly strengthening Chinese factor?First of all, I am convinced that China's economic growth is by no means a threat, but a challenge that carries colossal potential for business cooperation – a chance to catch the Chinese wind in the sails of our economy. We should seek to more actively form new cooperative ties, combining the technological and productive capabilities of our two countries and tapping China's potential – judiciously, of course – in order to develop the economy of Siberia and the Russian Far East.Second, China's conduct on the world stage gives no grounds to talk about its aspirations to dominance. The Chinese voice in the world is indeed growing ever more confident, and we welcome that, because Beijing shares our vision of the emerging equitable world order. We will continue to support each other in the international arena, to work together to solve acute regional and global problems, and to promote cooperation within the UN Security Council, BRICS, the SCO, the G20 and other multilateral forums.And third, we have settled all the major political issues in our relations with China, including the critical border issue. Our nations have created a solid mechanism of bilateral ties, reinforced by legally binding documents. There is an unprecedentedly high level of trust between the leaders of our two countries. This enables us and the Chinese to act in the spirit of genuine partnership, rooted in pragmatism and respect for each other's interests. The model of Russian-Chinese relations we have created has good prospects.Of course, this is not to suggest that our relationship with China is problem-free. There are some sources of friction. Our commercial interests in third parties by no means always coincide, and we are not entirely satisfied with the emerging trade structure and the low level of mutual investments. We will also closely monitor immigration from the People's Republic of China.But my main premise is that Russia needs a prosperous and stable China, and I am convinced that China needs a strong and successful Russia.Another rapidly growing Asian giant is India. Russia has traditionally enjoyed friendly relations with India, which the leaders of our two countries have classified as a privileged strategic partnership. Not only our countries but the entire multipolar system that is emerging in the world stands to gain from this partnership.We see before our eyes not only the rise of China and India, but the growing weight of the entire Asia-Pacific Region. This has opened up new horizons for fruitful work within the framework of the Russian chairmanship of APEC. In September of this year we will host a meeting of its leaders in Vladivostok. We are actively preparing for it, creating modern infrastructure that will promote the further development of Siberia and the Russian Far East and enable our country to become more involved in the dynamic integration processes in the "new Asia."We will continue to prioritize our cooperation with our BRICS partners. This unique structure, created in 2006, is a striking symbol of the transition from a unipolar world to a more just world order. BRICS brings together five countries with a population of almost three billion people, the largest emerging economies, colossal labor and natural resources and huge domestic markets. With the addition of South Africa, BRICS acquired a truly global format, and it now accounts for more than 25% of world GDP.We are still getting used to working together in this format. In particular, we have to coordinate better on foreign policy matters and work together more closely at the UN. But when BRICS is really up and running, its impact on the world economy and politics will be considerable.In recent years, cooperation with the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa has become a growing focus of Russian diplomacy and of our business community. In these regions there is still sincere goodwill towards Russia. One of the key tasks for the coming period, in my view, is cultivating trade and economic cooperation as well as joint projects in the fields of energy, infrastructure, investment, science and technology, banking and tourism.The growing role of Asia, Latin America and Africa in the emerging democratic system of managing the global economy and global finance is reflected in the work of the G20. I believe that this association will soon become a strategically important tool not only for responding to crises, but for the long-term reform of the world's financial and economic architecture. Russia will chair the G20 in 2013, and we must use this opportunity to better coordinate the work of the G20 and other multilateral structures, above all the G8 and, of course, the UN.The Europe factorRussia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe.That is why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as "the Union of Europe," which will strengthen Russia's potential and position in its economic pivot toward the "new Asia."Against the background of the rise of China, India and other new economies, the financial and economic upheavals in Europe – formerly an oasis of stability and order – is particularly worrying. The crisis that has struck the eurozone cannot but affect Russia's interests, especially if one considers that the EU is our major foreign economic and trade partner. Likewise, it is clear that the prospects of the entire global economic structure depend heavily on the state of affairs in Europe.Russia is actively participating in the international effort to support the ailing European economies, and is consistently working with its partners to formulate collective decisions under the auspices of the IMF. Russia is not opposed in principle to direct financial assistance in some cases.At the same time I believe that external financial injections can only partially solve the problem. A true solution will require energetic, system-wide measures. European leaders face the task of effecting large-scale transformations that will fundamentally change many financial and economic mechanisms to ensure genuine budget discipline. We have a stake in ensuring a strong EU, as envisioned by Germany and France. It is in our interests to realize the enormous potential of the Russia-EU partnership.The current level of cooperation between Russia and the European Union does not correspond to current global challenges, above all making our shared continent more competitive. I propose again that we work toward creating a harmonious community of economies from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which will in the future evolve into a free trade zone and even more advanced forms of economic integration. The resulting common continental market would be worth trillions of euros. Does anyone doubt that this would be a wonderful development and that it would meet the interests of both Russians and Europeans?We must also consider more extensive cooperation in the energy sphere, up to and including the formation of a common European energy complex. The Nord Stream gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea and the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea are important steps in that direction. These projects have the support of many governments and involve major European energy companies. Once the pipelines start operating at full capacity, Europe will have a reliable and flexible gas-supply system that does not depend on the political whims of any nation. This will strengthen the continent's energy security not only in form but in substance. This is particularly relevant in the light of the decision of some European states to reduce or renounce nuclear energy.The Third Energy Package, backed by the European Commission and aimed at squeezing out integrated Russian companies, is frankly not conducive to stronger relations between Russia and the EU. Considering the growing instability of energy suppliers that could act as an alternative to Russia, the package aggravates the systemic risks to the European energy sector and scares away potential investors in new infrastructure projects. Many European politicians have been critical of the package in their talks with me. We should summon the courage to remove this obstacle to mutually beneficial cooperation.I believe that genuine partnership between Russia and the European Union is impossible as long as there are barriers that impede human and economic contacts, first and foremost visa requirements. The abolition of visas would give powerful impetus to real integration between Russia and the EU, and would help expand cultural and business ties, especially between medium-sized and small businesses. The threat to Europeans from Russian economic migrants is largely imagined. Our people have opportunities to put their abilities and skills to use in their own country, and these opportunities are becoming ever more numerous.In December 2011 we agreed with the EU on "joint steps" toward a visa-free regime. They can and should be taken without delay. We should continue to actively pursue this goal.Russian-American affairsIn recent years a good deal has been done to develop Russian-American relations. Even so, we have not managed to fundamentally change the matrix of our relations, which continue to ebb and flow. The instability of the partnership with America is due in part to the tenacity of some well-known stereotypes and phobias, particularly the perception of Russia on Capitol Hill. But the main problem is that bilateral political dialogue and cooperation do not rest on a solid economic foundation. The current level of bilateral trade falls far short of the potential of our economies. The same is true of mutual investments. We have yet to create a safety net that would protect our relations against ups and downs. We should work on this.Nor is mutual understanding strengthened by regular US attempts to engage in "political engineering," including in regions that are traditionally important to us and during Russian elections.As I've said before, US plans to create a missile defense system in Europe give rise to legitimate fears in Russia. Why does that system worry us more than others? Because it affects the strategic nuclear deterrence forces that only Russia possesses in that theatre, and upsets the military-political balance established over decades.The inseparable link between missile defense and strategic offensive weapons is reflected in the New START treaty signed in 2010. The treaty has come into effect and is working fairly well. It is a major foreign policy achievement. We are ready to consider various options for our joint agenda with the Americans in the field of arms control in the coming period. In this effort we must seek to balance our interests and renounce any attempts to gain one-sided advantages through negotiations.In 2007, during a meeting with President Bush in Kennebunkport, I proposed a solution to the missile defense problem, which, if adopted, would have changed the customary character of Russian-American relations and opened up a positive path forward. Moreover, if we had managed to achieve a breakthrough on missile defense, this would have opened the floodgates for building a qualitatively new model of cooperation, similar to an alliance, in many other sensitive areas.It was not to be. Perhaps it would be useful to look back at the transcripts of the talks in Kennebunkport. In recent years the Russian leadership has come forward with other proposals to resolve the dispute over missile defense. These proposals still stand.I am loath to dismiss the possibility of reaching a compromise on missile defense. One would not like to see the deployment of the American system on a scale that would demand the implementation of our declared countermeasures.I recently had a talk with Henry Kissinger. I meet with him regularly. I fully share this consummate professional's thesis that close and trusting interactions between Moscow and Washington are particularly important in periods of international turbulence.In general, we are prepared to make great strides in our relations with the US to achieve a qualitative breakthrough, but on the condition that the Americans are guided by the principles of equal and mutually respectful partnership.Economic diplomacyIn December of last year, Russia finally concluded its marathon accession to the WTO, which had lasted for many years. I must mention that, in the finishing stretch, the Obama administration and the leaders of some major European states made a significant contribution to achieving the final accords.To be honest, at times during this long and arduous journey we wanted to turn our backs on the talks and slam the door. But we did not succumb to emotion. As a result, a compromise was reached that is quite acceptable for our country: we managed to defend the interests of Russian industrial and agricultural producers in the face of growing external competition. Our economic actors have gained substantial additional opportunities to enter world markets and uphold their rights there in a civilized manner. It is this, rather than the symbolism of Russia's accession to the World Trade "club", that I see as the main result of this process.Russia will comply with WTO norms, as it meets all of its international obligations. Likewise, I hope that our partners will play according to the rules. Let me note in passing that we have already integrated WTO principles into the legal framework of the Common Economic Space of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.Russia is still learning how to systematically and consistently promote its economic interests in the world. We have yet to learn, as many Western partners have, how to lobby for decisions that favor Russian business in foreign international forums. The challenges facing us in this area, given our priority of innovation-driven development, are very serious: to achieve equal standing for Russia in the modern system of global economic ties and to minimize the risks arising from integration in the world economy, including Russia's membership in the WTO and its forthcoming accession to the OECD.We are badly in need of broader, non-discriminatory access to foreign markets. So far, Russian economic actors have been getting a raw deal abroad. Restrictive trade and political measures are being taken against them, and technical barriers are being erected that put them at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.The same holds for investments. We are trying to attract foreign capital to the Russian economy. We are opening up the most attractive areas of our economy to foreign investors, granting them access to the "juiciest morsels," in particular, our fuel and energy complex. But our investors are not welcome abroad and are often pointedly brushed aside.Examples abound. Take the story of Germany's Opel, which Russian investors tried and failed to acquire despite the fact that the deal was approved by the German government and was positively received by German trade unions. Or take the outrageous examples of Russian businesses being denied their rights as investors after investing considerable resources in foreign assets. This is a frequent occurrence in Central and Eastern Europe.All this leads to the conclusions that Russia must strengthen its political and diplomatic support for Russian entrepreneurs in foreign markets, and to provide more robust assistance to major landmark business projects. Nor should we forget that Russia can employ identical response measures against those who resort to dishonest methods of competition.The government and business associations should better coordinate their efforts in the foreign economic sphere, more aggressively promote the interests of Russian business and help it to open up new markets.I would like to draw attention to another important factor that largely shapes the role and place of Russia in present-day and future political and economic alignments – the vast size of our country. Granted, we no longer occupy one-sixth of the Earth's surface, but the Russian Federation is still the world's largest nation with an unrivaled abundance of natural resources. I am referring not only to oil and gas, but also our forests, agricultural land and clean freshwater resources.Russia's territory is a source of its potential strength. In the past, our vast land mainly served as a buffer against foreign aggression. Now, given a sound economic strategy, they can become a very important foundation for increasing our competitiveness.I would like to mention, in particular, the growing shortage of fresh water in the world. One can foresee in the near future the start of geopolitical competition for water resources and for the ability to produce water-intensive goods. When this time comes, Russia will have its trump card ready. We understand that we must use our natural wealth prudently and strategically.Support for compatriots and Russian culture in the international contextRespect for one's country is rooted, among other things, in its ability to protect the rights of its citizens abroad. We must never neglect the interests of the millions of Russian nationals who live and travel abroad on vacation or on business. I would like to stress that the Foreign Ministry and all diplomatic and consular agencies must be prepared to provide real support to our citizens around the clock. Diplomats must respond to conflicts between Russian nationals and local authorities, and to incidents and accidents in a prompt manner – before the media announces the news to the world.We are determined to ensure that Latvian and Estonian authorities follow the numerous recommendations of reputable international organizations on observing generally accepted rights of ethnic minorities. We cannot tolerate the shameful status of "non-citizen." How can we accept that, due to their status as non-citizens, one in six Latvian residents and one in thirteen Estonian residents are denied their fundamental political, electoral and socio-economic rights and the ability to freely use Russian?The recent referendum in Latvia on the status of the Russian language again demonstrated to the international community how acute this problem is. Over 300,000 non-citizens were once again barred from taking part in a referendum. Even more outrageous is the fact that the Latvian Central Electoral Commission refused to allow a delegation from the Russian Public Chamber to monitor the vote. Meanwhile, international organizations responsible for compliance with generally accepted democratic norms remain silent.On the whole, we are dissatisfied with how the issue of human rights is handled globally. First, the United States and other Western states dominate and politicize the human rights agenda, using it as a means to exert pressure. At the same time, they are very sensitive and even intolerant to criticism. Second, the objects of human rights monitoring are chosen regardless of objective criteria but at the discretion of the states that have "privatized" the human rights agenda.Russia has been the target of biased and aggressive criticism that, at times, exceeds all limits. When we are given constructive criticism, we welcome it and are ready to learn from it. But when we are subjected, again and again, to blanket criticisms in a persistent effort to influence our citizens, their attitudes, and our domestic affairs, it becomes clear that these attacks are not rooted in moral and democratic values.Nobody should possess complete control over the sphere of human rights. Russia is a young democracy. More often than not, we are too humble and too willing to spare the self-regard of our more experienced partners. Still, we often have something to say, and no country has a perfect record on human rights and basic freedoms. Even the older democracies commit serious violations, and we should not look the other way. Obviously, this work should not be about trading insults. All sides stand to gain from a constructive discussion of human rights issues.In late 2011, the Russian Foreign Ministry published its first report on the observance of human rights in other countries. I believe we should become more active in this area. This will facilitate broader and more equitable cooperation in the effort to solve humanitarian problems and promote fundamental democratic principles and human rights.Of course, this is just one aspect of our efforts to promote our international and diplomatic activity and to foster an accurate image of Russia abroad. Admittedly, we have not seen great success here. When it comes to media influence, we are often outperformed. This is a separate and complex challenge that we must confront.Russia has a great cultural heritage, recognized both in the West and the East. But we have yet to make a serious investment in our culture and its promotion around the world. The surge in global interest in ideas and culture, sparked by the merger of societies and economies in the global information network, provides new opportunities for Russia, with its proven talent for creating cultural objects.Russia has a chance not only to preserve its culture but to use it as a powerful force for progress in international markets. The Russian language is spoken in nearly all the former Soviet republics and in a significant part of Eastern Europe. This is not about empire, but rather cultural progress. Exporting education and culture will help promote Russian goods, services and ideas; guns and imposing political regimes will not.We must work to expand Russia's educational and cultural presence in the world, especially in those countries where a substantial part of the population speaks or understands Russian.We must discuss how we can derive the maximum benefit for Russia's image from hosting large international events, including the APEC Leaders' Meeting in 2012, the G20 summit in 2013 and the G8 summit in 2014, the Universiade in Kazan in 2013, the Winter Olympic Games in 2014, the IIHF World Championships in 2016, and the FIFA World Cup in 2018.*****Russia intends to continue promoting its security and protecting its national interest by actively and constructively engaging in global politics and in efforts to solve global and regional problems. We are ready for mutually beneficial cooperation and open dialogue with all our foreign partners. We aim to understand and take into account the interests of our partners, and we ask that our own interests be respected.

The world is changing. The processes of global transformation currently underway may carry all sorts of risks with them, many of them unpredictable. In a situation of global economic and other kinds of hardships, it may be very tempting for some to resolve their problems at others’ expense, through pressure and coercion. It is no wonder that we already hear some voices saying that it is “only natural” that resources of global significance should soon be declared as being above national sovereignty.We must exclude any such possibility, even a hypothetical one, with respect to Russia. This means that we should not tempt anybody with our weakness.This is why we will under no conditions give up our strategic deterrent capability. On the contrary, we will strengthen it. It was this capability alone that enabled us to maintain our national sovereignty during the extremely difficult period of the 1990s, when, let’s face it, we did not have any other weighty material arguments.Obviously, we will not be able to strengthen our international standing, develop our economy and democratic institutions, unless we are able to protect Russia – unless we consider the risks of potential conflicts, secure our self-sufficiency with respect to military technology and prepare a strong and appropriate military response as an extreme measure when responding to a challenge.We have adopted and are implementing unprecedented programs for developing our Armed Forces and modernizing Russia’s defense industry. Overall, we will allocate approximately 23 trillion rubles for these needs over the next decade.To be frank, we had many discussions regarding whether such large-scale allocations were necessary and timely. I strongly believe that we have enough resources and we can afford it. More importantly, we can no longer delay our efforts to create a modern Armed Forces and comprehensively strengthen our defensive potential.This does not mean that we are militarizing Russia’s budget. Essentially, by allocating these funds today, we are compensating for the years when the Army and the Navy were regularly underfunded, when we practically did not purchase any new weapon systems – while other countries were consistently building up their military might.

A smart defense against new threats

We need response mechanisms not only for the dangers that already exist. We need to learn to look ahead, “over the horizon,” and estimate threats for 30-50 years ahead. It is a serious task that requires that we mobilize the resources of civilian and military science and algorithms of reliable long-term forecasting.What kind of weapons will the Russian Army need? What kind of technical requirements will our defense industry have? Essentially, we need to create a fundamentally new, smart system of military analysis and strategic planning that will offer recommendations and expediently implement them through our security agencies.So, what does the future have in store for us?The probability of a global war between nuclear powers is not high, as that would mean an end to civilization. As long as we keep the “powder” of our strategic nuclear forces, produced by the hard labor of our fathers and grandfathers, dry, nobody will dare to launch a large-scale aggression against us.Yet we should take into account that technological progress in various areas, from new models of weapons and military hardware to information and communications technology, has fundamentally changed the nature of armed conflict. For instance, as high-precision long-range weapons with conventional charges become more common, they will become the means of achieving a decisive victory in conflicts, including a global conflict.Space-based systems and IT tools, especially in cyberspace, will play a great, if not decisive role in armed conflicts. In a more remote future, weapon systems that use different physical principles will be created (beam, geophysical, wave, genetic, psychophysical and other types of weapons). All this will provide fundamentally new instruments for achieving political and strategic goals in addition to nuclear weapons. Such weapon systems will be as effective as nuclear weapons but will be more “acceptable” from the political and military point of view. Therefore, the strategic balance of nuclear forces will gradually lose its significance in the matter of deterring aggression and chaos.Today, we see how new regional and local wars break out one after another. We see zones of instability and artificially maintained, managed chaos emerging. Furthermore, we see how some are purposefully provoking such conflicts in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s borders – and those of our allies. We see the fundamental principles of international law being devalued and eroded, especially in the matter of international security.Under such conditions, Russia cannot rely on diplomatic and economic methods alone to remove contradictions and resolve conflicts. Our country faces the task of developing its military potential in keeping with the deterrence strategy and at the level of defensive sufficiency. Our Armed Forces, special services and other security agencies should be prepared to provide quick and effective responses to new challenges. It is a necessary requirement for Russia to feel secure and for our partners to listen carefully to what our country has to say in various international formats.Also, together with our allies, we should strengthen the capabilities of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, including the Collective Rapid Response Forces. The CSTO is ready to fulfill its mission of the guarantor of stability in Eurasia.Securing the dynamic development of the Armed Forces, the nuclear and space industries, the defense industry, military education, fundamental military science and applied research programs will remain a key priority of Russian government policy for year to come.

The Army has preserved Russia

The disintegration of the Soviet Union and the social upheavals of the 1990s affected all government institutions. Our Army went through several trials as well. There was practically no combat training. The units that used to make up the “first strategic echelon” in Eastern Europe were redeployed to unprepared locations. And since there was no money to prepare places for them, to build new military bases, training grounds and houses, it was these elite and most combat-ready units that were sacrificed.Officers would go unpaid for months. To be completely frank, quite often it was a problem even to provide food for the personnel. Tens of thousands of servicemen retired. The number of generals, colonels, lieutenant colonels and majors exceeded the number of captains and lieutenants. Defense factories were standing idle, accumulating debts and losing their most valuable, one-in-a-million specialists.The Armed Forces came under a devastating information attack. Some people simply could not live a single day without insulting and humiliating the Army, offending everything that has to do with things like the Oath, duty, serving the Homeland, patriotism and the glorious military history of our country. I have always considered it a real moral crime and an act of betrayal.We should always remember how our country is indebted to soldiers and officers who, against all odds, preserved the army throughout the extremely difficult period of the 1990s and kept its units combat-ready at crucial times. Whenever necessary, they went into battle. They would lose their comrades and defeat the enemy. This is what happened in the North Caucasus, in Tajikistan and in other hotspots. These people preserved the spirit and the honor of the Army. They preserved Russia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. They protected the security of our citizens. They saved our country from humiliation and being written off.Yet the Army had to pay a great price for mistakes that happened during numerous and inconsistent reforms, which were often limited to mechanical reduction.In 1999, when gangs of international terrorists directly attacked Russia, we found ourselves in a tragic situation. To put together a 66,000-strong task force, we had to scrape it up, literally, piece by piece, with composite battalions and detached companies. Nominally, the personnel of the Armed Forces exceeded 1,360,000. Yet we had practically no combat-ready units that would be prepared to go into action without additional preparations.Yet the Army fulfilled its mission. Our officers, sergeants and soldiers, those to whom the Oath mattered more than their life, health and well-being, fulfilled their duty. Most importantly, policymakers and ordinary people finally realized one simple truth: you must treasure the Armed Forces. You have to strengthen them; otherwise, you will have to “feed somebody else’s army” or even be enslaved by bandits and international terrorists.We started with the most urgent things. We restored the system of basic social guarantees for servicemen. We put an end to shameful delays with salary payment. Year after year, we increased the share of Army and Navy allocations in the budget – and this after a period of time when there was no money even for the most urgent needs!I remember 2002, when the chief of the General Staff suggested (because of material difficulties, of course) shutting down a naval base for our strategic submarines in Kamchatka. That would have left us without sea-based nuclear forces in the Pacific. I decided against it. Since there was no money available in the budget, we had to ask private corporations to help. I would like to thank them today. Surgutneftegaz and TNK without any hesitation offered enough funds to start rebuilding the base. Later, the government was able to provide some funds. Now we have a modern base in Vilyuchinsk, where next-generation submarines of the Borei class will soon go on combat duty.In every strategic area, we have formed special units that are always combat-ready and that are manned with professional troops only. We have created self-sufficient combat groups. It was such a group that carried out the peace enforcement operation with respect to Georgia and protected the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in August 2008.But the experience of past years had demonstrated that the potential of the old military structure that we had inherited from the Soviet Union had been exhausted. What was that structure, essentially? Thousands of depots, arsenals, warehouses, numerous headquarters and undermanned units. In a word, everything needed for a mobilization-type, multi-million strong army of the past century.It was useless to feed manpower and equipment into the old structure; there would simply not be enough financial and human resources. Most importantly, it did not meet even today’s requirements, let alone those of the future. Had we decided not to change anything, and limited ourselves to gradual and partial reforms, we could have sooner or later lost our military potential entirely. We could have lost the Armed Forces as a viable organism.There was only one way out: to build a new Army. We needed a modern, mobile and constantly combat-ready army. It was a very difficult process that affected tens of thousands of people. This inevitably involves mistakes, offenses and discontent. Public reaction was strong, including in the Army community itself. It is not one person or ten people that carry out the reform. We are changing an extremely complex institution that has accumulated lots of defects. All kinds of errors, excessive zeal on the part of certain officials, insufficient information and the lack of feedback channels, formal implementation of instructions – these are all real problems of the current reform. We must identify all these problems and adjust certain decisions, at the same time continuing the general policy of systemic reforms in the Armed Forces.

What has been accomplished

We no longer have undermanned units in the Army. We have more than 100 brigades of general and special types in the Ground Forces. These are full-fledged combat units that are fully manned and have all the necessary equipment. They are expected to be ready to move out one hour after they receive their orders. The standard time for relocation to a potential theater of operations is 24 hours.Formerly, units needed up to five days to get ready for a combat mission. The process of supplying all undermanned units with personnel and equipment to bring them up to “wartime standards” was expected to take almost a year. And this – in a situation where most conflict today last a few hours to a few days!Why did we pick the brigade as our main tactical unit? First of all, based on our experience in Afghanistan and other campaigns, where instead of regiments and divisions, mobile assault groups provided with close air support and other auxiliary units proved to be the most effective unit.The new brigade is smaller than a division, yet its attacking power is greater. It has much more firepower and more support units – artillery, air defense, reconnaissance, communications, etc. A brigade can operate autonomously or as a part of a bigger unit. I agree that their quality may not always be perfect. But soon we should be able to meet the standard completely.The Russian Army is getting rid of secondary, additional functions like economic or maintenance activities. Everything that distracts from combat training has been reduced to a minimum. Considering that we have reduced the term of service for conscripts to 12 months, this is the only way we can turn a rookie into a well-trained soldier. Soldiers and officers should be occupied with their immediate task, i.e., intense combat training and learning. This will also increase discipline and order in the Army and improve the reputation of the conscription service.A serious reform of military education is underway. We are establishing ten major research and educational centers. All these institutions are part of a clear top-down system, and depending on their progress officers have an opportunity to receive advanced training. This approach is based both on our own traditions and international practice.Without seriously developing our military research, we would be unable to have an effective military and military-technical doctrine. The General Staff would be unable to work effectively. We must recover the lost competencies of military institutions, integrating them with the developing system of military education, just like in the civilian sector of the economy. Military science should play a defining role in formulating tasks for the defense industry. Competent procurement agencies, the services of the Defense Ministry that are in charge of the defense order, should effectively formulate technical requirements for designers and manufacturers and supply them with desired characteristics of future weapons and military hardware.Of course, normal development of military research would be impossible without partnership with civilian science, without using the potential of our leading universities and research centers. Scientists should have enough information about the current condition and future prospects of the Army and its weapons systems to advance their promising research projects, considering the possibility of applying them in the defense industry.I would like to point out that administrative bodies in the Armed Forces have been slashed by fifty percent. We have established four big military districts: West, South, Center and East. They are in charge of the appropriate Air Force, air defense and Navy units. Essentially, these are operational-strategic commands. On Dec. 1, 2011, a new branch of the Armed Forces, the Aerospace Defense Forces, went on combat duty.The Air Force has created seven major bases with solid infrastructure. The airfield network is being upgraded. We have repaired 28 airfield over the past four years – for the first time in twenty years. This year, we plan to repair another twelve military airfields.We have seriously boosted the capabilities of our early warning system. New radars in St. Petersburg, Kaliningrad and Armavir are on combat duty now, and another one is being tested in Irkutsk. All aerospace defense brigades are equipped with the modern Universal-1S computer system. The entire fleet of Glonass satellites has been deployed in outer space.We have secured the reliability and sufficiency of our land-, sea- and air-based components of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces. The share of modern land-based missile systems has grown from 13% to 25% over the last four years. Another 10 missile regiments will soon be equipped with Topol-M and Yars strategic systems. The Long-Range Aviation Command has retained its fleet of Tu-160 and Tu-95ms strategic bombers. They are currently being upgraded. We have commissioned a new long-range air-to-surface cruise missile for our strategic bombers. Since 2007, we have resumed regular missions by our strategic bombers in combat patrol areas. We have started developing a promising aviation system for the Long-Range Aviation Command.Strategic submarines of the new Borei class will soon go on combat duty. Two submarines of this class, the Yury Dolgoruky and the Aleksandr Nevsky, are already going through sea trials.Our Navy has resumed its presence in the strategic areas of the World Ocean, including the Mediterranean Sea. This demonstration of the “Russian flag” will be regular now.

Goals for the decade

We have embarked on a large-scale and comprehensive re-equipment of the Army, Navy and other military services ensuring our national security. The list of priorities includes nuclear forces, aerospace defense, systems of communication, intelligence, control and radio warfare, unmanned aerial vehicles and combat units, state-of-the-art transport aviation, personal protective gear, high-precision weapons and means of countering them.Training programs for command units and troops should be streamlined to enhance their quality, make them more intensive and extensive. We need to focus on building effective multi-service units and boosting combat readiness. Our specialists will have to lay out a future vision for the development of services and branches and define their goals and objectives in key guidelines. There is little doubt, though, that the role of the nuclear deterrent forces will remain unchanged. At least, until we design and adopt next-generation weapons and combat units, including high-precision weapons, whose capabilities, as I mentioned earlier, are close to those of nuclear deterrent forces. The next decade is also bound to see the growing role of the Navy, the Air Force and Aerospace Missile Defense. We are forced to take decisive steps to bolster our national aerospace defense system to counter the U.S. and NATO efforts in the deployment of missile defense. To secure the existing global balance of forces, we need either to design a domestic missile defense system, which will be a costly and yet ineffective one, or to protect our retaliatory potential by developing a capability to overcome any missile defense. This is the exactly the task of the Strategic Nuclear Forces and aerospace defense units. One cannot be ‘too patriotic’ about this issue. Russia’s military response to the global U.S. missile shield, including its European part, will be effective and asymmetrical, a match for U.S. missile defense policy.Our goal is the revival of a Navy capable of service in the Arctic Ocean and in the Pacific. The leading military powers have intensified their activities in the Arctic, which forces Russia to secure its interests in the region.In the upcoming decade, Russia will deploy more than 400 advanced ground and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, eight nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, some 20 multi-purpose submarines, more than 50 combat ships, some 100 military spacecraft, more than 600 advanced aircraft including fifth-generation fighters, more than a thousand helicopters, 28 regimental kits of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system, 38 battalion kits of the Vityaz air defense system, 10 brigade kits of the Iskander-M ballistic missile system, more than 2,300 modern tanks, some 2,000 self-propelled artillery vehicles and guns, and more than 17,000 military motor vehicles. Today, more than 250 military units, including 30 air force squadrons, are using advanced military equipment. By 2020, the share of new armaments should be no less than 70 per cent. The systems remaining in operation will be significantly upgraded.By and large, the goal for the decade is to equip our Armed Forces with next-generation armaments, which boast better visibility, higher precision, and faster response than the similar systems of any potential adversary.

The social dimension of the Armed Forces

A modern Army must employ qualified personnel with the skills to operate start-of-the-art armaments. These specialists must demonstrate profound knowledge and high educational and cultural levels. Individual requirements for every officer and soldier have significantly risen today.In their turn, servicemen are entitled to the full package of social benefits matching the huge responsibility they bear. These include access to general healthcare, health resort treatment, medical insurance, a decent pension and job opportunities after retirement. Their pay must be on par or even higher than that of the qualified specialists and managers in the leading industries of our economy.In 2007, the government decided to increase military pay and pensions. At the first stage of the reform, in 2009, the government set out on a large-scale experiment to raise the pay for those who bear a special responsibility for keeping our country in safety.Now, since January 1, 2012, we took another step – military pay has almost tripled. The Armed Forces, as an employer, are becoming ever more competitive, changing the status quo and making army service more appealing. Since January 1, 2012, officers within the Interior Ministry are also entitled to a pay raise. Other branches of the military, law enforcement and special services will see a pay rise from January 1, 2013.The pensions of all retired military servicemen, regardless of the agency they served in, have grown 1.6 times since January 1, 2012. In the future, military pensions will be increased annually, at a rate of no less than two per cent above the inflation level. Apart from that, we will introduce a special education certificate so that every retired serviceman can get a chance to study or attend courses at any Russian educational institution. Housing is a separate issue. For many years, it was neglected. In the 1990s, making use of all the resources available, the government provided only 6,000-8,000 apartments or housing certificates a year. Very often, people had to retire without any housing options – they were put on the same waiting list as civilians, a line which never moved forward. If we look back, we can see that the housing volumes have grown significantly since 2000. Every year, up to 25,000 servicemen received an individual apartment. However, it was clear that we needed a drastic change in policy; we needed to pool our financial and organizational resources.The first step was the presidential program called 15+15, implemented in 2006-2007, when servicemen received some 20,000 apartments in those regions where the housing issue was most acute.Between 2008 and 2011, the Ministry of Defense alone acquired and constructed some 140,000 apartments for permanent and service housing. It’s an unprecedented figure. The government allocated funding for the program even during the crisis years. But even as we expanded the program, we have not been able to get the issue under control. We must be sincere about the reasons for the delay. Firstly, the records of officers in need of housing were poorly kept by the Ministry of Defense. And secondly, the pace and deadlines of our actions were not always in line with housing opportunities. So we must remedy the situation.In 2012 and 2013, we must provide apartments for permanent residence for all the remaining officers on the waiting list. By 2014, we will solve the problem of service housing. These efforts will help to close the ‘eternal’ housing issue for Russian servicemen. Also, by late 2012, we plan to provide apartments to those servicemen who retired in the 1990s without any housing and are still on municipal waiting lists. At the moment, there are more than 20,000 such officers.Those who joined the Armed Forced after 2007 will be eligible for an apartment according to schedule and on the basis of mortgage schemes. The current figure stands at 180,000, with more than 20,000 apartments already purchased. Another acute issue is military towns and the destiny of thousands of people residing there. These include former servicemen and their families, pensioners, civilian staff – all those who dedicated decades of their lives to the Army and the country.It is unacceptable when these settlements, with all their problems, are just dumped by the Ministry of Defense onto the shoulders of regional and municipal authorities. We need to carry out a thorough examination of all the Armed Forces property that is to be handed over to civilian authorities. In other words, the Ministry of Defense must renovate residential apartment blocks, preschools, utility and housing facilities, before handing them over to municipal authorities. It must also provide financial resources for routine maintenance.The Armed Forces recruiting system will be overhauled. Today, there are 220,000 contract officers and 186,000 contract soldiers and sergeants. The Ministry of Defense is going to recruit another 50,000 contract servicemen to be appointed as sergeants and sergeant majors, also including technicians in charge of operation of combat vehicles.  Selection will be multi-stage and extremely tough. As Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov once said, “It’s me and the sergeants who are in command of the Army.” Non-commissioned officers are the backbone of the Army, supervising discipline and combat training. This position must be awarded to worthy servicemen who have the appropriate moral, physical and educational levels. Contract soldiers, as well as NCOs, will undergo training at special centers and sergeants’ academies. By 2017, out of one million servicemen in the Russian Army, 700,000 should be professionals – officers, graduates of military academies, sergeants and contract soldiers. By 2020, the number of conscripts will drop to 145,000.The rationale underpinning the reforms is clear – we seek to build a fully professional army. But it is also clear that a professional army is an expensive one. This is why a mixed recruitment system for the short-term is a necessary compromise between the goals we have set and the nation’s current opportunities.But conscription must change, too. This is part and parcel of the ongoing military reform.A new law enforcement body, military police, is being set up to monitor discipline in the army. We must also engage civil, veterans’, religious and human rights organizations to help educate servicemen, protect their rights and interests and build a healthy moral environment in the army.To serve this purpose, we also need to develop the institute of chaplains. Chaplains must be deployed at every military unit.We are aware that the current conscription service is fraught with social inequality. Among those drafted are mainly teenagers from poor working or farming communities, those who did not make it into a university or college and could not use the right to a deferment. We need to boost the prestige of active duty service so that young people will start viewing it as a privilege, not an obligation.Servicemen must also receive additional preferences at Russia’s best universities if they want to study after retirement. They will be eligible for government-funded extra training to help them pass exams. Those who were drafted into the army after graduation will receive state grants so that they can study at the best Russian and foreign business schools. They will also get preferences if they want to apply for a job in the public sector or get on the list of managerial reserves. The Army must reclaim its traditional role as a major springboard for a career.For the future, we need to consider such a concept as ‘trained reserve service.’These reserve members, as it is the case in many countries, will have to undergo regular, not occasional – as is practiced now – training to be ready to join combat units at any time.For the time being, we do not have any clear-cut concept of the national reserve of the Armed Forces. So our short-term objective will be to draft it up and make it available for public discussion.Now, a few special words about the Cossacks, a large group counting millions of Russians. Historically, Cossacks served the Russian state by defending its borders and taking part in military campaigns of the Russian Army. Following the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Cossack community was subjected to brutal repression, which was actually genocide. But the Cossacks survived and retained their culture and traditions. The mission of the state now is to help the Cossacks, draw them into military service and educational activities for youths, involving a patriotic upbringing and initial military training.There is no denying, the Army must become professional, relying heavily on contract servicemen. Still, we cannot abolish the notion of the honorable military duty for the male population. They must be ready to stand up to defend their homeland in the time of danger. We need to reconsider the system of initial military training and the patriotic upbringing of Russian schoolchildren, development of military-related sports and physical training in general. Conscription service lasts just 12 months, and soldiers must focus entirely on combat training. It means that those who are drafted need to be physically fit, healthy, possessing basic computer skills and an ability to operate a vehicle. In this respect, I would like to recognize the work done by DOSAAF, Russia’s Voluntary Association for Assistance to Army, Air Force and Navy.Federal, regional and municipal agencies must provide all kinds of support to this organization. We need to combine the efforts of government agencies and societal groups. This is why I support the idea to set up a Voluntary Association of the National Front for Assistance to the Army, Navy and Defense Industry.Our goals in defense and national security cannot be achieved without high morale and motivation both in the army and the defense plants producing modern weaponry, or without respect for the Armed Forces and for military service in Russian society.

The rest of the article is forthcoming shortly on our website.

Russia is a welfare state. We have a much higher level of social guarantees than other countries with similar productivity and per capita income levels. In recent years, more than a half of public expenditure has been going into the social sphere. Over the past four years, our social spending has grown by 50% in absolute numbers, or from 21% to 27% in relation to GDP. None of these social guarantees was shaken by the crisis of 2008-2009. In fact, the wages of public sector employees even grew during that period, together with pensions and other social benefits. But our people are definitely not satisfied with the current situation, and their dissatisfaction is well justified.Social policy has several goals, several dimensions. It should support the weak, those who are objectively unable to make a living. It should provide upward social mobility, an equal “starting position” and promotion for each person based on their capabilities and gifts. The effectiveness of a social policy is determined by whether people think our society is just or not.I don’t want to talk about our achievements, even though we have achieved something in many areas: in demographic policy, where we were able to seriously improve the situation with pensions, in fighting poverty, in education, in healthcare, in culture etc.But today we need to talk about the problems we haven’t resolved and the challenges we should put on the agenda for the next stage in Russia’s development.First, many people are unable to apply their professional knowledge to find a job that would offer a decent salary and provide opportunities for developing and building a career. Social mobility mechanisms, starting with the education system, are not working properly. This situation has seriously deteriorated over the past few years, when a large number of young people graduated from college and entered the labor market.Second, income inequality is unacceptable, outrageous. One Russian citizen in every eight still lives below the poverty line.Third, the understanding of what an average Russian family typically needs and can afford has radically changed in the 2000s. Ten to twelve years ago, people were concerned mainly about avoiding poverty, and some social categories, primarily pensioners, had to survive in poverty. But today most people have much higher expectations. The social sphere has failed to adapt to that. People, especially the middle class, well-educated and well-paid people, are generally dissatisfied with the level of social services. Even though public expenditure on education and healthcare has been growing, their quality remains low, and we have failed to stop the spreading of the practice when people are forced to use paid services in these areas. We are also far from achieving the goal of providing a comfortable living environment.Fourth, since the working-age population has significantly decreased and the number of senior citizens has increased, we urgently need a radical improvement in the efficiency of social spending. If we want to preserve the current level and even to achieve a fundamentally new level, we simply don’t have any other option.

The social dimension of the economy

People of various occupations – businessmen, workers, specialists, public sector employees – must have an opportunity to fulfil their potential, to grow professionally and socially.First, an engineer, an agronomist, an economist, a designer – every professional – must have an opportunity not only to work in the area they have been trained for but also to build a professional career, which means regularly improving their skills and learning new applied technologies. Also, the qualifications of each specialist should be visible and discernible for employers.Back in 2006, we reached an understanding with some business associations that they would take care of developing a professional qualification system. Unfortunately, not much has been done. Only 69 standards were approved in five years. This is a hole in the bucket, to put it mildly. It seems like we have overestimated large corporations’ interest in developing a national qualification system that would also be open to small and medium-sized businesses. If this is the case, we should address this issue as a national challenge and employ government resources.I suggest that before the end of 2012 the government, together with business and professional associations and Russia’s leading universities, should develop a national plan to develop professional standards and prepare an open database of members of professional associations.Second, in every country teachers and doctors, scientists and artists are not just the core of the “creative class.” They also ensure the stable development of society and function as pillars of public morality.Of course, we will increase the effectiveness of our education and healthcare systems. We will put an end to the situation where we continue financing an institution that is clearly ineffective. But this has been going on since the 1990s. We had administrative and economic reforms; we changed administrative systems; we introduced mechanisms for objective performance assessment. Yet this failed to bring about a noticeable improvement in the quality of education and healthcare. Possibly, this is because the most important element has been neglected all along. I am referring to the motivation of the people working in those areas.I believe that any reform in healthcare or education should ensure decent wages for professionals working in the public sector. A doctor, a teacher, a professor, these people should make enough money where they work, so that they don’t have to look for a side job. Unless we take care of that, all our efforts to improve administrative and economic mechanisms and to upgrade the equipment in those areas will have little or no effect.The only way to manage the quality of medical care, educational programs and scientific research is by relying on the reputation of the professional community. As society reviews its relationship with doctors, teachers and researchers, it can expect these communities to restore their professional ethics and that their professional institutions will be self-governing and self-purging.The wages of public sector employees should be determined according to the specific situation in the regional labor market. After all, people don’t compare their salaries with abstract figures found in statistical reports. They compare their salaries to what their neighbors and friends make, or to what they themselves can make if they give up their job in the public sector and work for a private business.Yet it is ineffective to raise wages across the board. Salaries should depend much more on the worker’s qualifications and professional achievements. This means that as a basic salary grows, incentivizing bonuses should grow even more quickly.We have taken the first step in forming an effective contract with teachers – and we have a million of those. Starting this year, regional authorities, with the financial assistance of the federal government, must keep the average salary of a teacher at least at the same level as the average salary in their region’s economy.Starting from September 1, we will raise the wages of the faculty at state-funded universities, also to match the average wages in the region. Then, from 2013-2018, we will gradually double the average salary of a university professor and bring it up to 200 per cent of the average salary in the economy. Also, professors who have scientific achievements and are popular with students and graduates should receive a higher salary immediately. Year after year, the share of these top professionals will grow. By rewarding the best, most competitive professors, we will help universities get new faces in their faculty.The government will provide the resources to achieve this objective by regularly increasing financing standards for university programs. University rectors will be personally responsible for this work. Their contracts will be pegged to their performance indicators.In a similar fashion, over the next few years we will gradually raise the wages of teachers working at technical colleges and vocational schools, vocational training instructors, other kinds of teachers, doctors, mid-level medical staff, researchers at the Russian Academy of Sciences and state-funded research centers, and artists. Our target for doctors and researchers is the same as for university professors: by 2018, their salaries should be twice the amount of the average salary in their region.The implementation of this program will require significant resources, up to 1.5 per cent of GDP a year overall. It is important to use the significant latent resources of the industries – for example, by reorganizing ineffective organizations and programs. Such reorganization should provide at least a third of the required amount.At the end of the day, people should not be paid simply because they belong to a certain institution. They should be paid for their real contribution to science, education, healthcare or culture, for offering specific services to society and the people. The decision we have made regarding government corporations – that their executive should be required to publish their income reports – should also apply to the heads of state-funded universities, medical institutions and research centers.Third, another important issue is the qualification and social welfare of workers, i.e. the people who are the backbone of any economy.The time when workers could have low living standards and poor education level is long gone. A modern-day worker is a responsible performer of complex and regularly changing technical instructions. In a situation where competitive businesses modernize their technology all the time and where poor quality goods quickly lose their standing in the market, a worker’s qualification, his intelligence, his professional pride and his ability to learn something new all the time have become key factors in competitiveness.Yet some owners and executives continue to act as if we live in the early years of the 20th century, as if you can get a strong position in the market by saving on your workers. From 2004 to 2010, the share of workers who are employed in unsanitary conditions grew by 17per cent. The share of such jobs grew from 21per cent to 29 per cent.Together with labor unions, we should consider what laws we can adopt in order to give workers more control over their companies. The practice of such involvement exists in other countries. For example, in Germany they have what they call “works councils.” Such councils in Russia could be responsible for organizing daily working processes, from preparing work schedules to developing a social plan in case the factory is shut down. They can also arrange training programs for workers.The labor market for skilled workers needs serious reforms. We need to design social mobility mechanisms within worker professions. We need to recreate a worker aristocracy in Russia. By 2020, it should account for at least a third of skilled workers, i.e. about 10 million people (with their families, 25 million people).Skilled workers should be included in the national professional qualification system. Assessment of their professional level and receipt of new qualifications should not be limited to the company they work for, as is common practice today. This will open new opportunities for workers on the labor market, make them more mobile and eventually help them to earn more.Fourth, we do very little to take advantage of the opportunities that the labor market offers for people who are also gifted and who are also eager to work and make a living even though it is difficult for them to perform a standard job. I mean primarily people with disabilities (among others, people using a wheelchair, the visually impaired and the hearing-impaired).In recent years, we have adopted a number of decisions on tax breaks for employers who hire people with disabilities. By the end of 2012, the government, together with appropriate non-governmental organizations, should assess how effective those measures have proved and, if necessary, take further steps in this regard.Within the next few years, we need to create a system whereby every disabled person who is able and willing to study and work will be able to find an appropriate path for their education and professional life. It should include everything from a specialized educational program to a workplace adapted specifically to their special needs.Fifth, business people still feel uncomfortable in our society. To a high degree, this is because of the 1990s. During that period, doing business often meant putting your life on the line because of gangs openly harassing business people. At the same time, doing business often meant embezzling government property. This is why many of our people don’t trust business people and many business people don’t trust society and the state.Many of our people still think that all major businesses were acquired dishonestly. They view major businessmen as celebrities, not as creators whose work drives Russia on. (To some extent, certain businessmen behave in a way that supports such views.)What we need is not just success stories. We need stories of success that would be recognized as just by others. We need stories of hard-won success achieved by taking risks and taking up responsibility for others.Among Russian businessmen, there is a large group of people who want change, who want to live a new life. These are the owners of small and medium-sized businesses, executives and managers, people on the second and third tiers. These people are well aware of how ineffective the current business model is.The young business elite will get an excellent opportunity in the coming decade. They can manage a new generation of private corporations that will pool the money of tens and hundreds of thousands of other people on the Russian stock market. These corporations are public. They don’t have an individual owner, which makes them resistant to corruption and linkage to officials’ interests.

***

While the average income is growing, the gap between rich and poor is closing too slowly. Income inequality in our country is similar to that in the United States but it is much higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income inequality is only natural for a mature market economy, but this excessive gap is perceived as unfair and gives rise to social tensions. That is why it is our crucial task to reduce this material inequality. We should do this by offering more specific and effective social support and especially by providing everyone with an opportunity to work and secure a sufficient level of income.Oil and gas revenues trickle down into the economy unevenly. But we can’t possibly get the government even further involved in redistribution. I strongly believe that in order to perceive our country as a fairer one, where every person makes a living with his labor and talent, we need to develop new sectors, develop the processing industry, agriculture, modern transport and intellectual services.As for those unable to make a living or those too young to work, the government will support them on an individual basis.

Pensions and welfare payments

About 60 per cent of Russian families are dependent on state-sponsored allowances and benefits. We have been able to achieve a significant increase in terms of pension payments and are determined to increase them further to compensate against inflation. However, our primary concern now should be the protection of families with children.The government has launched a number of steps to support the wish of some families to have two or more children. Some of the measures, a special maternity capital in particular, have proven effective. We are happy to see the positive initial results of the program, namely that the birth rate is on the up. However, in large families mothers often have to give up employment to take care of their three or four children. It’s much harder for these parents to provide the same living standards for their children as parents with a single child can. Young families often face serious financial difficulties raising one child if the parents do not have a strong footing in their profession and are forced to rent housing.It’s absolutely unacceptable when the birth of a child drives the family down to the poverty line. It will be our goal to eliminate such conditions on a nationwide basis within three to four years. Today, the rates of most of the allowances for families with children are defined by the regions, and in some parts of Russia they are embarrassingly low.In 2006, I laid out a package of measures to motivate families to have a second child, including maternity capital, which is annually adjusted to the inflation rate. They have proven highly successful. I believe we can now take another step forward by introducing a special allowance following the birth of a third and consecutive children in those regions of Russia where the demographic trend is still negative. These families would be eligible for an additional 7,000 rubles a month until the child is three years old. In 2013, the federal government will provide 90 per cent of the funds necessary, aiming for a gradual decrease of its share to 50 per cent by 2018, with the rest paid out by the regions with downward demographic patterns. This is just the beginning. We will need to evaluate the efficiency of the program. If it yields positive results and if the economic situation is favorable, we will seek to expand the program to other regions of Russia. In this case we can draw on the experience of the Soviet Union, which employed a similar practice to support specific regions, for example, its territories in the Far East.I expect the regions with a high budget balance to step in and contribute their share by providing the greater part of the expenses or increasing the level of the allowance.Of course, families with a large income should be excluded for this program. It will only be available to families with an income no higher than the region’s average. It would not be granted automatically. If a family is entitled to the allowance, it should be the duty of parents to apply for it. They would be put on the eligible list without long paper checks. However, local tax agencies will have the right to examine the incomes of grantees at random, on the watch for luxurious items, like ownership of upscale real estate. I believe that over time we should extend the practice of checks to other groups receiving state support.The pension insurance program is arguably our highest achievement and the biggest challenge for the country. Our expenses on the pension exceed 10 per cent of GDP, which is a quarter of the budget of the expanded government. But we cannot rest on our laurels and should seek to further streamline our pension system.After the collapse of the economy in the 1990s we simply had no other choice – we had to lift our elderly out of poverty. If we look back at the first year of post-Communist reforms, 1992 saw pension payments dwindle by 50 per cent in real value. After weak attempts to increase them throughout the 90s, they were further devalued by the 1998 default, making the lives of the elderly unbearable.Wages and income levels had grown back to previous standards by the mid-2000s, while the revival of the pension system to the pre-crisis level of the 1990s took ten years of adjustments and the introduction of additional payments to minimum pensions to bring them up to the average subsistence pension level. The government considered that as its debt and has now repaid it.We often hear voices that say that it was wrong to raise pensions in 2009, immediately after the presidential election. They say the government should do it today, ahead of the March 4 election, to secure its victory since pensioners are the most regular group of voters. I disagree. We took the decision as soon as we saw it was possible economically. Any other approach would have been, and would be, unethical.Pensions will continue to rise. Again, I would like to mention that I am against the raising of the retirement age. Still, we need to take account of the interests of those who want to continue to work after they reach retirement age to increase the level of future payments. We need to take prompt steps to make it possible for people to postpone their official retirement.The middle class needs a completely new pension policy. We need to give responsible people a broad choice of solutions to their problems – solutions that will rely not only on state support, but those that will work with the help of the state.We need to work on better accumulation of savings in the pension account. For the time being, the accumulated part of savings does not grow fast enough. It doesn’t yield much profit and, as a result, is not an appealing option. However, without substantial accumulation of funds we are unlikely to close the embarrassing gap between the salaries of middle-class workers and the pensions they receive. The government can and must provide every citizen with sufficient means to buy food, medicine, clothing and other basic necessities. But if a person enjoys a high salary, spends as much as he wants and does not save for a rainy day, does he have a right to demand that the government helps him maintain the quality of life he was used to? If the accumulated part of the pension is empty, you can only rely on payments by all the active population. But we will soon see a decrease in the ratio between those who work and the retired.It’s apparent that you cannot rely only on your usual savings. The government should ensure the safety of pension funds as well as sustainable profits on them. In some cases, it should provide additional funds.

Education and culture

The national education system must be able to meet modern challenges while remaining free for all people. There are, however, serious issues in terms of the quality of educational standards.Here is what are our national priorities should be, in my opinion.First, we must get rid of waiting lists for enrollment into public preschools, first of all, by expanding family-owned, private and corporate daycare centers. We should revise regulations that impede the development of such institutions. We should give children the opportunity to attend preschools as close to their home as possible. Teachers at non-public daycare centers should receive financial and training support from municipal budgets.Second, we should ensure social equality in education. We are accustomed to the fact that selection of children for prestigious schools, as well as competition by their parents, begins as early as the first grade. Also, some of Russia’s big cities have schools that regularly demonstrate poor academic performance. They do not boast high achievers or competition winners. Instead, there are a lot of students with learning disabilities, deviant behavior, students with Russian as a second language. Schools no longer give people a chance to move to a higher social group. Instead, they reproduce and perpetuate social differentiation.Children should not become hostage to social or cultural background of their families. If schools are run in difficult social conditions, they should be entitled to receive special support – just like lyceums and high schools working with problem-free children – in terms of learning techniques, staff and funds.Third, for the past several decades, the system of extracurricular activities has lost the bulk of its staff and financing. Only half of schoolchildren attend hobby groups and additional classes, and only a quarter of which are free of charge. Such area as sports activities for children has been dealt a serious blow. The number of sports schools and clubs is growing, but most often they enroll junior athletes only for big-time sports, with tough selection taking place at a very early age.Extracurricular activities must be returned within the realm of the state. They should be financed by the regional governments, with the necessary support from the federal budget. If the qualification of instructors working in this sector, including at sports schools and arts academies, is commensurate with that of school teachers, their salaries are to be gradually increased to the level of teachers working in comprehensive schools. This initiative will help us increase the share of students involved in extracurricular activities to 70-75 per cent by 2018, with no less than half of them studying free of charge.Fourth, we will need to overhaul educational curricula and teaching techniques, an area where we are lagging behind. New curriculum for the high school should give students the opportunity to choose between five to six areas they want to major in, in accordance with their abilities and plans.We need to build on our strong sides. Russian universities and the Russian Academy of Sciences have been famous for their mathematicians. We can set a goal to make our school education in math the best in the world in 10 years’ time. This will give Russia a serious competitive edge.Fifth, it is high time to take tough decisions concerning student allowances. Those who cannot go on with their studies without it (and are high achievers at that), should get an amount equal to the students’ subsistence level, which will be around 5,000 rubles. That should be the case at least during the first couples of years when students have to focus on studies and not to get distracted by odd jobs. Student unions must keep an eye on the situation. Students are aware how their fellow classmates live. You cannot cheat them with forged papers. Of course, we will continue to issue scholarships and grants to those demonstrating outstanding academic and scientific performance.Sixth, we will further modernize the standardized state exam. It has been often criticized lately, and with a reason. There have been serious concerns over its transparency in some of the regions and to its extent the exam results reflect the students’ abilities and knowledge. We should work to modernize this procedure in a systematic way, employ independent public observers to monitor the conduct of the exam, safeguard it against abuse and misrepresentation, and keep its essence and apparent benefits. By that I mean the principle of independency in assessing the quality of children’s education and work by schoolteachers, and the opportunity for children from rural areas and remote territories, from different kinds of financial backgrounds, to continue their studies in Russia’s best regional and federal universities.Seventh, I cannot agree with those who advocate lowering the number of enrolled students so that the majority of young people would only have a chance to attend a secondary school or get vocational training. These proposals are not in line with the sentiment prevalent among the youth, a sentiment which is valuable and constructive for our society. But even with that, we cannot continue to tolerate a situation when university graduates are not able to find (often, they do not even look for) a job they were trained for and get employment at a place where they have to acquire knew knowledge and skills. This happens due to the discrepancy between the distribution of state-funded spots and real needs of the labor market. Applicants are aware of this gap. This is these excessive state-funded spots are filled in by those who never plan, or do not have the basic training, to do the job they study for. When the majority of students, starting from their third year, work at a full-time job not connected to their future profession and fail to give their studies due attention, it means the government spends up to a quarter of the funds allocated for higher education – that is more than 100 billion rubles a year – inefficiently.We need to restore the prestige and quality of our higher education. It is unacceptable when we enroll for state-funded spots (including at serious engineering institutes) applicants who do not have the knowledge and skills to study for the profession chosen. We need to build a system in which budget-funded spots will be filled only by those who have excellent and good marks in key disciplines or those who won dedicated competitions or contests.Curriculum guidelines must be worked out with the help of employers’ unions. Together with other developed nations, we have identified the best way of training professionals for different practical competences. These are applied degree programs, combining fundamental education with job-ready skills. We need to promote this kind of education. By 2018, the share of graduates holding an applied bachelor’s degree should be not less than 30 to 40 per cent.Eighth, we must get our system of higher education into order. There are a lot of institutions, including state-run, that violate the people’s right to get a proper education. The official agency supervising educational institutions has not been efficient in this regard. I suggest engaging members of our leading universities, in cooperation with scientists from the Russian Academy of Sciences and partnering with international experts, to conduct an audit of all educational curricula of higher learning, with primary focus on economics, law, management and sociology.Those institutions that have lost the market for their graduates and do not conduct any serious research will lose independence and become part of more vibrant universities, with long-standing faculty and traditions. This process is underway. The government will allocate additional funds to restore scientific schools and extra training for students of institutes that will be embedded into bigger ones.Ninth, we need to restore the prestige of applied professions and gear them to specific technology used on the market. Training will be done on the basis of high-quality secondary education completed in school. It will not take three to four years, as is the case now. It will take 12 or even six months. This will be hard work indeed, with students learning the ropes and honing their skills at real workstations, under the guidance of the best professionals. Such training will be available not once in a lifetime, but whenever necessary. The government and employers must set up such training centers through joint efforts. Professional vocational schools and colleges will be turned into multi-competence centers with training available on a broad range of programs. Of course, we will act with caution, without disruption existing patterns that have proven effective and are popular with people.Investment in education will become our key budget priority. This is not only about training workers for the economy, it is also a vital factor of our social development, helping to foster the values that unite all of us. In this aspect, the role education is closely linked with that of culture.We have to admit that in the past decade we did not pay enough attention to promoting culture. We were lulled by growing demand for concert halls and theater performances and the spread of the internet, where cultural heritage is amply presented. Of course, the government sought to spur creative impulses and supported museums, libraries and other cultural institutions. But the scale of these kinds of activities did not match the commercial part of the people’s leisure. Programs on Russian federal television stations has become too commercialized, or, as some put it bluntly, simply vulgar.As a result, we see a growing disparity between the level of support and consumption of culture – compared to 1990, the number of museums and theaters has grown while the number of visits has dropped.It would improper to use administrative leverage to suppress commercial projects. In a free market, people vote with their money. However, the mission of culture and art is not limited to this, so the government, together with private sponsors, should create an environment for this mission to be realized.First, we should ensure unlimited access to national and world cultural treasures. The government will support in the setting up of public e-libraries, museum and theater internet-resources, it will purchase rights for a free internet show of outstanding movies and theatrical performances.Second, culture should re-claim its key position in people’s leisure. We will promote amateur and folk arts, beginning at school, where the position of an instructor will be introduced – it could be a director, an artist, choreographer or musician. Other necessary resources will be allocated. It is crucial that children get acquainted with the national culture of the different ethnicities residing in Russia as early as in school.Bigger and medium-sized cities will develop a practice when museums stay open until late in the evening. “Museum nights” are popular in Moscow and some other cities.The government will pay special attention to museums, theaters, libraries and clubs in small towns. That is where people suffer the most from the lack of cultural events. The Ministry of Culture, together with regional authorities, should prepare a government program for developing culture in small towns – and organize a wide discussion of it with the intelligentsia.Since museums have a large number of exhibits that are not on display, we should create a national museums’ mobile collection that would go to the galleries of small and medium-sized cities of Russia, affording many people an opportunity to come in contact with high culture.Third, we will allocate more funds for the system of grants provided through tenders to individual artists and artistic groups, including youth groups. We should pick up the practice of inviting young artists from abroad by offering them scholarships and conditions for working and communicating with each other. Such international centers exist in many European cities. They not only improve the quality of cultural environment but also help to spread national culture around the world. We will also offer more scholarship for young Russian artists, offering them an opportunity to work in a new city or in a new region.Fourth, digital television offers an opportunity to create specialized national channels. We should have special channels for classical music, theater, visual arts, architecture, literature and history. Of course, we should also have a few channels of “children’s classics” for every age group.

Healthcare

A fundamentally new legal framework for developing healthcare was introduced in Russia in 2011. It will make the distribution of funding for medical institutions fairer and more transparent, and patients will have considerable rights with regard to choosing a clinic or a physician. Employing the opportunities provided by the legal framework to their full capacity will take a few years. In the meantime, we need to deal with a number of remaining issues as regards healthcare.First, patients are not content with the quality of medical services. This primarily concerns the qualification of physicians and nurses. Along with ensuring competitive incomes for healthcare professionals, we need to carry out an appraisal of the professional qualifications of physicians within the next four years, combining it with an upgrade concerning professional development programs. Professional associations of healthcare workers must play an instrumental role in such an assessment.Second, better quality healthcare can largely be attained by an improvement in its organization. In most cases, outpatient treatment is indeed more comfortable for patients and cheaper for the government. Notably, the healthcare systems in economically advanced countries assign a much greater role to outpatient care than we do in Russia.However, while promoting and improving outpatient treatment, we need to bear in mind that its efficiency depends upon the quality of medication. We need an elaborate roadmap for developing the supply of pharmaceuticals otherwise we will simply spend money on financing foreign pharmaceutical industries. We have already adopted a program for developing Russia’s pharmaceutical industry and production of medical equipment, assigning upwards of 120 billion rubles to these purposes. Now we need to take care of regulating the market for such products and to provide customer notification. The latter function should be left to medics themselves and their professional community rather than production companies.Third, no money will be sufficient for funding the national healthcare system unless we make sure that each individual feels greater responsibility for their own physical condition. Today, some 80 per cent of people in Russia fail to do sports or physical exercises, 65 per cent regularly smoke or consume strong alcoholic beverages, and 60 per cent tend to apply for a medical examination only in the event of an ailment. At the same time, most people participating in the polls would state with confidence that they do look after their health!Fourth, healthcare is primarily about preventive medicine, and promoting a healthy lifestyle should play a key role in this regard. We will be providing opportunities for citizens to be able to do physical exercises free of charge in their neighborhoods or in the office. We will be determined and persistent in combating drug addiction, and we will be taking measures aimed at discouraging the consumption of alcohol and tobacco.

Housing

Average housing supply in Russia has increased by 40 per cent compared to the Soviet era, currently amounting to 22 square meters per citizen. The proportion of shared multi-family apartments in the overall housing supply has decreased four times. However, if we compare our present capacities to those in European countries or in the United States, our standards will appear quite humble. Housing prices have increased exorbitantly and disproportionately. Today, only one in four Russian citizens can afford to buy a new apartment or have a new house constructed. According to market experts, buying an apartment of 54 square meters in area in 1989 would have taken 2.5 years of saving an entire average monthly salary; nowadays it would take 4.5 years. (Despite the fact that most products in the market have become much more affordable in terms of relative prices in the meantime.)A decrease in the affordability of housing is exactly what many of our fellow citizens regard as a sign of deteriorating living standards in Russia compared to the days of the USSR. A lack of foreseeable improvement in this area distorts the day-to-day priorities of many people.Today, we assist in providing housing for war veterans, military officers and young families. We relocate the residents of decrepit buildings that no longer provide decent living conditions. We have assessed our financial capacity and we have decided to assign an additional 30 billion rubles before the end of 2012 to finance the construction of housing for war veterans. We will continue such assistance, and we will seek to promote and expand it, primarily to include young families with children.However, that is not enough. The middle class should be able to purchase new housing using mortgage frameworks. So far, a mortgage is unaffordable for most middle-class citizens, especially in Russia’s major cities, where housing is overpriced.What is our proposal?First, we need to decrease the cost of construction. Importantly, it should not be done by cutting wages or compensation rates, but by checking the prices of construction materials and by preventing corruption, which contributes greatly to the inflated housing prices. Even today, housing construction often gets stalled in authorization procedures. I estimate that construction companies and their staff spend up to two-thirds of their time getting their businesses through the intricate bureaucratic procedures rather than performing construction as such.We will introduce competitive selection and examination for prospective construction projects: as it is, many projects spend years waiting to be examined. Developers will be able to apply for private as well as state-organized feasibility studies. We will reform certain authorization and supervision procedures into notification procedures, which will enable developers to save considerable resources.At the regional level, we need to ensure the prevention of artificial monopolies on the part of both developers and the suppliers of basic construction materials. In some regions, for example, even certain sand- or gravel-pits enjoy monopoly status. For some reason, such sandpits are in most cases owned by friends or relatives of the region’s former senior officials.In total, we are capable of deflating the prices for comfortable state-of-the-art housing by no less than 20 per cent, and even by up to 30 per cent in some regions.Second, we need to introduce large quantities of real estate plots into the market through the enlargement of suburban areas around big cities, through the construction of traffic networks and infrastructure, and through the privatization of unused land plots presently owned by government institutions. There can be no sacred cows in this regard. In the process, real estate should be provided free of charge to developers specializing in affordable or municipal housing or other social facilities in return for them capping their selling prices. The government will introduce a special roadmap to that end no later than autumn this year.Third, mortgage rates should be brought down along with inflation rates. We should develop and promote savings instruments similar to the German building-and-loan associations. We have launched a number of regional pilot projects in this area, and we are planning to expand them. Finally, we will advance our program for the provision of interest rate subsidies on mortgages to young families and public sector employees. The money to finance the program may become available once we have completed the construction of Olympic facilities in Sochi, the construction of APEC premises in the Far East, and the implementation of the housing provision program for military officers.Fourth, along with improving the availability of housing for sale, we need to establish a civilized market for rented housing. In most European countries, for example, from one-third to one-half of all families live in rented houses and apartments all their lives, and do not feel deprived in any way. To that end, we should encourage the establishment of specialized companies set up by developers as well as independent entities. Their operation will be based on standardized contracts that will secure the rights of long-term tenants, as opposed to the current situation where people who rent apartments get used to living out of a suitcase.There is one more reason I regard this as a key area. Affordable housing is an important prerequisite for increasing our citizens’ geographic mobility, and for enhancing the competitive advantages of Russia’s regions and cities.For low-income households, we will be developing the segment of non-profit lease.In summary, the aforementioned measures will enable us to provide affordable housing for 60 per cent of Russia’s families by 2020, as opposed to the current ratio of one-quarter of families. And by 2030, we should be able to solve the housing issue altogether.

Living environment

Housing utilities and services are a particularly troubled sector in our country. Public utility fees constitute a significant and ever-increasing share of the average Russian family’s living expenses. Today, Russian consumers already pay 90 per cent of the so-called “economically justified” tariffs, yet public utility companies are perpetually inflating their prices. At the same time, the quality of services rendered, from house-cleaning to yard-keeping to capital repairs, fails to match their prices by a long shot.Statistical data from many regions of Russia show that local monopolies and the lack of control over service suppliers are at the root of the problem. Also to blame are local authorities, who are either unable or reluctant to ensure fair competition in the public utilities market. Regular individuals are often left to deal single-handedly with monopolies, and low-income senior citizens are often the ones who suffer most.Regional and local administrations must ensure that quality public utility services are available to residents in their area, and they must be specifically liable for such performance. You can either ensure the provision of utility services by supporting a single pet company out of the state budget, or can you do it by making you local utility market attractive to many companies who will compete with one another.We need to introduce order and better regulation to the housing and public utilities sector through joint effort.First, we need to educate our citizens en masse in public utility economics and the relevant legal framework. We need to promote the creation of a network of non-profit organizations that would assist consumers in aligning themselves, securing their interests, and supervising service quality by utility companies.Second, we will introduce a social standard rate of consumption for public utilities, which will help us make their pricing more adequate. It is important to develop compensating mechanisms to ensure that senior citizens do not get overcharged in case they remain the sole tenants of a large apartment, provided that they have resided there for no less than 10 years.Third, it will be impossible to modernize Russia’s public utilities sector funding it with consumer fees and budget allocations alone. A key prerequisite for such an upgrade is the attraction of private investors, to which end a favorable competitive environment must be ensured. The task of private utility businesses is to carry out large-scale projects for infrastructure development rather than raise money through tariffs. For this purpose, utility fees will be determined in advance for a period of at least three years, and tariffs for this period will be calculated based on a simple pricing formula, which should be coherent for both the customer and the investor. The principal requirement is that utility tariffs shall depend upon the reliability and the quality of services rendered.

Preservation for Russia

About 40 per cent of global mineral resources are located in Russia, whereas Russia’s population makes up a mere 2 per cent of the global population. The implications of this disparity are obvious. Unless Russia implements a long-term comprehensive agenda for demographic development to build up its human potential and develop its territories, it risks turning into a geopolitical “void,” whose fate would be decided by other powers. Today, Russia’s population is 143 million. Experts forecast that in case of an “inertia scenario” – that is, with no old measures introduced, and with all the present trends still in place – by 2050 Russia will only be some 107-million strong. But if we manage to formulate and implement an efficient, comprehensive policy for population saving, then Russia’s population may increase up to 154 million. The historic cost at stake in choosing between action and inertia is therefore some 50 million lives within the next 40 years.First, we must support families with multiple children. I have already addressed the measures for mitigating the temporary financial strain that affects many families with thee or more children. In addition to that, we must implement a special preference policy in the area of housing supply for families with three or more children. We will propose additional solutions for facilitating employment for women with children. Such jobs will enable a successful combination of parenthood and professional application, allowing a flexible schedule, out-of-office activities, available kindergartens and preschools. A woman returning to business after maternity leave should have the opportunity to receive some occupational training. And her employer should be able to count on support from the government. Secondly, we will definitely need a smart migration policy based on clear-cut standards and criteria, which would prevent the risks of ethnic or cultural clashes. We will need to maintain the inflow of migrants at 300,000 persons a year. We will primarily aim to extend the invitation for permanent residence in Russia to our compatriots living in other countries, as well as skilled professionals and promising young people. We have already implemented a relocation program for compatriots who wish to move to Russia. It needs to be said straight out that it was inefficient. Entering a new stage of development as a nation, we need to revisit this issue and develop a much more efficient and far-reaching set of measures to support our fellow Russians who wish to move to their land of origin. I have already noted in my article on inter-ethnic policy that the primary criterion for admitting anyone for residence and employment in Russia is the applicant’s ability to embrace our culture and our values. I suggest that we remove any legal restrictions for foreign citizens who wish to enroll in Russian vocational schools under the same conditions as Russian citizens (that is, passing exams and attending classes in Russian). We must also significantly facilitate the issuance of a residence permit and subsequently Russian citizenship for graduates of Russian universities who have found employment in line with their profession in Russia. We must arrange our social, economic, migration, humanitarian, cultural, educational, environmental and law-making policies to address the task of boosting Russia’s human potential. It must serve a long-term strategy with historic implications, not merely a campaign agenda.

***

The key factor of social policies in Russia is not even the scale of resources that we commit to address our social challenges. It is the efficiency of measures we undertake. We need to change the trend in the next couple of years, sorting out all of the inefficiencies in our social policies that lead to the pointless squandering of resources, when the latter are denied to the most disenfranchised and instead provided to the better-off, when we keep on supporting certain institutions without evaluating their efficiency in working for the people, when we put the interests of public servants before the interests the people they are supposed to serve. In the next decade we must change the situation. Every ruble allocated for social support must produce value and bring about justice. A fair society and a fair economy will be the key conditions for Russia’s consistent development for years to come.

Read the full Kommersant Daily article by Vladimir Putin below.Society cannot have sustainable development without a viable state, and, conversely, genuine democracy is an indispensable condition for building a state that serves the interests of society.Genuine democracy cannot be produced overnight. You cannot just copy it by reproducing somebody else’s model. Society has to be ready for democratic mechanisms. Most of the people should consider themselves citizens, meaning they should be willing, on a regular basis, to give their attention, their time and their energy to participate in administrative work. In other words, democracy only works when people are willing to invest something in it.In the early 1990s, our society was inspired by the collapse of the autocratic Soviet one-party system, which was happening before people’s eyes. People were inspired by the transition to democracy, which seemed so near, especially since examples of civilized, mature democracy were so near – in the US and Western Europe. Yet the introduction of democratic forms of governance almost immediately resulted in stopping the necessary economic reforms, and a little later those forms themselves were taken over by local and Moscow-based oligarchic elites, who shamelessly used the state for their private interests and pocketed the wealth that belonged to the people.I know from experience that even in those days there were many honest and intelligent people in the government. They genuinely cared about the common good. Thanks to them, the state did not perish. Daily problems would be more or less resolved, and some urgent reforms were conducted, even if inconsistently and slowly. But on the whole the system proved to be stronger than they. As a result, what we got in the 1990s with the supposed coming of democracy was not a modern state. What we got was turf wars between various clans and lots of semi-feudal fiefdoms. Instead of a fundamentally new level of living, we faced tremendous social losses. Instead of a fair and free society, we had the lawlessness of self-appointed “elites,” who openly disregarded the interests of common people. All that has poisoned Russia’s transition to democracy and a market economy, making many Russian people wary of these very concepts – and unwilling to participate in public affairs.Russian philosopher and jurist Pavel Novgorodtsev gave the following warning back in the early years of the 20th century: “People often think that the proclamation of various freedoms and universal suffrage in itself has some magic power that can set people on a new path. But what it leads to in reality is often oligarchy or anarchy, not democracy.”In the 1990s, we encountered both anarchy and oligarchy. That period saw the extreme shortage of responsible statesmanship. It would be naïve to think it was all because of greedy oligarchs or dishonest officials. In the early 1990s, our society consisted of people who were free from Communism but had not yet learned to take their lives into their own hands. They still expected the state to take care of them. They often lived in their illusions and did not know how to resist when being manipulated. Because of that, for some time both economic and political affairs were dominated by the improper principle where the more daring people get the lion’s share of the pie. But our society has passed through a difficult maturation process. This enabled us all to pull our country out of the mire, revive the state and restore the peoples' sovereignty, the foundation of genuine democracy.I would like to stress that we achieved all this through democratic, constitutional means. The policies we pursued in the 2000s consistently reflected the will of the people. Elections confirmed this time and again. In fact, this was also confirmed by opinion polls between elections.If we take a look at the list of rights that our people deem essential, the rights they treasure the most are by far the right to work (the possibility to earn a living), the right to free healthcare, the right to education for children. To restore and secure these fundamental rights was the task that the Russian state has been working on. Dmitry Medvedev and myself, as presidents, have been working on that.Today, our society is very different from what it was in the early 2000s. Many people have become more wealthy, better educated and more demanding. The fact that people expect more from authorities today, and that middle-class people have gone beyond the small universe of building their own prosperity, is a result of our efforts. We have been working towards that goal.Political competition is the heartbeat of democracy, its driving force. If such competition reflects the real interests of various social groups, it makes the state much, much stronger – in developing the economy, in mobilizing resources for social projects and in securing protection and justice for people.Today, the quality of our state does not match civil society’s readiness to participate in it. Our civil society has become much more mature, active and responsible. We need to renew the mechanisms of our democracy. They should have the capacity to match increased public activism.

On developing democracy

A whole package of proposals for developing our political and party system was submitted to the State Duma recently. They will simplify the procedure for registering a political party; they will waive the requirement to collect signatures in order to participate in State Duma or regional legislative assemble elections; they will reduce the number of signatures one must collect in order to register as a presidential candidate.The registration procedure, regulations for political parties, electoral techniques – all these things are important, of course. The political climate, just like the investment climate, requires constant improvement. But we should also pay special attention to the way our political mechanism account for the interests of various social groups.I strongly believe that we do not need the circus of various candidates competing with each other to give more and more unrealistic promises. We don’t need a situation where all that is left of democracy is the façade, where democracy is understood as a one-time entertaining political show and candidates’ casting, where substance is forgotten for the sake of shocking statements and mutual accusations, where real politics is reduced to shady deals and decisions made behind the scenes but never discussed with voters. We should avoid this blind alley. We should resist the temptation to “simplify” politics, to create a false democracy merely to please somebody. Of course, there is always some room for special techniques in politics. This cannot be avoided. But spin doctors and image makers should not control politicians. In fact, I think that our people will not buy that any longer.We need to tune the mechanisms of our political system in such a way that it will account for, and reflect, the interests of major social groups and publicly reconcile those interests. In addition to providing a legitimate government, our political system should guarantee that people see it as fair – even when they are in the minority.We need a mechanism that allows people to nominate responsible candidates – professionals who care about national development and who can achieve definite results – for positions at various levels of government. We need a clear, quick and transparent mechanism for preparing, making and implementing both long-term and short-term decisions.We need to create a political system where it is possible – and necessary – to be honest with people. Whoever offers a solution or a program should be responsible for implementing it. Those who elect decision-makers should realize for whom and what they are voting. This will produce trust, constructive dialogue and mutual trust between society and the government.

New mechanisms of involvement

We need to be able to react to society's needs, which are growing more and more complicated and gaining totally new traits amid the 'data age' we live in.An enormous and ever-growing number of Russians are getting used to obtaining information instantly, at the push of a button. The free and, more importantly, uncensored accessibility of information on the situation in the country naturally determines the people's demand to be involved in politics and administration permanently, not on an election-to-election basis.Therefore, today's democracy – as the power of people – cannot be confined solely to going to the polling station, and end there. Democracy, in my view, lies in the fundamental right of a nation to choose its authorities, as well as in being able to constantly influence both the authorities and their decision-making process. Thus, democracy should have mechanisms for direct and constant action and efficient channels for dialogue, public control, communication and feedback.What is feedback, in practical terms? The ever-increasing quantity of political information should evolve into a quality of political involvement and civil self-government and control. Above all, this means wide discussion of bills, decisions, and programs taken on every level of state power, and the evaluation of existing laws and their efficient application.Citizens and professional and public unions must be able to 'beta-test' all state documents. Even now, constructive criticisms from professional communities such as businesspeople, teachers or scientists help us avoid poor decisions and find better ones.For example, last year during the evaluation of the 'regulating impact', carried out jointly with the business community, nearly every other regulatory project was turned down as 'worsening the conditions for Russia's economic development." It is a good thing that such a filter is now in action, and we should make sure it fully encompasses all the spheres that are important for the business community.The language of legislation must be improved. It should be made at least understandable by those the regulations are aimed at, if not harmonious (in the ancient world, laws would often be written in verse to facilitate memorization). It is important to create user-friendly, interactive interfaces for public authorities' web portals, so that their plans and programs can be fully available, they can be publicly discussed, and their implementation monitored. I would like to ask professional philological communities and web designers to help the state with that. Such a contribution will be greatly appreciated by history.Next, we must understand that one of the key trends in today's world is the further complication of society, with the needs of various professional and social groups becoming more and more specific. The state has to rise to this challenge to meet the complex social reality. An important measure here is the development of self-regulatory organizations, whose powers and capabilities must grow. On the other hand, those organizations themselves should use the powers they have more actively. I mean, in particular, the right to develop and submit for approval technical norms and national standards in corresponding sectors and professions.We must avoid the bureaucratization of self-regulatory organizations and prevent them from erecting self-regulatory barriers (mostly in areas where inadmissible risks are absent or where security is already guaranteed through other state-enforced methods of regulation). This demands the total informational openness of SROs and regular public reports to society and market players. I expect self-regulation to become a cornerstone of Russia's strong civil society.We already publicize proposed laws on the Internet, where everyone can make suggestions or propose amendments. Each is considered, and the best and most relevant ones are included in the final version. This mechanism of collective search for optimal solutions, or crowdsourcing as specialists call it, must become the norm on all levels.All these steps, however, only help to exercise a passive right, meaning a citizen's right to respond to various ideas and projects proposed by the authorities, who are the only source of legislative initiative in this case. But we need to provide for the active right, which is to give people the chance to shape the legislative agenda by proposing their own bills and expressing their own priorities.In this regard, I suggest introducing a rule for a mandatory revision in Parliament of those initiatives that collect one hundred thousand or more signatures on the Internet. A similar rule works in the UK, for instance. Certainly the anonymous Internet cannot serve this purpose, even though in a number of instances it helps discover the moods of society. A procedure should be developed for the official registration of those who want to participate in this system.An Internet democracy should be integrated into the overall development of institutions of the referendum democracy, and it should be particularly extensively applied at the municipal and regional levels. In each municipality, heads and deputies of municipal assemblies shouldn't be the only officials appointed by direct election. Public evaluation should also be given to other officials taking key positions. For instance, district residents should be given an opportunity to express their opinion on the performance of the head of the district police station after his first year of work; whether they want to see this man continue doing his job in their district. The same way, the question should be raised about the head of the local housing and utilities service; and about the justice of the peace, unless he is elected by citizens.Citizens at the city and municipal levels should be given the opportunity to vote and to bring up their topical problems at local referendums or Internet polls, and pinpoint their issues and ways of resolving them.Changing the work of public councils in executive authority bodies is an important task. Presently, their operation is rather formal, or demonstrational, plainly speaking. We must give up the departmental approach in establishing these kinds of councils; for instance, their membership should be approved by the Public Chamber of Russia, and for regional bodies, by the corresponding public chambers. Public councils should stop being a convenience for department heads. We should make sure they include truly independent experts and representatives of the NGOs concerned. We should establish a set of standard regulations and programs that cannot be adopted without prior public discussion at the public council. Public councils may be authorized to participate, equally with the corresponding authorities, in the operation of competition and certification commissions, as well as commissions on settling conflicts of interest.Several words on the prospects of the Electronic Government project. Presently, our citizens have access to all information on political debates in the Parliament, on world markets, and on the marriages and divorces of Hollywood celebrities. What they can't do in the Internet, however, is get data on their utility bills, review their medical files, or find out the name of their district police officer.The official website on state procurement tenders has already become a powerful counter-corruption mechanism. Many of the state services are now available online, which is good. But most people need information that's relevant for them: on their homes, nearby areas, neighboring parks, schools, or their municipalities.Particular attention should be paid to the foundation of electronic authorities, namely, websites of municipalities and regions.I suggest that during this year, the Public Chamber and the Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights develop, discuss publicly, and introduce draft lists of information for customers to be made available obligatorily on the websites of educational and medical institutions.The Electronic Government project should be aimed more precisely at the needs and requirements of the people. Information on the operation of state and municipal authorities should be disclosed as fully as possible. By means of informational technologies, the state mechanism should be made comprehensive and accessible to the public.

Local Self-Governance: A School of Democracy

Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote on the significance of self-governance: “It is the only format where people would be able to unerringly select nominees they know well, both as professionals and as personalities. False reputations would not stand a chance here, nor would sly rhetoric or partisan recommendations… There can be no decent and sustainable life without a well organized local self-government, and the notion of civil liberty itself would become meaningless.” This quote conveys a most accurate observation: nationwide democracy stems from democratic localities. Local self-governance educates citizens in responsibility. It is also a kind of a vocational school for aspiring politicians, as it encourages the key skills essential in politics, such as the ability to find common ground and broker a deal with various social and professional groups, to be coherent in communicating your ideas to the public, and to represent and advocate the rights and interests of one’s constituents. I believe that local self-government is exactly where politicians and public executives should get their schooling.As far as specific measures for enhancing the efficiency of local self-governance are concerned, first of all, local authorities should remain local: that is, municipalities should avoid excessive expansion and ensure that they are easily accessible. Secondly, municipalities should become entirely self-sufficient and autonomous, in financial terms. They should have substantial funding sources to provide for performing their functions and dealing with the day-to-day issues of their constituencies. They need to end their addiction to handouts from higher authorities, which undermines their self-reliance, restrains initiative and encourages a free-rider attitude. In essence, such dependency defeats the very purpose of municipal governance.In this respect, I suggest that municipalities be entitled to manage all the taxes collected from small businesses, which are currently subject to preferential taxation. Certainly, we will need to find the right balance between the competencies of municipalities and those of regions. Should municipal authorities be provided with greater financial resources, the scope of their responsibilities vis-à-vis their local residents may also be expanded.Greater economic independence is particularly crucial for large and medium-sized cities. This is where most of the nation’s economic potential and its most enterprising citizens are located. Cities are the powerhouses for economic growth, as well as centers of civic activity. In transferring a great deal of competencies and financial resources from the federal center to the regions, it is important to make sure that this will not result in municipalities being exposed to arbitrary control by senior regional officials.It is no less important to promote partnership relations between regional governors and mayors, and between regional and municipal legislatures. It is no secret that their relations are often dispute-ridden, and such tensions might escalate once the direct election of governors is introduced. This is especially bound to happen in a situation where a regional government is dominated by one party, and a city administration by another.We must do away with the practice whereby regional authorities impose certain performance benchmarks for local administrations and make financial support conditional on the latter’s compliance. Municipal administrations should be primarily accountable to their constituents.Small towns, which are home to a significant share of our population, represent a separate and often a very troubled issue. Such localities often lack sustainable sources of income and are forced to live off subsidies from the regional budget. At the same time, a small township may provide an excellent venue for practicing municipal democracy. People in such localities know each other very well, and all local institutions operate in full public view rather than behind closed doors. I believe we should ensure that such municipalities are provided with lost-standing and stable sources of subsistence, which implies that regional subsidy rates should be stable and known in advance. We must guarantee small townships against a situation where a mayor is predominantly occupied with soliciting money from the regional budget, while the task of assessing the mayor’s performance rests with higher authorities rather than the constituency. Provided that we accomplish this task, we would be able to anticipate the emergence of a new generation of politicians and efficient administrators.

Russian Federalism

One of our pivotal tasks in the early 2000s was countering blatant separatism as well as its latent, subtle varieties, along with breaking up the convergence between certain regional authorities and organized crime or nationalist groups. By and large, this mission has been accomplished. Today, at a new stage of development, we are reintroducing the direct election of governors. At the same time, the President of Russia will retain certain instruments of oversight and management, including the right to dismiss governors. This will enable us to strike the right balance between decentralization and centralism. The federal center should be capable of both assigning and redistributing competencies. And not only competencies, but also funding sources for municipal and regional budgets. However, we must ensure that the country will not become uncontrollable in the process. Government authority is not to be squandered. It would be unacceptable to mindlessly reshuffle resources and competencies among the various levels of power. Neither centralism nor decentralization should be followed blindly as a fetish. The distribution of governing competencies among the various levels of power must be based on clear criteria: any specific function shall be assigned to the level of power that is most capable of performing it with the best efficiency and to the greatest benefit of Russia’s citizens, business activity and overall development. It is also obvious that the trend of consolidating regions within the Federation has not exhausted its potential by a long shot. However, any progress in this area must be expedient and well-advised, with public opinion playing a major role in deliberations. We should also bear in mind that Russia’s various territories are diverse in terms of social and economic development. They also belong to various cultural environments, which cannot be compared to one another in terms of being “better” or “worse.” People’s lifestyles are determined by their specific traditions, customs and models of behavior. Therefore, we have certain assets of unquestionable value, namely the powerful consolidating factors such as the Russian language, the Russian culture, the Russian Orthodox Church as well as Russia’s other customary religions. And of course, there is the longstanding experience of positive and creative coexistence within a single Russian state, which dates back centuries. This experience proves most evidently that Russia needs a strong, capable and authoritative federal center, which plays a key stabilizing role in the framework of inter-regional, inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations among the various communities that make up our country. With that in mind, it is our historic task to promote Russian federalism to its full potential and provide an enabling environment for the robust development of each region.

Building a competitive nation

In today’s globalized world, it’s all about different countries competing for ideas, talent and capital, which in the long run means competing for the future of their nations in the new, global environment that has emerged.We need to make a shift in the mindset of public service to build a prime competitive environment for living, creating and doing business in Russia. All government agencies and institutions must be geared to this purpose. We must keep in mind that the Russian people, and entrepreneurs in particular, are aware of how things are done in other countries and have the right to go for the best option.It’s crucial to focus on the following key priorities.First, we must break the tie-up between power and property and set a clear line of demarcation defining the limits of government involvement in the economy. I mentioned this in my article on the economy.Second, we should introduce, on a nationwide basis, the best viable practices of the leading nations concerning how their state institutions function. The decision on the adoption of specific patterns should be made with regard to proven effectiveness – they should make applications for government services more comfortable, convenient, and time and cost-efficient. In this regard, we should bring our service standards in line with international benchmarks.Third, we will promote competition among state managers – governors, mayors and officials – at all levels and whenever it is appropriate. The government should supervise, identify and introduce the best practices of state governance. The best solutions will be widely put in practice at the national level, and – for the notice of voters – at the regional and municipal levels, too.Fourth, we should switch to next-generation state services – those tailored not to the executor but to the consumer – be it a private firm bringing its goods through customs, a person getting an official paper or a car driver filing an accident report.Government department and agency web sites should make it clear for people what kind of services such bodies provide, how citizens can access them and what responsibilities each official holds.Fifth, we have just passed a new law giving us the tools to assess officials’ performance and liability for failure to meet high standards in providing state services to entrepreneurs and other groups. If someone does not abide by the standards, they should be fined. I suggest taking this a step further by toughening the law in terms of punishment – a gross violation or repeated digression from standards should mean disqualification, and the person in question should not only be fired, but also barred from holding a state or municipal office for several years.Sixth, the challenges of state governance need to be dealt with by public employees with the appropriate qualifications and expertise. We must introduce a new wage system that will be flexible enough to adapt to shifts in the labor market and to changes relevant to specific professions. This is paramount to enhancing the cadres of public officials, attracting new responsible and effective managers.Seventh, the institution of ombudsmen will be further expanded by making it more professional and to cover more specific areas. I believe that the position of a business ombudsman should be set up in every Russian region.

We must root out corruption

Red tape and bureaucracy have never been a source of national pride in Russia. Historians will remember a conversation between Tsar Nicholas I and his chief of secret police Alexander Benckendorf, when the former announced he wanted to stamp out graft, and got the following question in return, “Do you think there will be anyone left around you?”All talk of corruption in Russia is trivial. In our history, there’ve been attempts to curb corruption through repression. Of course, the fight against bribery relies on repressive measures. But the problem is much more profound – it comes from the lack of transparency and accountability of government agencies to society, which I mentioned earlier, and the poor motivation of public servants. These are the areas that present enormous challenges.In the turbulent 1990s teenagers dreamed of becoming oligarchs, but now they opt for state official, according to opinion polls. Many view public service as a source of fast and easy cash. If such motivation persists, if people join public service not to serve but to live off it, then any purges would be useless – exposed thieves would be replaced by others.To get the upper hand in the fight against systemic corruption, we need to divide not just power and property but executive power and the system of checks over it. Political responsibility for the drive against corruption should be shared by the authorities and the opposition.It would be proper to make legislative changes to how candidates for chairman and auditors of the Audit Chamber are nominated, as well as to the way some members of the Public Chamber are appointed. Candidates must be nominated not by the president, as it is now, but by the Council of the State Duma, with approval of all factions.I believe it’s high time for members of the State Duma to make the practice of parliamentary investigations an effective procedure.The fight against corruption must become a national course, not a matter for political speculation, an object of populist statements, political exploitation, a goal of short-term campaigns. Primitive decisions, like a call for mass repressions, are not a solution. Those who cry of rampant corruption and demand retribution fail to comprehend that in a corrupt environment, repression could also become subject to corruption. And the scale would be horrific.We offer real, systemic solutions that will ensure a far more effective rehabilitation of state institutions and the use of new principles in our staff policy – in the selection and rotation of officials and their compensation. Eventually, our goal is to make reputational, financial and material losses so great that corruption would no longer pay.I believe we should identify corruption-prone positions both within the executive power and the management of state corporations. An official in charge of such a position should be eligible for a high salary but should agree to absolute transparency. They should declare their expenses and big family purchases, current place of residence, how they pay for vacations, etc. We should consider introducing some of the anti-corruption measures adopted in Europe – they have great expertise in that area.We can now give a definite reply to Benckendorf’s question – we know who’ll stick around. There are many of them – both within and beyond public service.There are many professionals who’ve been toiling all their life just for the salary in federal and municipal agencies. They are offended when journalists label every official a corrupt one. Just think of the many people – honest and effective – who are discouraged from public service by such rhetoric.I believe both society and the mass media should give justice to the group of employees who are honest in performing their work. Public opinion should focus on the cases where there is sufficient evidence of corruption schemes. This will ensure that such court cases are not stuck mid-way.A real action plan against serious corruption will help us to tackle the petty corruption that people face when dealing with police, courts, housing and utility services, medicine and education.We will act consistently, reasonably and with determination. We will remove the fundamental causes for corruption and punish particular officials. We will boost motivation for those who want to serve Russia in good faith. We have always had plenty of such people, and they will be given a chance.We have defeated oligarchy, and we will defeat corruption.

Reforming the court system

The main issue lies with the conviction-prone, punitive character of our court system.We must tackle it by adopting the following steps.First, we will make justice available to people by introducing administrative proceedings not only for businesses but also to hear disputes between people and officials. According to the spirit and meaning of administrative proceedings, an ordinary person is more vulnerable than the official they are in dispute with, and the burden of proof lies with the administrative agency, not the individual. This is why the practice of administrative proceedings has originally been oriented to protecting the rights of individuals.Second, social movements will gain the right to file lawsuits to defend the interests of their participants. In this case, an individual can resolve a dispute with a governor, for example, on behalf of a large social organization, not on his own. We will extend the areas where joint lawsuits could be filed by individuals.Third, arbitration courts now have an open database of all court decisions. We need to set up a similar database for general session courts. We will think about making online broadcasts of court hearings and publications of verbatim records. It help us to assess the performance of every judge and track contradictions in decisions taken on similar cases but involving different parties, and to identify decisions which have not been guided by plain logic. Furthermore, elements of the precedent law will help to ensure the constant evolution of the court system.Fourth, we need to revive legal journalism to debate the legal issues facing society more widely, to improve the level of legal awareness.* * *In conclusion, I would like to underline that our proposals are practical. It’s these solutions that make the power of the people – democracy – a genuine one. It’s these solutions that make public service function in the interests of people. And together, they ensure that Russia and its people enjoy sustainable and successful growth.

We are living in a time of radical economic change across the globe. Never before have there been such rapid technological advances. Much of what we are accustomed to seeing around us today seemed like science fiction 15 to 20 years ago. Never before has the struggle for leadership in global competition been so acute, and we are now seeing countries which, only yesterday, seemed to hold unshakable positions starting to yield to those who until recently were regarded with condescension and disdain. Never before have people faced such a great risk of technological disaster and never before have environmental hazards been so grave. But neither has human capability been so vast. Those who apply the new capabilities to the fullest extent are the ones who come out on top.In such circumstances, it is important to ensure stable and consistent economic development, a maximum level of protection from the shock of recession for our citizens and, at the same time, the steady and rapid advancement of all aspects of the economy, from its material and technical foundation to approaches to state economic policy.

Russia’s place in the global division of labor

Following the collapse of the Soviet bloc, Russia was forced to find its place in the global division of labor, where the main centers of power and proportions were formed without it, and what is more, they had been formed in opposition to the USSR. Developed markets were fenced off by numerous barriers erected to protect national interests. Another problem on the way towards integration into the global economy was the difference in technological standards.In these conditions we were, nevertheless, able to build an economy that has become an integral part of the global economy. We were mainly able to do so due to our natural resources. More than a quarter of Russia’s GDP is a result of the sale of gas, oil, metals, timber and other natural resources or primary commodities on the global market.Today, Russia depends on the world economy, into which it is highly integrated, more than most other countries do.Affirmation of the primary nature of the economy has become commonplace. The Soviet economic complex, autarkic and closed, simply wasn’t adapted to working in the new conditions. In the process of market transformation, which was largely spontaneous, the survivors were mostly the liquid sectors, those involved in the export of unprocessed raw materials and semi-finished products. We had basically experienced a large-scale de-industrialization, a loss of quality and an all-out simplification of the structure of production. Hence the high level of dependency on the import of consumer goods, technologies and sophisticated products, as well as on the fluctuation in prices for the basic export commodities: in other words, factors that, by and large, we do not control.Having an economy that does not guarantee stability, sovereignty, or decent prosperity is unacceptable for Russia. We need a new economy with a competitive industrial sector and infrastructure, with a developed service industry and with an effective agricultural sector – an economy, operating on a modern technological base. We need to build an effective economic renewal mechanism, to find and attract the necessary vast material and human resources.At the same time, we cannot count on protectionist measures at a time of economic diversification – and not because we have become members of the World Trade Organization. We acceded to the organization precisely because we have an economy that is heavily dependent on the foreign market both in terms of production and consumption.However, high import duties are paid by our citizens and our enterprises. Excessive protectionism has always led to stagnation, a low level of quality and high prices.

Overcoming the technological gap

We need to look for solutions that would allow us to overcome the emerging unilateral technological dependence.Of course, today, no one would repeat the experience of the Soviet Union which, in the midst of confrontation with the West, had formed a fully autonomous technological base. As a result, in conditions of isolation, most of the “original” technologies fell behind their competitors, a development which became clear as soon as the Iron Curtain fell. Naturally, we are talking about a different scenario. Russia must assume the most important place in the international division of labor not only as a supplier of raw materials and energy, but also as the possessor of constantly advancing high-end technologies – at least in some sectors. Otherwise, we will continually be losing resources by paying for the latest, more complex and expensive, technologies and industrial products, materials and medicines which we are unable to produce ourselves. Meanwhile, these technologies will continue to have a rising share in global world product, while the share of raw commodities and traditional services will decline. In order to restore technological leadership, we need to carefully choose our priorities. Some of the candidates are industries such as pharmaceuticals, high-tech chemistry, composites and non-metallic materials, aviation, information and communication technology and nanotechnology. Of course, the traditional leaders, where we have not lost our technological edge, are our nuclear and space industries. This list is not closed; more industries may be added, depending on international market trends and, in no small part, on the initiative of industrial employers and workers.It is often argued that Russia does not need an industrial policy and that, when choosing priorities and creating preferences, the government often makes mistakes by supporting ineffective players and getting in the way of the innovation that should stem from equal competition. It’s hard to argue with such assertions, but they are valid only if all other conditions remain the same. We went through de-industrialization and the economic structure is severely deformed. Large private capital does not willingly flow into new sectors – in order to avoid higher risks. We will certainly use tax and customs incentives to encourage investors to allocate funds to innovative industries. But this could show its effects several years from now – or not if more attractive investment options emerge in the world. Capital, after all, does not have borders. Are we ready to put Russia’s future at such great risk for the sake of purity of an economic theory?It was the priorities of our industrial policy that dictated our actions when creating large state-owned corporations and vertically-integrated holding companies – from Rostekhnologii and Rosatom to the United Aircraft Corporation and United Shipbuilding Corporation. The goal was to stop the collapse of the intellectual sectors of our industry and to retain the scientific and industrial potential through the consolidation of resources and the centralization of management. Today, this goal can be considered as having been achieved.We needed to gather the formally state-owned separately operated assets, most of which had lost contact with research and design centers. The result of the implementation of industry-specific holding strategies needs to be the creation of globally competitive, highly-capitalized corporations that have found and are expanding their place in the global market. It is these types of corporations that combine promising research and product development right through to the production, supply and servicing of high-technology products, which are today dominating the global market in aerospace, shipbuilding, computer technologies, pharmaceuticals and medical equipment. They are also issuing orders for small innovation companies and buying successful start-ups.So far, most integrated structures have not become globally competitive, highly-capitalized, or even consistently profitable. We are not planning to stop what we started mid-way. In some areas, such as the aviation industry, it was only now possible to complete the complex process of asset consolidation. Clearly, however, the time has come to test the vitality of every such project. Today, they are in need of top management to be highly competitive in the innovation business.I would like to stress that the government’s efforts have been aimed at restoring Russia’s ability to compete in sectors with only a few players in the global market. This was not about suppressing the private initiative, as there was simply no such initiative in these sectors. It is erroneous to draw conclusions about the rise of state capitalism based on our work in collecting, restructuring and pre-sale preparation of assets.Today, we have a plan for reorganization and entry into the market for every company. Some of them will be turned into public companies with a subsequent sale of shares. This will affect Rostekhnologii, Rosavtodor, the civil part of Rosatom, and a number of other state-owned corporations. This is not a one-day job, but neither can we perpetually procrastinate. I believe it is possible by the year 2016 to reduce the government’s share in certain raw material companies and complete the withdrawal from the capital of major non-commodity companies which are neither considered natural monopolies nor belong to the defense industry. We are counting on the active participation of Russian capital in the privatization and further development of high-technology assets. At the same time, we need to look for buyers among global investors who are not only ready to invest in the scientific and industrial base, but also to offer their connections and their place in major international markets. The successful economic modernization experience of such countries as Korea and China shows that an impetus from the government is needed but that its effect is outweighed by the risk of making a mistake. It will be difficult to achieve diversification without concentrated efforts. But, knowing all the risks of selectivity, we need to make the policy of the selection of priorities and government support more transparent and open for assessment and discussion on the part of competing firms and professional associations.Competition, which lies at the heart of the modern economy, is based on the fact that corporations – the developers and owners of advanced technologies – tend not to allow consumers of these technologies into something that can be referred to as the technological core. These are not only pilot projects, but also the full service cycle. We saw this from our own experience when, during the recession, our Russian companies tried buying a number of assets from abroad. As soon as it came to full-cycle technologies – even in the auto industry – our Western partners immediately gave us the red light.When selling the latest technological developments, the supplier usually seeks to retain some of the complex elements of equipment maintenance and technical processes. The buyer, thus, becomes not only technologically but also economically dependent on the supplier. If a country becomes an outsider in the field of advanced technology solutions, it is bound to sustain a permanent economic loss. Even if manufacturing facilities are located on its territory, the lion’s share of the profit goes to where the head offices, laboratories, and design bureaus are located.Therefore, developed countries work on the principles of technological cooperation. Their inter-dependence bolsters their economic and political stability.

The innovation cycle of the Russian economy

The main economic condition for innovation is competition. Only competition is able to force private enterprises to search for better technological solutions and to thus advance production. I see all of the challenges a number of our industries will face with our accession to the WTO. I would like to assure you that I will do everything possible to ease the difficulties of the transition period. But all manufacturers of industrial goods must clearly understand that the time of national markets has passed. There will be no more cosy niches. In high-tech manufacturing, there is only one market – the global one.There is another side of the coin: the supply side of innovation. The Russian economy is not only capable of buying but it is also capable of engendering innovation. Our place in the world of the future solely depends on whether we use our capabilities.The high level of education among the population, the rich legacy of fundamental science, the presence of engineering schools and the pilot production base which remains in many sectors – we must engage all of these factors.In previous years, we invested heavily in institutions, ensuring the commercialization of applied research. We have Rosnano, the Russian venture company; the government is sponsoring competitions for the development of innovative infrastructure in universities. A large number of Western companies have already become interested in the Skolkovo project. But learning to sell is not enough, stable innovative economic development calls for an uninterrupted flow of new ideas, fundamental research products and, finally, simply creative employees ready to create technologies.Restoration of the innovative nature of our economy should begin with universities – both as centers for basic science and as human resource bases for innovative development. The international competitiveness of our higher education must become our national goal. By the year 2020, we need to have several world-class universities across the full spectrum of modern physical and social technologies. This means that we need to ensure stable funding for university research groups and to ensure the international nature of these groups.Russian research universities should receive 50 per cent of their entire funding volume under the banner of “education” for research and development, just as their foreign competitors do. I base this on the fact that, at the same time, we will be conducting a planned restructuring of the entire vocational education sector, a process which will be coordinated with the expert community and the public.Ten-year programs of basic and exploratory research must be approved for the Russian Academy of Sciences, leading research universities and state research centers. But these programs will need to be defended, and during their implementation, regular reports will need to be issued – and not just for officials of the Ministry of Education and Science, but for tax payers and the science community, including respected international experts. When it comes to defense and other developments which are of direct concern to the government, it will be for the country’s leaders. The prioritization of the development of research universities does not mean neglecting the Russian Academy of Sciences and state research centers. On the contrary, the stable development of RAS institutes is possible only when they can choose a strong compliment.The funding for public research funds supporting the development of initiatives made by science groups will be increased several-fold to 25 million rubles in 2018. The size of grants should be consistent with those provided to scientists in the West.It is necessary to continue our efforts aimed at integrating Russian science centers, universities and enterprises into the international mechanisms of registration and capitalization of science products.We need to overcome the inertia of large domestic capital which, to be frank, has become unaccustomed to innovation projects, research and pilot production works. Today, 47 state-owned companies have adopted innovative programs. But private companies also need to get used to the idea that 3 to 5 per cent of their gross income needs to be directed towards research and development. It is necessary to develop the appropriate fiscal instruments but, most importantly, private business leaders must understand that without this they simply will not be perceived as equal players on the global market.Another side of technological modernization is the rapid mastery of imported technologies. There are already several clear examples of the importation of advanced technological culture. We have fairly good experience of the industrial assembly of cars. Today, already half the foreign-brand cars have been assembled by Russian workers and our customers don’t so much as think about the difference in quality between cars that are assembled there or here. Now, it is time for the localization and creation of centers of technological development here in Russia.Many household appliances of well-known firms are manufactured in Russia. Some of the largest manufacturers of food products exclusively sell locally produced food here. For us, it is important that leaders of the global technology market move from the first stage, namely seeing Russia as an interesting and a receptive market, and the second stage, investment into the localization of production, and on to the third, the creation of new technologies and products here in Russia. But they will come here only if they see technical universities and research centers that are able to compete at the global level.By investing in the competitiveness of the advanced sectors of the economy, Russia also solves a global social problem: the development of the creative class and the formation of space for its self-realization. But there are enormous sectors where our technological and organizational cultures are stuck in the past century. This is in no small part due to the fact that we are buying freestanding production units, but, in addition to this, because we are forgetting about production logistics, quality control and sometimes about basic technological discipline. The largest of these sectors are, of course, construction and transport.The government will support large infrastructure projects – primarily those ensuring good transport connections in our country and secure connections with the regions of Siberia and the Far East. An area that is at least as important is the local road network. Today, we are in a truly paradoxical situation. In Russia, with its vast territory, there is a shortage of land for construction. The reason is the underdevelopment of infrastructure. Whereas in Europe, the US, Japan and Korea you can build a house or a factory 50 km or even 80 km from a major city, here undeveloped land begins 20-30 km away – without roads, gas, water, or electricity, where land does not cost anything because it is simply unusable.The development of Russian territory needs to start with the land around large economic centers. Expansion of the agglomerative radius of our cities by 1.5-2 times will increase the available area manifold. This will reduce the cost of residential and industrial buildings by 20-30 per cent. This in turn will significantly raise the profitability of the rural agricultural sector, as well as the quality of life of farmers.Business, mainly small and medium-sized, will quickly realize the new opportunities that will come with the development of infrastructure, especially of the road network. But only the government is able to carry this out in the modern conditions, albeit with the involvement of private business (public-private partnership). To do this, we will need to dramatically improve the efficiency of spending, and to ensure that building is done at a cost that is no higher than that of our neighbors. To achieve this, we are ready to be open to international bids, widely engaging prominent foreign companies as operators and contractors. Starting next year, we will organize a mandatory public technological and price audit for all major investment projects with the state’s participation. International experts will be engaged in the audit.A separate topic is agriculture. The agricultural sector of our economy has shown some good growth rates in recent years. Practically all developed countries, in one way or another, subsidize their agricultural producers – and Russia is no exception. There are two reasons for this. First, in conditions of uncertainty in the global market with its significantly fluctuating food prices, agricultural security – the country’s ability to independently feed itself – is a condition of economic and social stability that is no less important than a balanced budget and a stable currency. Second, and again this is not only important for Russia, the agricultural sector is an important element in the preservation of a competitive environment in the economy and the formation of small and medium-sized businesses – and as such it is a foundation of healthy capitalism.

Where will the capital come from?

The main source for new enterprises and new jobs is private investment, and that’s something we have a problem with. Russia is losing out to competitors in terms of investment appeal. The country is suffering from significant capital flight.This is the result of our policies in the late 1990s and early 2000s, aiming to settle a conflict between two groups – one that controlled key capital flows, coming from the sale of mineral and energy resources, and the other seeking to return these finances to the state to use them for the benefit of all the people. I believe we made the right decision when we stepped up state control over the industries producing raw materials.It was not only right because some of the oligarchs thought they could go on buying political leverage. During my first term in office, we had to thwart persistent attempts to sell our key assets outside Russia. If the nation’s strategic resources were controlled by a narrow group of people within five to ten years, it would have meant that our economy would be run from abroad.It’s not about some conspiracy targeting Russia specifically. It’s about the behavior of transnational corporations during volatile, turbulent times when they feel a crisis looming. They withdraw money from developing markets to save the core of their business back home. They viewed Russia as a developing economy in the early 2000s, and continue to do so today.The sustainability of our country’s development depends not only on macroeconomic indicators, but also on the desire of the large group of people who have some cash and take investment decisions, to live in this country, to coordinate their long-term interests with the country’s development, to plan for their children to stay here.

What is needed to attract capital?We need to boost the size of the domestic market, which would make it more appealing for direct investment. Today, the government is doing all it can to achieve this. For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, we have been able to turn what were previously mere declarations and intentions into real integration. These years have seen the creation of the Customs Union, a Common Economic Space and a free trade zone within the CIS. We are harmonizing our trade rules. Russia has long been pushing for a common market with its neighbors, a market where goods and services would move without any barriers, and regulations would be identical. Of course, we take our partners’ interests into account, we meet them halfway, and we make concessions. But we need to realize that these concessions will soon help us reap generous profits. We strongly believe that the big market of the Common Economic Space will boost the competitive edge of each of its members.The business environment and appeal for long-term investment are still unsatisfactory in Russia. Over the past several years, the government has embarked on a number of reforms spearheaded by President Medvedev and aimed at shoring up the business environment. These have not brought any major shifts, though. We are still losing in the competition among jurisdictions. Companies making money in Russia often prefer to register their assets and conclude their deals abroad. It’s not so much down to the tax regulations, which are, overall, quite attractive, and not because of legislation. Although our laws are still in need of improvement as they are not flexible enough and don’t provide all the necessary tools for entrepreneurs, Russia’s legislative framework in general is up to modern requirements. The major problem is a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of state officials, from customs and tax agencies to courts and law enforcement. To call a spade a spade, Russia is hit with systemic corruption. This has a direct effect on business – the amount your company has to pay depends on whether certain officials are “sympathetic” towards you or not. It’s natural that under such circumstances entrepreneurs would prefer not to abide by the law but to find a patron or strike a deal with the officials. However, a business enjoying such protection would not bother to increase its corporate efficiency, it would rather opt to bully its competitors, ousting them from the market with the help of their affiliated agents within the tax, law enforcement or judicial systems.Ensuring fair competition for our businesses is a profound challenge. Yet, the solutions lie outside our economic policy. We must change the ways our state functions, we must transform Russia’s executive and judicial branches. We must dismantle the convictive tie-ups between law enforcement, the investigative, prosecutor and judicial agencies, to weed out from the criminal code any traces of Soviet legal principles, any pretexts that make it possible to turn a commercial dispute into a criminal case against one of the parties involved. All cases involving economic offences should be handed over from courts of general jurisdiction to arbitration courts. I call on experts, judges and the business community to take part in public discussion over the issue and formulate specific proposals by the year’s end. I am certain that the State Duma would endorse such amendments.A wonderful example is neighboring Kazakhstan, which joined us in a common economic space on January 1. Now, Kazakhstan is ranked 47th in the World Bank Doing Business Survey, while Russia came in 120th. We must aim to achieve the same benchmarks in terms of comfortable business environment that are provided by other countries at the same development level.We must change the very concept of state control over business, by limiting its powers significantly. The new strategy should proceed from the presumption of fair business practice. We must proceed from the fact that creating an environment for bona fide businessmen is more important than avoiding the risks associated with fraudulent behavior.The capital of individuals is not used by the market. It means that people do not receive their share of revenue from the country’s economic growth and its growing capitalization. We need special projects to attract people's savings – through pension and trust funds, through mutual funds. They constitute a considerable share of the national capital in developed economies.

We must create conditions for long-term investment in the private sector of the Russian economy, coming from individual savings, including retirement plan savings, growing steadily.This is impossible to achieve without curbing inflation. Inflation hits the income of every person and discourages people from saving money for the future. We are often told to solve economic issues through irresponsible money-printing and a reckless build-up of state debt. But we know very well that in this case, the short-term illusion of well-being will soon be replaced by a leap in prices. Russia experienced this in the 1990s.But curbing inflation will not automatically create additional funds. We must actively stimulate the creation of new institutions.We should introduce governmental levers to provide for the security and even profitability of retirement accounts. We should try out new options, in particular, opening retirement savings accounts at the banks themselves. Spurring long-term investment must be our priority for the next 10-15 years. It's a long road, and we should not be afraid if it doesn't bring immediate results. We have the main condition for success: the middle class is growing rapidly in Russia, and they are ready to spend their money on medical services of a higher quality, on better housing, on bigger pensions. The task of the government is to safeguard this money.What I would like to say specifically for the opposition is that all the proposals I have laid out here do not imply that we will in any way depart from free education and healthcare, or will stop raising conventional pensions. We will be persistently raising the quality of services that the Constitution guarantees to every citizen of our country. I will address this issue in a later article.

Reducing the role of the state in the economy

The art of managing a national economy under the current conditions is, first and foremost, about knowing the right balance between the state’s involvement and private initiative.The global crisis strengthened the case for a state-controlled economy. But we understand that compared to other countries, in Russia the state plays a major role in the economy already and has more control over it, while the methods of this control lack the efficiency that we see in some other countries. Our economic policy has to move towards less state involvement, replacing regulations with market rules, and administrative checks with liability insurance.Earlier, I mentioned our plans to privatize some key assets. By selling them off we do not pursue any fiscal goals – we seek to change the structure of the specific industry. I mean we are selling them not only to get more money into the budget, but, first of all, because we want to see more competition in the economy, clearing the field for private initiative. But it would be stupid to sell cheap, ignoring the tone of the market. No sensible owner would do that.There is much talk about how the privatization in the 1990s, with its loans-for-shares auctions, was unfair. I completely agree. But if we now start taking back these assets, as some have suggested, it would bring the economy to a halt, paralyze industries, and unemployment would sky-rocket. Besides, many of these current owners acquired their property legally. They did not break any laws that existed at the time. Many of them modernize their enterprises, create new jobs, use their assets efficiently. The way they acted during the 2009-2010 crisis showed that business is a lot more socially responsible now.We also have to reduce the share of big enterprises and banks with a controlling stake by the state, as well as by natural monopolies, including Gazprom, in other companies. They must get rid of non-core assets, media companies for example.We need to limit state companies in their attempts to acquire new assets in Russia. The giants should not get in the way of private entrepreneurs operating in different sectors of the economy or try to cut them off from the most profitable projects.

Macroeconomic conditions of growth

To create a capitalist system that would function in the interests of everyone, we must preserve and bolster macroeconomic stability. I think this is our greatest achievement in recent years. We have learned to appreciate the benefits of macroeconomic stability and use different levers to maintain it under the most difficult conditions. The reserve funds we set up in advance helped us to come out of the first wave of the global crisis without any major upheavals.If we want to see long-term investment growing, investors need to be confident that the macroeconomic situation in our country will remain stable for years to come. Businesses should be aware of how the government will deal with burning budget policy issues, where it will take the funds to cover expenses for decisions it has already taken, and the money that is needed to upgrade the economy.We have taken up long-term obligations in terms of our budget spending, first of all, in social care, and we plan to deliver on them. We will also spend significant resources to modernize the army. Healthcare, education, road construction will require huge expenditures as well. Where will we take the money to pay for all of that?The first important thing is to ensure efficiency of our spending. We must set our priorities straight, cutting all unnecessary expenses. We must introduce comprehensive control over the costs and quality of construction, as well as tender prices. In essence, we must uproot the system of kickbacks in deals involving funds from federal and regional budgets. We must tackle the issue – it will save us at least five, maybe even 10% of the budget, that is between 1 and 2% of the GDP annually.The new draft law on the Federal Contract System provides for a preliminary public discussion of the form of government procurement and the way the starting price is set. I think it is necessary to apply this procedure now, even before the new law is adopted, for contracts worth over 1 billion roubles, for example. We should exploit the interest of private contractors for the good of the public. Together with journalists and NGOs, they should get used to discussing expedience of the technical solutions submitted, which companies can deliver the projects, and, finally, the minimum price.As for the public sector, we must change the paradigm here – stop financing agencies, and instead start paying for the services they provide. Wherever it is possible we must switch to financing per capita, when money is assigned to a person acquiring services. This will save us an additional 10-15%, which we can use to raise salaries for teachers, doctors, university professors, and to provide medicine for patients.Second. We need to have a balanced pension system, which will reduce the level of transfers from the budget to the pension fund.Third. We will need to make changes to our tax code. We will not raise taxes for non-commodity sectors – this goes against our policy of economy diversification. But we have some potential for tax growth in certain areas – upscale real estate, luxury goods, alcohol, tobacco, we can increase rent in sectors where it is below the market rate right now. First of all, I am talking about an additional tax on wealth, or upscale consumerism, to be more exact. Major decisions are set to be made this year, so that next year owners of expensive houses and cars would start paying higher taxes. But we need to be careful here and make sure that these measures do not affect the middle class.We can also get additional funds by putting a lid on tax evasion schemes through phoenix companies and offshore accounts. Good-faith businesses will only benefit from this, they won’t have to compete with those who gain profit through financial scams, cheating the government.Also we need to stop, once and for all, adapting our tax system to growing expenditure. Such policy makes the economic environment more unstable in the eyes of businesses, and our economy less attractive for investment.Our number one objective is to restore long-term balance between state revenue and spending. The crisis upset this balance, because significant amounts were allocated to soften the effects of the external shockwaves. This is true for most of the countries affected by the crisis. However, the negative example of the European Union and the US has shown what economic, social and political implications a budget imbalance could have. In Russia, the situation is even more difficult, because the state revenues are very much dependent on oil and gas prices.

We should also be very careful about borrowing money for the budget, keeping in mind several lessons from world and Russian recent economic history.Firstly, a considerable debt always means ceding part of the country’s sovereignty. In case of any aggravation of the economic situation, the country becomes dependent on investors, international organizations, lending countries dictating to the government what kind of steps it should be taking. From this standpoint, Russia today finds itself in a very advantageous position as compared to other countries. For instance, we have the lowest national debt of all G20 countries. We must maintain this advantage as it is the main factor of macroeconomic security.Secondly, when people lend money to their government, they give up the cash that could have been channeled for private investment. If we are to increase this figure, we should avoid maintaining a considerable budget deficit.Today, labor efficiency in Russia is three to four times less than in developed economies. What does this mean? Low labor efficiency at the country level makes a national economy less competitive globally. For an individual, low labor efficiency means a bad job that cannot ensure a good salary. And it’s not about our people not being capable of working, or being unwilling to do so, or underperforming, as some eggheads say, – that is not true. The thing is that their jobs are outdated and ineffective.The new generation of young people in Russia – those who just started working and those who are still students – have very high expectations, very high requirements for their jobs. Never before has Russia faced such an educational and cultural challenge. And it’s a positive challenge – I am firmly convinced of this.A natural and logical solution to the issue of low labor efficiency is to mass-create highly productive, and, therefore, highly paid jobs for the educated and the ambitious. This should be done through opening new manufacturing facilities, as well as modernizing the existing ones, both in traditional industries and those that are only emerging.The new Russian economy will be a diversified economy, boasting not only a modern energy sector, but also other competitive industries. The GDP share of high-tech and intellectual sectors should increase 1.5 times by 2020, doubling the export of high-tech products.This will be an efficient economy with high labor efficiency and low energy consumption. We must considerably narrow the gap between us and the leading countries. It means that we must ensure a double increase in labor efficiency on the average, and in the key sectors we must achieve a level similar to, or even higher than that of our competitors. Otherwise, we simply won’t have any chance for success in the global competition.Those are highly productive and highly paid jobs. Average wages in the economy will grow 1.6-1.7 times in real terms, almost up to 40,000 roubles, in terms of2011 prices. In nominal terms, it will be higher, of course.This will be an innovative economy. The share of enterprises introducing new technologies should grow 2.5 times by 2020, from 10.5% to 25%, reaching the current average European level.This will be an economy in which no less than 50% of workers are employed by small businesses. In 2020, a significant part of small businesses will have to be companies engaged in intellectual and creative activities, they will work on the global market, exporting their products and services.When considering any macroeconomic indicator or any specific project, there should be one question on our mind: how many jobs will it help to create, how will it help to improve the quality of employment and, consequently, our living standards?Russia’s new economy must provide an opportunity to everyone – entrepreneurs, public sector employees, engineers and skilled workers. This is the essence of the social dimension in the economy – my next article will be dedicated to this subject.

The article was published in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily, and also appeared on both the official site of Russia’s cabinet head and Putin’s election campaign site.Read the full article below.

Russia: The national question

For Russia – with its wide range of languages, traditions, ethnicities, and cultures – the national question is, without exaggeration, of fundamental importance. Any responsible politician or public figure must recognize that one of the main conditions of our country’s very existence is civil and interethnic harmony.   We see what is happening in the world, the serious risks that are accumulating. Escalating interethnic and interreligious tensions are today’s reality. Nationalism and religious intolerance are becoming an ideological base for some of the most radical groups and movements – destroying or eroding states, and dividing societies.   The colossal immigration flows – and we have every reason to assume that they will continue to grow – are already being referred to as the new “Great Human Migration”, capable of shifting the familiar structure and image of entire continents. Millions of people, in search for a better life, are leaving regions stricken by hunger and chronic conflict, poverty and social unrest. Some of the world’s most developed and prosperous countries, which had previously boasted about their tolerance, have come face-to-face with the “intensification of the national question”. And today, one after another, they have had to admit their failure to integrate outside cultural elements into society and ensure a peaceful, harmonious interaction between various cultures, religions, and ethnic groups.  The “melting pot” of assimilation is stalling and smoking, unable to “digest” the growing migration flow. In politics, a reflection of this fact has been “multiculturalism”, which rejects the notion of integration through assimilation. It elevates the “right of minorities to be different” to the absolute and, at the same time, fails to balances this right with civil, behavioral, and cultural obligations with regard to the indigenous population and society as a whole. In many countries, closed national and religious communities are forming, which not only refuse to assimilate, but will not even adapt. There are neighborhoods and entire cities where generations of immigrants are living on welfare and do not speak the language of the host country. The response to this situation has been a rise of xenophobia among indigenous populations in an attempt to protect their interests, jobs, and social benefits from the “foreign competitors”. People are shocked by the aggressive pressure on their traditions and way of life, and are seriously threatened by the possibility of losing their national identity.   Some respectable European politicians are starting to talk about the failure of the “multiculturalism project”. In order to hold on to their positions, they exploit the “ethnic card” – siding with those whom they had earlier considered marginal and radical. Extremist forces, in turn, are rapidly gaining momentum, making claims to state power. In essence, talk of forced assimilation is being proposed against a background of “aloofness” and sharp tightening of migration regimes. People of different cultures must either “dissolve in the majority” or remain an isolated national minority – albeit with various rights and guarantees. In practice, it means being cut off from the possibility of a successful career. I’ll be frank – it is hard to expect a citizen who has been subjected to such conditions to be loyal to his country.    Behind the “failure of the multicultural project” stands the crisis of the very model of a “nation-state” – a state historically built exclusively on the basis of ethnic identity. And that is a serious challenge which will be faced in Europe and many other regions of the world.  

Russia as a ‘historic state’

Despite all the superficial similarities, our situation is fundamentally different. Our national and immigration problems are directly linked to the collapse of the Soviet Union and, in essence, Greater Russia, whose historic foundations were built back in the 18th century. To the subsequent inevitable degradation of state, social, and economic institutions. To the enormous gap in development on the post-Soviet territory.    Having declared sovereignty 20 years ago, the then-deputies of the RSFSR, amid a fight against the “union center”, launched the creation of “nation-states” – even within the Russian Federation itself. The “union center”, in turn, while trying to put pressure on its opponents, engaged in a behind-the-scenes game with Russian autonomies, promising to raise their “national and statehood identity.” Today, the participants in these processes are pointing the finger at one another. But one thing is clear – their actions led inevitably to disintegration and separatism. They did not have the courage, or the responsibility, or the political will to successfully and insistently defend the territorial integrity of the Motherland.   That which the initiators of the “sovereignty-related undertakings” had, perhaps, failed to realize, was very clearly and rapidly understood by everyone else – including those living outside of our state. And the consequences were immediate. After the country’s collapse, we found ourselves on the verge of, and in certain regions, beyond the brink of a civil war, one that was ethnically motivated. With great efforts and great sacrifice, we were able to subdue these flashpoints. But that, of course, does not mean that the problem has been resolved.   However, even at a time when the state, as an institution, was critically weakened, Russia did not disappear. What happened was exactly the process described by Vasily Klyuchevsky, writing about the first Russian revolution: “When the political ties of public order fractured, the country was rescued by the moral will of the people.”     Incidentally, our November 4th holiday – National Unity Day – which some superficially call “the day of victory over the Poles,” is in reality “the day of victory over oneself,” over internal animosity and strife, when classes and nationalities acknowledge themselves as being one community – one nation. We have the right to consider this holiday the birthday of our civil nation.    The historic Russia is neither an ethnic state nor an American “melting pot”, where everyone is, one way or another, an immigrant. Russia emerged and for centuries developed as a multi-ethnic state – a state with an ongoing process of mutual adjustment, mutual understanding, and unification of people through families, friendship and work, with hundreds of ethnicities living together on the same land. The development of these vast territories, which has filled the whole of Russian history, was a collective effort of many nations. Suffice it to say that ethnic Ukrainians live on the territory, stretching from the Carpathians to Kamchatka – just as do ethnic Tatars, Jews, Belarusians…    One of Russia’s earliest philosophical and religious works, The Sermon on Law and Grace, rejects the very theory of a Chosen People and preaches the idea of equality before God. Meanwhile, the Primary Chronicle illustrates the multiethnic nature of the Old Russian state as follows: “Everyone speaks Slavic in the Rus: Polans, Drevlians, Novgorodians, Polochany, Dregovichs, Northerners, Buzhans…But other peoples: Chud, Meria, Ves, Muroma, Cheremis, Mordvins, Perm, Pechera, Yam, Lithuania, Kors, Narova, Livs – these have their own languages…”    It is this special quality of Russian statehood that was outlined in Ivan Ilyin’s works: “Not to eliminate, not to suppress, not to enslave other people’s blood, not to stifle the life of different tribes and religions – but to give everyone breath and the great Russia…to honor all, to reconcile all, to allow everyone to pray in their own way, to work in their own way, and to engage the best in public and cultural development.”   The core, the binding fabric of this unique civilization – is the Russian people, Russian culture. And it is this core that various instigators and our opponents will make every effort to tear out of Russia – with false assertions about Russians’ right to self-determination, “racial purity”, the need to “finish the job of 1991 and complete the destruction of the empire, sitting on the necks of the Russian people” – in order to ultimately force people to destroy their Motherland with their own hands.      I am deeply convinced that attempts to promote the idea of creating a Russian “national” mono-ethnic state contradict our thousand-year-old history. Moreover, it is the shortest path towards the destruction of the Russian nation and Russian statehood – as well as any viable sovereign statehood in our land.    When they start screaming: “Stop feeding the Caucasus,” just wait, as tomorrow a new call will inevitably follow: “Stop feeding Siberia, the Far East, the Ural, Volga, Moscow region…” This is the recipe followed by those who brought the Soviet Union to collapse. As for the infamous idea of national self-determination, which has been speculated on repeatedly by various politicians – from Vladimir Lenin to Woodrow Wilson – while fighting for power and political dividends, the Russian people have long self-determined themselves. Self-determination of the Russian people – a poly-ethnic civilization, held together by a Russian cultural core. This determination has been confirmed many times over by the Russian people – and not in plebiscites or referendums, but with blood. Throughout the entire 1,000 years of history.       

A shared cultural code

The Russian experience of national development is unique. We are a multi-ethnic society, but we are one people. This makes our country complex and multidimensional, providing colossal opportunities for development in many areas. However, if a multi-ethnic society is struck by the bacilli of nationalism, it loses its strength and stability. And we must understand the types of far-reaching effects that can come as a result of condoning attempts to incite ethnic strife and hatred toward people with different cultures and different beliefs.   Civil peace and inter-ethnic accord is not a once-established and forever-set-in-stone picture. On the contrary, it is an unending dynamic, a dialogue. It is meticulous work of the state and society, requiring very delicate decisions, balanced and wise policies, capable of ensuring “unity in diversity”. It is necessary to not only adhere to mutual obligations, but also to search for common values. We cannot force people to be together. And we cannot force people to live together because it is convenient, based on weighing the costs and benefits. These “calculations” work until a crisis strikes. And when it does, they start working in reverse.    The confidence that we can ensure a harmonious development of a multicultural community is based on our culture, history and type of identity. We recall that many citizens of the Soviet Union who found themselves abroad now call themselves Russian. And they consider themselves as being such regardless of ethnicity. It is also interesting that ethnic Russians have never, not in any emigration, formed stable national diasporas, despite having a significant quantitative and qualitative presence, because our identity has a different cultural code.   Russian people are nation-forming – on the basis of Russia’s existence. The great mission of Russians is to unite and bind our civilization. Language, culture and “universal kind-heartedness,” according to Fyodor Dostoevsky, are what bring together Russian Armenians, Russian Azerbaijanis, Russians Germans, Russian Tatars… Bring them together to form a type of state-civilization that does not have “ethnic persons” and where differentiation between “us and them” is determined by a common culture and shared values.       This civilizational identity is based on the preservation of a Russian cultural dominance, which flows not only from ethnic Russians, but all carriers of this identity regardless of nationality. This is the cultural code that has, in recent years, been subject to some serious trials, which people have tried and continue to try to break. And it has, nevertheless, prevailed. At the same time, it needs to be nourished, strengthened, and protected.  This is where education can play a great role. Our choice of educational program, the diversity of our education – are our undeniable achievements. But diversity must be based on unshakable values, fundamental knowledge and worldview. The civil goal of education, of the education system, is to give every person sufficient knowledge of the humanities to form the basis of collective self-identity. And this should mainly include an increased role being played in the education process by such subjects as the Russian language, Russian literature, and national history – of course, in the context of the entire wealth of national traditions and cultures.     A movement for the study of the Western cultural canon emerged in some of the leading American universities in the 1920s. Every self-respecting student was supposed to read 100 books from a specially-designed list. Some US universities continue to hold on to this tradition. Our nation has always been a nation of readers. Let’s survey our prominent cultural leaders and compile a list of 100 books that must be read by every Russian high school graduate – and not simply regurgitated in school, but read in their own time. And let’s make the writing of a composition based on those texts a part of the final exam. Or let’s at least give young people an opportunity to display their knowledge and worldview in competitions and contests.     Similar demands need to be made by the state policy in the field of culture. This applies to such tools as television, cinema, the Internet, and popular culture in general, which shape public opinion and set behavioral examples and norms.   Recall how, with the help of Hollywood, the US shaped the consciousness of several generations – and did so while introducing not the worst-possible values, in terms of national interests and public morality. There is something to learn here.  I’ll stress that no one is encroaching on artistic freedom – I am not talking about censorship or “official ideology,” but about the fact that the state must and has the right to direct its efforts and resources toward the resolution of recognized social and public problems. This includes the establishment of a worldview that binds the nation.  Our nation, where in the consciousness of many there is still an ongoing civil war, where the past is highly politicized and “torn” into ideological quotes (often interpreted by various people as precisely the opposite of what they should mean), requires subtle cultural therapy. A cultural policy that, on various levels – from school subsidies to historic documentation – would form an understanding of the unity of the historic process that would allow representatives of every ethnicity – as well as descendants of a “red commissioner” or a “white officer” – to find their place, to feel equal heirs of the “one for all” controversial, tragic, but great history of Russia.    We need a national policy strategy based on civil patriotism. Any person living in our country should not forget their faith and ethnicity. But before anything else, he must be a citizen of Russia and be proud. No one has the right to put ethnic and religious considerations above the state laws. However, the state laws need to take into account ethnic and religious considerations.  I believe that, within the federal government, there needs to be a special structure responsible for issues concerning national development, inter-ethnic harmony, and inter-ethnic reciprocity. Today, these problems are handled by the Ministry of Regional Development and, with the myriad of current tasks, are often relegated to second or even third place – and this situation needs to be corrected.   It doesn’t have to be a standard agency. Rather, it could be a collegial body that works directly with the country’s president, the head of the government, and has a certain amount of authority. National policy cannot be developed and implemented exclusively in the cabinets of officials. National and community organizations must be directly involved in its discussion and formation.   And, of course, we are counting on an active involvement in this dialogue of Russia’s traditional religions. The foundations of the Christian Orthodox Church, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism – with all of their differences and peculiarities – include basic, shared moral, ethical, and spiritual values: compassion, reciprocity, truth, justice, respect for elders, family and work values. These value systems cannot be replaced by anything: and we need to reinforce them.      I am confident that the state, society, should welcome and support the work of Russia’s traditional religions in the system of education and information, in the social sphere, and in the Armed Forces. At the same time, the secular nature of our state must, of course, be preserved.

National policy and the role of strong institutions

Systemic problems in society are often expressed in the form of inter-ethnic tensions. We should always keep in mind that there is a direct correlation between unresolved socio-economic problems, flaws in the law enforcement system, government inefficiency, corruption, and ethnically-motivated conflicts. If we look at the history of all the recent inter-ethnic incidents, we will notice this “trigger” in practically all of the cases: Kondopoga, Manezh Square, Sagra. Everywhere we are seeing a keen response to the absence of justice, the lack of responsibility and inaction of certain state representatives, impunity for criminals and disbelief in equality before the law, the conviction that everything can be bought and there is no truth.    When we start talking about infringement of the rights of Russians in Russia, and especially on Russia’s historic territories, this indicates that the government structures are failing to perform their direct obligations – to protect the rights, life and safety of citizens. And because the majority of these citizens are Russian, it becomes possible to focus on the subject of “national oppression of Russians” and cover this justified public outcry in the most primitive and vulgar form of inter-ethnic violence, while at the same time, on every possible occasion, wailing about “Russian fascism”.   We need to be aware of the risks and threats that the situations on the verge of ethnic conflicts entail. Law enforcement and government agencies, whose negligence caused ethnic tensions, must be punished, no matter how high the rank or standing of the people involved. The range of suitable approaches is not that big. Do not assume anything, do not jump to conclusions. We need to carry out a careful investigation of what is at the core of the problem, what are the accompanying circumstances, and settle the conflict in each individual case of hate crime. Unless there are some specific circumstances, all such cases must be processed publicly because lack of transparency encourages the spread of rumors that often aggravate the situation. In this respect, high professional standards and a responsible attitude on the part of the mass media are of paramount importance.There is no room for dialogue amidst riots and violence. No one should be tempted to pressure the authorities into specific decisions by means of civil disorders. Our law enforcement agencies have proven that they are capable of easily and efficiently suppressing any attempts at doing that.Another important point is that we have to develop our multi-party democratic system. We are now working on measures aimed at simplifying and liberalizing the procedures of registration and work for political parties. We are working on the initiative to return the elections of regional governors. All of these things are necessary and correct steps. But there is one thing we cannot allow and that is the creation of regional parties, even in national republics. That is a direct path toward separatism. This requirement should certainly apply to the election of regional heads – those who try to rely on nationalist, separatist and similar forces and groups must be immediately, within the framework of democratic judicial procedures, excluded from the electoral process.     

Migration and our Integration Project

Today, people are concerned with – or to put it straight – annoyed by the many troubles caused by mass migration, be it from other countries or different parts of Russia. Now, with the Eurasian Union project underway, people are worried that it could increase the flow of migrants and, correspondingly, aggravate existing problems. I believe we must make our position on the issue clear.Firstly, it’s obvious that we need to revamp the government’s migration policy. And that’s something we are going to deal with. No country in the world has been able to eliminate illegal migration completely, but it should – and can – be curbed. This is why we need to expand the relevant powers of the police and migration agencies.However, simply tightening the screws on migrants won’t solve the problem. In many countries, such crackdowns only spur the flow of illegal migration. The principal measure of migration policy is not its toughness, but its effectiveness. In this regard, we must clearly define our policy concerning legal migration, both temporary and permanent. This implies that the authorities should give priority and grant favored status to those migrants who are highly-qualified, competent, competitive, and are able to adapt both to the local culture and new standards of behavior. Such positive selection procedures and competition for the quality of migrant workers are common to all countries. Of course, migrants that meet these requirements are easier and better integrated into the recipient society. Secondly, migration within the country is very high. A lot of people leave their homes to study, live and work in other parts of Russia, in big cities. These are citizens of Russia enjoying full civil rights.However, if you come to a region with different cultural and historical traditions, you must show respect for the local customs, for the customs of Russians or any other nation living within the country. Any other behavior – inappropriate, aggressive, outrageous or disdainful – must be tackled by a legal but tough response, first and foremost, by the local authorities who today very often neglect the situation. We need to revise the Administrative and Criminal Codes to toughen punishment for such behavior and introduce criminal responsibility for violations of migration regulations and registration rules. Sometimes it’s enough to warn a person. But if the warning is backed up by a specific regulation it will be more effective and properly interpreted – not as a private opinion of some police officer or official, but as a requirement set forth by the law equal to all people.  Of course, there should be civilized norms even for internal migration. It’s vital for the harmonious development of social infrastructure, medicine, education and the labor market. Many regions and cities which have attracted a lot of migrants are suffering from an overload in these areas. This makes the situation complicated both for the locals and the newcomers. This is why we must toughen both our registration rules and the penalties for their violation. But in doing so, we should not undermine people’s constitutional right to choose their place of residence.  Thirdly, we must bolster our judicial branch and make our law enforcement agencies work effectively. This is of paramount importance not just in tackling the issue of foreign migrants, but, in our case, in dealing with internal migration from the republics of North Caucasus. Without these pillars, we will never be able to reconcile the interests of different societies objectively (both the in-group and the out-group) and foster a perception of migration as something safe and fair. Also, inefficiency and corruption in both the police and the courts will always result in the twin problems of growing discontent and radicalization of the host society, as well as encouraging mob behavior and a shadow black economy in the migrant community.  We must prevent the formation of isolated ethnic enclaves which, instead of being subject to federal law, are often ruled by their own set of codes. It’s the rights of the migrants themselves that will be abused in this case, both by their own underworld bosses and by corrupt officials.It is corruption that gives rise to crimes committed by certain ethnic groups. In legal terms, crime groups built on ethnic or tribal principles are no different from regular mobs or gangs. However, our current situation is such that these ethnic criminal groups have become more than just an organized crime problem, they have become an issue of national security. And this is something we need to address. The fourth problem is that of civilized integration and socialization of the migrants. This requires again addressing our education process. And by this I mean not so much adjusting our education system to help us solve migration policy issues (this being far from the most important task for our schools) as boosting overall education standards in the country. Increasing the attractiveness and value of proper education is a powerful driving force that can encourage migrants to integrate effectively into the recipient society, while low-quality education cements a tendency for isolation and distancing of the migrant communities that can become a long-term tradition, spanning several generations.It is important to us to provide appropriate conditions for migrants to adapt in society. It is elementary that people who want to live and work in Russia should be willing to learn the Russian language and assimilate into Russia's culture. Exams in Russian, Russian history, Russian literature and the basics of Russian law should be made compulsory for the granting or extension of migrant status. Like other civilized nations, Russia is ready to put forward learning programs for migrants. In a number of cases, we will need auxiliary professional training programs paid for by the migrants' employers.My fifth suggestion is to curb chaotic migration from post-Soviet states by means of regional integration.It has been noted before that the main factor driving mass migration in our region are the hugely unequal levels of development of post-Soviet countries. Understandably, a sensible way to curb migration, if not eliminate it completely, would be to eliminate social inequality. A large number of leftist humanitarian activists in the West have spoken in favor of this method. Regrettably, on a global scale, this ethically irreproachable idea looks like a utopia.Nothing is stopping us from implementing this idea in our own region, however. One of the main purposes of Eurasian integration is to create decent living conditions in post-Soviet states for millions of their people to prosper.We understand that it is poor economic situations which force migrants to leave their homes and work in uncivilized conditions to support themselves and their families.  From this standpoint, the goals we have set for Russia (a new economy with an effective employment system, revival of professional communities, proportional development of productive forces and social infrastructure across the whole country), and the goals of Eurasian integration are key to bringing migration flows under control. On the one hand, migrants will move where they will cause minimal social tensions. On the other hand, we should provide for a comfortable and decent life in their home cities and settlements. What we should do is to give people the chance to work and live normally at home, in their Motherland – a chance that most of them are currently deprived of. There are no simple solutions for national and ethnic policies. Their components are scattered across all areas of life, and of the state and society – the economy, the social sphere, education, politics and international affairs. We should build a model of state and civilized society that would be equally attractive and comfortable for everyone who calls Russia their Motherland. We see what is to be done next. We understand that we have a historical experience that no one else has. We can rely on our mentality, our culture, our identity – it’s a unique and powerful foundation. We will be strengthening the “historic state” that we inherited from our ancestors – a state and a civilization that can solve the task of harmonizing different ethnic and religious groups successfully. We have been living together for centuries. Together, we won the most terrible war. And we will continue to live together. To those seeking to divide us, I say: “Don’t waste your time.”

Read the full transcript of Sergey Lavrov’s speech

Ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to welcome you all to our traditional review of the past year’s results in international affairs.It has been a difficult year, and our partners in international affairs all agree that we are witnessing a serious acceleration of international processes. It is becoming more and more obvious that the world has entered a stage where the geopolitical landscape is undergoing profound transformation. This change is accompanied by serious turbulence at both global and regional levels. We see the growth of crisis elements in the global economy. I am sure that you are well aware of all this and that you have been following these events.Under these conditions, Russia has been working to maintain international stability and step up efforts to find collective solutions to the key challenges the international community is facing today. As President Dmitry Medvedev said in his State of the Nation address to the Federal Assembly on December 22, Russia’s foreign policy has become more modern; it serves the purpose of modernizing Russia, ensuring its security and developing partnerships with other countries in the interests of our people, in order to improve their social and economic conditions, to protect the rights of our citizens abroad and to ensure their well-being in general. We will continue our efforts to further strengthen Russia’s reputation and standing in the world as a key center of power and influence in the emerging new polycentric world order.Perhaps the most important achievement is the progress we have achieved in integration processes among CIS countries. Member states of the Commonwealth have signed a free trade zone agreement and taken steps to further strengthen their alliance in the CSTO. Also, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have agreed to launch the Common Economic Space on January 1. For the first time in the history of our integration, we have created a supranational institution, the Eurasian Economic Commission, and we are advancing towards establishing the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015. The integration institutions established by our three countries are open to include new members and interact with other political and economic alliances. All these integration processes will help develop wide and effective cooperation between Europe and Asia Pacific in the context of this Eurasian integration.Naturally, I should also mention the fact that Russia has joined the WTO. This opened a fundamentally new chapter in the process of integrating our country into the global economic system, which should make a substantial contribution to the comprehensive modernization of the Russian economy and create conditions for its intensive growth.The Russia-EU summit in December demonstrated once again that there can be no alternative to strengthening our strategic partnership and that both parties are willing to develop our diverse interaction in various areas. Of course, the aspect of modernization is quite important; however, I would single out our agreement on the list of steps that need to be taken for us to introduce visa-free travel as the most important achievement. As another step in that direction, we have signed an agreement with Poland that practically introduces visa-free travel for the residents of the Kaliningrad Region and adjoining territories in Poland. As regards the economy, the launch of the first section of Nord Stream has opened a new chapter in energy cooperation between Russia and EU countries.Our relations with the United States of America have remained one of the key priorities of our foreign policy. The past year was marked by the entry into force of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the US-Russia Agreement on Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation. We have also expanded our collaboration on international issues. The US-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission was actively involved in interaction. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues where we have a divergence of opinions – particularly, the issue of missile defense. We hope that the United States will acknowledge and consider our legitimate concerns, which we have conveyed to them as professionally and specifically as possible. We also expect our partners to make their choice in favor of joining our efforts in order to provide a unified response to the common challenges we are facing. We maintain a similar attitude vis-à-vis Russia’s relations with NATO. I believe that we will be able to promote our partnership to a new level, given that we have managed to address the issue of establishing equal and indivisible security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic region based on mutual appreciation of our respective interests. Our proposal for a European Security Treaty is still on the table.Growing instability in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East and North Africa, has highlighted the indisputable truth that principles such as promoting democracy and the rule of law must be observed not only in domestic policies, but also in international relations. We are strongly opposed to any violence against civilians, but we equally strongly disagree with foreign military intervention in favor of either one of the parties to an internal conflict. We also object to irresponsible application of the mandates issued by the UN Security Council with regard to crisis situations. Therefore, we consider it absolutely unacceptable to seek to apply the so-called Libya scenario to other conflicts. The situation in Syria particularly concerns us today. We insist on a political settlement and back the efforts by the Arab League Observer Mission. We deem it necessary that any violence in Syria wherever it originates is stopped immediately and a national inclusive dialogue starts without delay. The Russian draft resolution submitted to and currently being discussed at the UN Security Council, also backed by China and other BRICS countries, emphasizes this.Speaking of BRICS, let me note that in the past year mutually beneficial productive multilateral cooperation has intensified within this format on equal terms. As of today, BRICS has become a factor of global significance. The meetings of the BRICS leaders held last year reaffirmed that the organization is getting more and more influential in the spheres of finance and economy and, at the same time, is setting approaches backed by more and more countries to important problems of the world. We do hope that the forthcoming regular summit meeting of BRICS countries in New Delhi will strengthen mutually beneficial cooperation between the forum participants and will promote further consolidation of their positions in the world economy, finance and politics.We have been strengthening our positions in the Asia Pacific, focusing on developing strategic partnership relations with China and India and intensifying diverse cooperation with Japan, the Republic of Korea, ASEAN and other countries in the Asia Pacific. This included establishing technological and investment alliances and participating in the activities of regional organizations. In 2011, Russia and the United States joined the East Asia Summit. This new mechanism is an interesting and promising format that will help build a transparent, open, comprehensive and balanced architecture for security and cooperation in the region. The APEC summit that will take place in Vladivostok in September will certainly help Russia expand mutually beneficial economic ties with other countries in the region. I would also mention many countries in Latin America as our important and active partners in the international arena. We have been further developing our relations based on the principles of equality and mutual benefit.The effective use of soft power in all its forms is another important resource in our work. We intend to cooperate with civil society institutions, the expert community, business circles and mass media. We will actively use the potential of organizations established last year, namely, the Russian Council for International Affairs and the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Foundation, and other opportunities that we have with civil society in addition to traditional diplomatic instruments. We also expect that the new foundation for supporting and protecting the rights of Russians living abroad will become fully operational this year, as will the International Cooperation Agency. We believe that there is a broad consensus in Russia regarding foreign policy guidelines as expressed in the Foreign Policy Concept. It primarily implies a pragmatic, open and predictable foreign policy, focused on serving Russia’s national interest, a well-balanced and multidimensional approach to international affairs and the maximum use of the resources available to us in international affairs for ensuring economic growth, addressing social challenges and securing the general well-being of the Russian people. I believe our partners abroad have every reason to expect continuity in our foreign policy in view of the upcoming presidential election in Russia.Clearly, problems in international affairs have not receded. This means that Russia will need to act dynamically and proactively this year. We will be doing our best to make our contribution to resolving those problems and to ensure a favorable environment for our country’s progressive development.

On March 4, Russian voters will go to the polls to elect the country’s president. Today, many debates are unfolding across society.   I find it necessary to express my position on a number of issues that I consider to be important for public discussion. What risks and challenges will Russia be forced to face? What should be our position in global politics and economy? Will we follow the development of events or take part in creating the rules of the game? What resources will allow us to strengthen our positions and, allow me to emphasize – ensure stable development – one that has nothing to do with stagnation? Because in the modern world stability is something that can only be achieved through hard work, by being open to change and ready for long-overdue, well-planned, and well-calculated reforms.       A recurring problem in Russia’s history is the desire of part of the elite to take a leap towards a revolution, rather than for sequential development. Meanwhile, not only does the Russian experience but that of the entire world show the destructiveness of historic leaps: haste and destruction without creation.      This is confronted by another trend, an opposite challenge – the inclination toward stagnation, dependency, non-competitiveness of elites and a high level of corruption. Moreover, at every convenient moment, right before our eyes, the “subversive” individuals turn into “self-righteous lords”, who resist change and jealously guard their status and privileges. Or a reverse process happens: the “lords” become “subversive” individuals.      Hence the “short breath” of politics, its limitation to issues concerning the ongoing preservation or redistribution of power and property. This situation has traditionally been engendered by weak public control of politicians and the underdevelopment of civil society in Russia. The situation is gradually changing, albeit very slowly.   There can be no real democracy without a policy that is accepted by a majority of the population and which reflects the interests of that majority. Yes, it is possible to captivate a large part of society with loud slogans and images of a wonderful future, but if later people do not see themselves in that future, they will turn away from politics and common challenges for a long time. This has already happened in our history a number of times.  Today, there is talk about various ways of renewal of the political process. But what are we being asked to agree on? On ways to organize leadership? To transfer it to “the best people”? And then what? What will we actually be doing? I am concerned about the fact that there is practically no discussion on what should be done outside of elections, after elections. In my opinion, this does not meet the interests of the country, the quality of development of our society, or the level of its education and responsibility. Russian citizens, I think, should be given the opportunity to not only discuss the merits and shortfalls of politicians – which in and of itself is not a bad thing – but also the content of policies, the programs that various political actors plan to implement; the challenges and goals that should be the focus of these programs; ways we can improve our lives, creating a more equitable social structure; and the vector of preferred economic and social development. There needs to be an extensive dialogue about the future, our priorities, the long-term choices, national development and national prospects. This article is an invitation to this dialogue.

Where we are and where we are going

Today, based on the general parameters of economic and social development, Russia has emerged from the deep recession that followed the collapse of the totalitarian model of socialism and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite the crisis of 2008-2009, which has “taken away” two years from our efforts, we have reached and surpassed some of the best indicators of living standards in the Soviet Union. For example, life expectancy in Russia is already higher than in the Soviet Union in 1990-1991.       A developed economy is, above all, the people, their work, their income, and the number of new opportunities. Compared to the 1990s, the poverty level has been reduced by more than 2.5 times. “Stagnant poverty zones,” when capable and active people in large cities could not find a job or were not paid their salaries for months, have practically become a thing of the past. According to independent research, the real income of four out of five Russian citizens exceeds the level of 1989 – the “peak” of development in the Soviet Union, which was followed by the collapse and destabilization of the country’s entire socio-economic body. Today, more than 80 per cent of Russian families have a higher consumption level than the average level of a Soviet family.       The availability of household appliances has risen one and a half times to the level of developed states. Every second family has a car, a three-fold increase. Living conditions have improved significantly. Not only the average Russian citizen, but also our retirees as well, are currently consuming more staple foods than in 1990.      But most importantly, over the last 10 years a significantly large stratum of people has formed in Russia which, in the West, is considered to belong to the middle class. These are people with incomes that allow a sufficiently wide range of choices – to save or to spend, what to buy, and how to manage leisure time. They can choose the types of jobs that they like and they have a certain amount of savings.     And finally, the middle class are people who can choose policies. Their level of education is usually such that it allows them to have an informed opinion on the candidates, instead of “voting with the heart”. Incidentally, the middle class has begun to really articulate their needs in various sectors.  In 1998, the middle class accounted for 8-10 per cent of the population – that’s less than in the later years of the Soviet Union. Today, based on various estimates, the middle class constitutes 20 to 30 per cent of the population. These are people whose incomes are more than three times higher than the average earnings in 1990.  The middle class must continue to grow, to become a social majority in our society and to expand, made up as it is of those on whom the country depends, such as doctors, teachers, engineers and other skilled workers.   Russia’s main hope is the high level of education of the population and, mainly, of our youth. And that is a fact, despite all the well-known problems and complaints about the quality of the national education system.  Fifty-seven per cent of our population aged 25-35 have completed higher education. Besides Russia, a similar level is found in only three other countries: Japan, South Korea, and Canada. The explosive growth of educational needs continues. When it comes to the next generation (aged 15-25), it is fitting to talk about universal higher education, with more than 80 per cent of our young men and women obtaining or seeking it.    We are entering a new social reality. The “education revolution” is fundamentally changing the very image of Russian society and Russia’s economy. Even if today our economy does not require so many workers with higher education, it is already impossible to turn back. It isn’t the people who need to adjust to the existing structure of the economy and the labor market, the economy must become such that citizens with higher education and a higher level of demands are able to find decent work.       Russia’s biggest challenge is learning to apply the “educational drive” of the younger generation, to mobilize the increased demands of the middle class and its readiness to be responsible for its prosperity in ensuring economic growth and the country’s stable development. Having better-educated people means longer life-expectancy, lower levels of crime and anti-social behavior and more rational choices. All of this, in itself, already creates a favorable environment for our future. But this alone is not enough.     During the last decade, the rising prosperity level has been largely made possible by the government’s actions, including its restoration of order in the distribution of natural resource royalties. We used oil revenues to increase personal incomes, in order to bring millions of people out of poverty, as well as to have national savings in the event of crises and catastrophes. Today, the potential of the “natural resource economy” is running out and, most importantly, has no strategic prospects.      In the base policy documents of 2008 adopted immediately before the crisis, economic diversification and the creation of new sources of growth were outlined as among the main goals.    A new economy needs to be formed for educated and responsible people according to their various requirements and characteristics, whether as professionals, entrepreneurs, or consumers. Over the next 10 years, another 10-11 million young people will enter the labor market, of whom 8-9 million will have higher education. Already today, 5 million skilled workers on the labor market are dissatisfied not only with their wages, but also the nature of their work and its lack of prospects. Another 2-3 million are professionals working in budgetary institutions, who are looking for new employment. Moreover, 10 million people are employed by factories, built with archaic, backward technologies. These technologies must become a thing of the past – and not only because they are losing out in the market. Some of them are simply a health hazard for workers and the environment.         So the creation of 25 million new, high-tech, well-paid jobs for people with higher education is not phrase-mongering. It is an urgent necessity – a minimum level of sufficiency. To meet this national goal, we need to build a state policy, consolidate the efforts of the business sector, and create the best possible business climate.      I am confident that today’s – and especially tomorrow’s – talent pool in our country makes it possible to claim some of the strongest positions in global economic competition.  Russia’s future economy must meet the needs of society. It must ensure higher wages, more interesting, creative work, more opportunities for professional growth, and create social ladders.  It is this – and not only GDP indicators, volumes of foreign currency and gold reserves, international agencies’ ratings, and Russia’s high ranking among the world’s largest economies – that will be critical in the coming years. Most importantly, people must feel a positive change and, above all, do so by expanding their own capabilities.     But the engine of growth must be and will be the people’s initiative. We are sure to lose if we rely solely on the decisions of officials and a limited number of large investors and state-owned corporations. We are sure to lose if we rely on the passive position of the population.     So, Russia’s growth over the next decade equals the extension of freedoms for each and every one of us. Prosperity from handouts without self-responsibility is simply no longer possible in the 21st century.We are faced with yet another challenge. Behind the general statements about cohesion and the benefits of benevolence hide people’s lack of trust in one another, their reluctance to engage in public affairs, take care of others, and their inability to rise above personal interests – which is a serious and a deep-rooted ailment of our society.    In Russian culture, there is a great historical tradition of respect for the government, public interests – things that the country needs. The absolute majority of Russians want to see our country as being great and strong and respect the heroes, who have devoted their lives to the common good. But, unfortunately, pride in the nation is far from being regularly expressed in people’s daily lives through participation in local government, readiness to act in protection of the law, or real charity. Indifference and selfishness are not typically the reason for this, but simple self-doubt or lack of trust in one’s neighbor.       But even here in recent years, the situation has been gradually changing. Citizens are increasingly more often choosing not to limit themselves to fair demands to the leadership, but are taking many of the mundane, yet very necessary, tasks into their own hands: landscaping, caring for the disabled, helping the needy, working on children’s recreation activities and much more.     Starting in 2012, the government will begin supporting such initiatives. Support programs for community-oriented non-governmental, non-profit organizations have been adopted at the federal level and in many regions. In future, we will greatly increase the scale of such programs. But in order for them to truly work, it is necessary to take a hard stance against the prejudice against community workers that prevails in the bureaucratic environment. This prejudice is the reason for not wanting to share resources, the desire to avoid competition, as well as the fear of a real demand for assignments.         An invaluable role in social service, overcoming dissociation among people, the formation of trust and readiness for peaceful resolution of conflicts, which are inevitable in a rapidly developing society, is played by traditional religions such as Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Much in this regard can and should be done by schools and mass media, television, and the online community.   A society of free people is not the same as a crowd of individualistic, calculating egoists, indifferent towards the common good. We never were and never will be this crowd. Personal freedom is productive if you remember and think of others. Freedom without moral foundations turns into arbitrariness.    Trust between people is formed only when society is held together by common values and people have not lost the capacity to have faith, honesty and a sense of justice. Meanwhile, respect for the law is formed only when it is the same for all, obeyed by all, and is founded on the truth.    The social portrait of our future will not be complete without addressing another important issue: for various reasons 10-11% of our population remains below the poverty level. By the end of the current decade, this problem must be resolved. We must overcome poverty, which is unacceptable for a developed country, using both state resources and community efforts – the engaged, active part of the population. We need to give the public assistance system a purposeful character and support the philanthropy movement.   A system of social mobility, social ladders corresponding to modern society, needs to be formed in Russia in its entirety. We need to learn to compensate for the negative social consequences of a market economy and its organically engendered inequality – the same way as countries that have long lived under capitalism have done. This includes special, unique educational support, which will be received by children from underprivileged families. It’s social housing for families with the lowest incomes. It’s putting an end to discrimination against the disabled and ensuring their equal access to all of the life essentials and decent work. Society will be successful only when our citizens no longer doubt its fairness.

A new stage in global development

The global crisis that erupted in 2008 has affected everyone, subjecting much to re-evaluation. It is no longer a secret that the economic storm was not only provoked by cyclical factors and regulation failures. The root of the problem is in the accumulated imbalances. The model – built on unrestrained borrowing, on living in debt and eating away the future, on virtual rather than real values and assets – has come to a dead-end. Moreover, the generated wealth was and is being extremely unfairly distributed between countries and regions. This also reduces global stability, provoking conflicts, decreasing the ability of the global community to come to agreements on critical, fundamental issues.    False realities are not only manifested in the economy, but politics and the social sphere as well. Here, too, we are seeing a type of illusionary “derivatives”.The crisis in the developed countries has revealed one dangerous, in my opinion, purely political trend: the government’s unreserved, populist build-up of social obligations – without any connection to raising labor productivity – a trend toward social irresponsibility. However, now, many are seeing that the era of states’ prosperity “off the sweat of someone else’s brow” is coming to an end.     No one will be able to live better than what their work allows them. This fully applies to Russia. We did not play with “dummies”. Our economic policy has been well-planned and prudent. In the pre-crisis period, we had significantly increased the volume of the economy, got rid of debt bondage, raised people’s real wages, and created reserves, which have allowed us to get through the recession with minimal losses to the people’s standards of living. Moreover, in the midst of the crisis, we were able to significantly increase pensions and other social benefits. Meanwhile, there were many, particularly among the opposition, who were pushing us to quickly spend the oil revenues. What would have happened to people’s pensions had we taken the populist route?Unfortunately, the populist rhetoric was sounded in the recent parliamentary election campaign. We will most likely hear it during the presidential campaign as well – it will come from those who are not expecting to win and are, therefore, readily making promises that they will not have to keep. I will be frank: we must continue to insistently use every possible avenue to improve the lives of our citizens but, just as before, we cannot act “at random”, in order to – unlike in certain Western states – avoid suddenly facing the need to rob people of so much more than was so frivolously given to them.It should be acknowledged that the scale of today’s global imbalances is such that they are unlikely to be eliminated within the current system. Yes, opportunistic market swings can be overcome. And many countries have already developed a number of tactical measures that allow, at varying levels of success, to respond to acute manifestations of the crisis. But on a deeper, longer-term level, today’s problems are by far not opportunistic. Generally speaking, what the world faces today – is a serious systemic crisis, a tectonic process of global transformation. It is a visible manifestation of transition into a new culture, a new economic, technological, and geopolitical era. The world is entering a zone of turbulence. And, naturally, this period will be long and painful. There is no need to harbor any illusions here.Also evident is the end of the system that had formed in the 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union – including the phenomenon of a “unipolar world”. Today, the formerly-sole “center of power” is no longer able to maintain global stability, and the new centers of influence are not yet ready to do so. The increased unpredictability of global economic processes and the world’s military-political situation calls for a trust-based and responsible cooperation between states – and mainly between the permanent members of the Security Council, and the G-8 and G-20 states. Continuous efforts need to be made to overcome mutual suspicion, ideological prejudices, and short-sighted egoism.Today, major economic centers – instead of serving as locomotives of development and providing stability to the global economic system – are increasingly more-often causing problems and risks. Social and ethno-cultural tensions are rapidly rising. In a number of regions, destructive forces are “developing” and aggressively letting themselves be known, ultimately threatening the security of the entire global population. Objectively, their allies are often the countries that are trying to “export democracy” with the help of force and military measures.  Even the best of intentions cannot justify violation of international law and state sovereignty. Moreover, experience shows that the initial goals are usually not reached, while the losses greatly exceed expectations. In these conditions, Russia can and must play a deserving role, dictated by its civilizational model, great history, geography, and its cultural genome, which seamlessly combines the fundamentals of European civilization and the centuries-old experience of cooperation with the East, where new centers of economic power and political influence are currently rapidly developing. In the 1990s, the country went through a real shock of collapse and degradation, enormous social costs and losses. An all-out weakening of the nationhood was, in this situation, simply inevitable. We had indeed approached a critical point. The very fact that several thousand bandits – though supported by some external forces – had decided to attack a government with a million-man army speaks of the tragic nature of that situation. There were too many of those, who thought it was possible to finish us off.I very well remember the text of a message intercepted by the FSB that had been sent to his accomplices abroad by one of the most odious and cold-blooded international terrorists, who was responsible for the killings of our citizens in the North Caucasus – Khattab. He wrote: “Russia is as weak as ever. Today, we have a unique opportunity: to take away the North Caucasus from the Russians.” The terrorists had miscalculated: with the support of the Chechen and other peoples of the Caucasus, the Russian army was able to defend the territorial integrity of our country and the unity of the Russian state.    However, we needed a great amount of effort and mobilization of all resources to dig ourselves out of the hole. To assemble the country. To restore Russia’s status of a geopolitical entity. To restore the social system and uplift the fallen economy. To restore basic governance.   We were forced to restore the authority and the power of the state as such – and do so without deep-rooted democratic traditions, mass political parties, or a mature civil society, all the while facing regional separatism, rising dominance of the oligarchy, corruption, and sometimes blatant criminality in government agencies. The immediate challenge in these circumstances was restoration of the country’s unity. In other words, establishment of sovereignty of the Russian people, rather than the supremacy of individuals and groups, across its entire territory.  Now, not many remember the difficulty of this challenge, the efforts required for its resolution. Now many remember that some of the most prominent experts and many international leaders in the late 1990s had agreed on one forecast for Russia’s future: bankruptcy and collapse. The current situation in Russia – if looked at through the prism of the 1990s – would have seemed to them as simply overly-optimistic fiction.  But this “forgetfulness” and today’s readiness of society to hold Russia to the highest standards of living and democracy serve as the best evidence of our success. Because, in the recent years, we – the people of Russia – have made numerous achievements in resolving some of the pressing issues, the country has withstood the shocks of the global crisis. And today, we have the opportunity to talk about prospects and strategies. The time of restoration has passed. The post-Soviet stage in Russia’s development, just as in the development of the entire world, has ended and been exhausted.      All of the preconditions necessary for moving forward – on a new basis and in a new way — have been created. Moreover, this has been done even in harsh, far-from-comfortable foreign political and foreign economic conditions. At the same time, the irreversible global transformation presents us with an enormous opportunity.  And here, I would like to reiterate why I agreed to run in Russia’s 2012 Presidential Election. I do not want to, and will not, downgrade anyone’s achievements in the establishment of a new country. There have been many. But it remains a fact that, in 1999, when I became Chairman of the Government, and then President, our country was in a state of a deep systemic crisis. And it is the group of like-minded people, which was formed and headed by the author of these words, relying on the support of an absolute majority and national unity around common goals, that brought Russia out of the deadlock of a civil war, broke the backbone of terrorism, restored the country’s territorial integrity and constitutional order, revived the economy and, for the next 10 years, ensured one of the fastest economic growth rates in the world and increased our citizens’ real incomes.         Today, we are seeing what has worked well, what has worked effectively, and conversely, what needs to be corrected, and what things needs to be abandoned altogether. In the coming years, I see our goal consisting of removal of everything that impedes our forward progression on the path of national development. This includes completing the creation of a political system, a structure of social guarantees and protection of citizens, and an economic model that together will constitute a single, live, constantly-developing, and at the same time stable and healthy state system. A system capable of unconditionally guaranteeing Russia’s sovereignty and the prosperity of the citizens of our great nation for decades to come. A system capable of defending the justice and dignity of every person; truth and trust in relations between the government and society.         There are many challenges that remain unresolved. New, complex problems are emerging. But we are able to use them to our advantage, to Russia’s benefit.   Russia is not a country that backs down from challenges. Russia is focused; it pulls itself up and responds to any challenge in a dignified manner. It overcomes trials and always prevails. We have a new generation of creative, responsible people, who see the future. They are already playing and will continue to play leadership roles in enterprises and entire sectors of the economy, government organizations, and the entire country.    We are the only ones responsible for the way we respond to today’s challenges and how we apply our opportunity to strengthen ourselves and our position in the rapidly-changing world.    In the coming weeks, I intend to present some more-concrete ideas on this topic for public discussion.

Making his final address to the Federal Assembly as president, Medvedev outlined the key components necessary for achieving political reform. “We should give all active citizens a legal right to participate in the political life,” he stressed. First, Medvedev said it is necessary to return to direct voting in electing heads of regions. Second, simpler rules for the registration of political parties should be introduced. The president went on to suggest that political parties could be officially registered on the basis of a petition of at least 500 people, which represent at least 50 per cent of the Russian regions. Medvedev also proposed to set aside the rule that requires parliamentary candidates to collect signatures for their candidacy in order to be allowed to participate in the State Duma vote or elections to regional legislative councils. Presidential candidates, meanwhile, would be required to collect less signatures to run in elections.Currently, independent candidates are required to submit two million signatures from across Russia. Medvedev said that number could be reduced to 300,000; as far as candidates nominated by parties that are not represented in the parliament, the number, he believes, could be reduced to 100,000.Medvedev then commented on the elections to the lower house, the State Duma, which he said should be changed to allow proportional representation for the millions of citizens across the country. “I think that introducing proportional representation for 225 districts would be reasonable in order to strengthen ties between the deputies and voters,” Medvedev said to applause. “This measure will allow each territory to have its own direct representative in parliament.” Presently, some regions have no representatives at all, he added.Finally, the head of state suggested changing the procedure of forming the Central Election Commission as well as regional commissions. “The representation of political parties in elections commissions should be broadened,” he said. “Parties should be given a right to recall their representatives from the commissions ahead of schedule, should such a necessity arise.”Medvedev noted that the announced list of reforms is not final. “I’d like to say that I hear those who speak about the necessity of changes and I understand them,” the president pointed out.

‘We won’t allow external interference’

In accordance with the Constitution, the President's message to the Federal Assembly is not only his right, but an obligation. Opening his speech, the president congratulated all newly-elected deputies of the State Duma, which had their first session of the sixth convocation the previous day. Medvedev wished them good luck and expressed his openness for dialogue on any issue.The Russian leader then mentioned the December 4 parliamentary elections, calling to mind the wide range of statements – both at home and abroad – following the poll. Medvedev said that while many people expressed their satisfaction with the results of the election process, others did not share this opinion – and that was absolutely normal. President Medvedev said the government paid attention to fair criticism, and would draw the appropriate conclusions and restore justice. Furthermore, it is the right of citizens to voice their opinions via legal avenues that were guaranteed by law. He noted that it is “a good sign” that the society is changing and people express their views more, actively setting legitimate demands on the authorities. “It is a sign that our democracy is growing more mature,” he observed. “In my opinion, it is a good tendency, which will benefit our country as growing political competition, which prompts us to improve the quality of our work and respond to problems of millions of Russian families more rapidly".However, any attempts to manipulate people and stir up social discord were unacceptable. “We will not let provocateurs and extremists draw society into their adventures, and will not allow any external interference into our internal affairs,” he stressed.The president underlined that Russia needs democracy, not chaos.

Summing up the four-year term

The president began his speech by reviewing the results of his four years in office. “We have successfully overcome the most difficult period of economic turmoil and have returned to pre-crisis level,” Medvedev said. “Russia has become the sixth largest economy in the world,” he added.Among other positive results, Dmitry Medvedev highlighted the lowest inflation rate in the country’s history in 2011, as well as the lowest unemployment rate in the world. He praised the effectiveness of the current demographic policy. Over the past four years, more than 6 million children have been born, which is a record for Russia in the last 20 years.Turning to the key issue of modernization, he specifically pointed to the development of civil society.“Our civil society has strengthened and has become more influential,” Medvedev said. “The social activity of non-government organizations has increased, and the events of the past weeks have confirmed this. I am convinced that this is one of the key achievements of recent years.” On technical and scientific development, Dmitry Medvedev cited the success of the newly created Skolkovo technology hub, which has already attracted more than 300 international companies. “I’m sure that Skolkovo will become the first example of the successful global scientific project. The first but not the last,” he stressed. In foreign policy, the president emphasized the significance of the signing of the new START treaty aimed at the reduction of strategic offensive weapons and nuclear warheads.“The treaty contributes to strategic stability. In addition, it has laid the foundations of new equal and indivisible security architecture,” the president stated. Another major result is the creation of the Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Russian Armed Forces: looking for a few good professionals

Professional contract officers and soldiers are gradually replacing draftees in the Russian armed forces as President Dmitry Medvedev continues with his far-reaching reform plans.The Russian Armed Forces will increase the number of officers, soldiers and sergeants recruited by contract, Medvedev said in his address to the Federal Assembly inside the gilded Georgievsky Hall of the Moscow Kremlin on Thursday. "In spite of the crisis, we have taken steps towards making our Armed Forces more compact, mobile and capable of combat.”Part of this transition requires that the Russian Armed Forces move from a conscription-based army to one that relies on professional troops who join on a contractual basis."A switch to the professional Armed Forces has begun,” the Russian leader said. “Already next year we will have 220,000 officers and more than 180,000 soldiers and sergeants recruited by contract." The total number of personnel in the Armed Forces' stood at one million in 2010, he noted.Medvedev also mentioned the creation of a new high-tech arm of the military, known as the Aerospace Forces.The Russian leader then alluded to what sort of armaments this professional army will carry into some hypothetical battle scenario."The state armament program until 2020 puts the emphasis on new types of weaponry and military hardware based on high technologies,” he said, before mentioning Russia’s defense industries, which are improving the quality of their armaments with each new order.“A large part of defense orders are placed several years in advance, which seriously improves the development of defense plants,” he noted. “In turn, defense contractors must fulfill the contracts with due quality and on time.”The Russian leader concluded by addressing an issue that is of concern for military officers, which was the lack of hands-on training with new armaments and weapons. Today, Russia is giving its recruits the necessary combat training to utilize the new weapon technology."The intensity of operative and combat training has grown considerably,” Medvedev noted with satisfaction. “A short time ago the majority of exercises were held at staffs on the maps, and now we have annual strategic exercises for all arms of service.”

Fighting corruption

The anti-corruption campaign will continue in Russia, stated Dmitry Medvedev. “I would like to stress that the large-scale, systemic fight against corruption has only just begun. We will be leading it decisively and consistently,” he noted. Among a raft of suggested measures was a proposal to restrict deals between state corporations and private companies whose top managers are also shareholders. Currently, he said, such cases are “abundant” in Russia. The president also said that the list of statesmen and officials who are obliged to declare their revenues should be extended.

Public television

President Medvedev also wants to speed up the creation of independent public television – an idea which has long been in the air. He suggested it could be based on one of the existing federal channels.“None of the owners of the new medium, be it the state or a private owner, should have the final say in the decision-making process,” he insisted, adding that public television could make the information environment more competitive and interesting. He also said that technologically, it should be developed to the highest level.

Different priorities, one purpose

The president reiterated that his team “has stood up to the test,” but acknowledged that more challenges were in store for the country, of which a fresh wave of the global recession is among the most serious. “I hope that we will tackle the new challenges as well – whoever will become president of Russia and head of the federal government.  Because there is a set of unconditional priorities by which the leaders of the country will be guided in order to assure successful development,” he declared. Dmitry Medvedev added that competition for brains and ideas will be growing, and Russia will find itself in its epicenter. “But only together will we be able to overcome the difficulties… We do not have a single view of the world, we have different opinions on priorities and the manner of their implementation,” Dmitry Medvedev said. “But after all, we all want the same thing – a better life for this country.”

Medvedev’s much-anticipated speech, has marked the 18th Address to the Federal Assembly since Boris Yeltsin delivered the first one in 1994, it has taken place before an audience comprised of the Upper and Lower Houses of parliament, government officials as well as an assortment of guests and 400 journalists.

Putin said that it is “absolutely normal” that people express their opinion about processes developing in the country – in its economy, politics and social life. He stressed, though, that meetings and rallies should be held in accordance with the law and expressed hope that it would happen in exactly that way. The premier is holding his annual live Q&A session with Russian citizens, which is broadcast by major federal TV channels and radio stations. The special program is called “Talk with Vladimir Putin: Continued”.The very first question he was asked referred to the situation around the December 4 parliamentary poll, which brought victory to the Putin-led United Russia party. The vote was followed by a wave of protests throughout the country against the vote result and alleged polling violations.Putin noted that mainly active youngsters who are capable of voicing their stance clearly participated in the rallies.“I am glad about that. And if that is the result of ‘Putin’s regime, it’s good, I don’t see anything outrageous about that,” he said.

Webcams to monitor fair elections

Speaking about the results of the State Duma elections, the PM said in his opinion they “reflect the real distribution of political forces in the country.” The fact United Russia got fewer votes in these elections than in 2007 is understandable, since the country has gone though “a very difficult period” of the world economic crisis, which affected many citizens. Therefore it is now easier for the opposition to “recruit” new supporters than it was before. “But still, United Russia retained its leading position – and it’s a very good result,” Putin said. He stressed that the opposition “is always” unhappy with election results and that is also absolutely normal.In order to avoid the very possibility of any election fraud, the prime minister suggested installing webcams that would work round-the-clock in all the voting stations in the country."We also need to make sure that all political forces which got into parliament are represented at election commissions in accordance with the law," he added.The PM called on citizens not to ignore the upcoming presidential poll in 2012. He said they should not follow the pattern of “yes, we would have voted for him, but they will still do something there, and I need to go urgently to get potatoes, to go to the country house.”“No one but you will do anything,” he underlined. “Only you will decide who will do foreign policy and represent our country on the international arena, who will ensure internal and external security, and deal with social issues, who will develop the economy,” he said.

Putin’s presidential agenda

Vladimir Putin – who is running for the presidency in March next year – was asked what his mission would be if he returns to the Kremlin. He said that a key goal would become the greater stability of the Russian political system and its resistance to external impacts. "We must broaden democracy so that people stay in touch with authorities and trust them more," Putin said. The second task would be the modernization of the economy. Putin pointed out that the idea of “innovation” should nest in the brain of every Russian citizen and be part of general policy. He also stressed that the social sphere should be developed “so that no one feels abandoned by the state.”Putin assured that if citizens entrust him at the presidential elections, he will be carrying out that mission with pleasure and with the same energy as before.The premier noted that lately the word “stability” has acquired a certain negative connotation."Stability does not mean stagnation, it means sustainable development. This is how I understand stability," Putin said. He stressed that the achievements of previous years must be retained in the future.

‘Color revolutions a tool to destabilize situation from abroad’

Editor-in-Chief of Echo of Moscow radio station Aleksey Venediktov asked Vladimir Putin what he would reply, not to the opposition, but to ordinary citizens who took to streets for the first time on December 10, and who believe that their votes were “stolen”.“I would repeat that if this is the result of the ‘Putin regime’, I can only say that I am satisfied with this result,” the PM responded.As for alleged falsifications during the parliamentary election, Putin said that on the demand of the opposition some votes have been recounted. He noted, though, that after the final results have been counted, all such instances will be considered in courts.“I count on the courts to do so objectively,” he observed. The prime minister reiterated that he has nothing against criticism. When asked if the recent protests were a sign of a coming “color revolution”, Putin said “Lawful protests – yes, criticism of the authorities – yes. But it’s unacceptable to let us draw into destabilization processes managed from abroad.”He went on to say that during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, some Russian opposition members were official counselors of the then-President Viktor Yushchenko and are currently “transferring this practice to Russian soil.”

‘Kudrin never left my team’

Vladimir Putin also commented on the dismissal of former finance minister Aleksey Kudrin earlier this year. When asked whether he will include Kudrin in the government if he becomes president, he said, “Aleksey Leonidovich Kudrin never left my team. He is my long-standing friend.”“Such people as Kudrin are always needed, both in the actual and future government. We’ll find a place for him,” he added.The premier admitted that they are divided on some issues, but these are not “principal differences.”

Obscene criticism is nothing new

When a presenter read the prime minister a question submitted through the internet asking what his attitude to the voting ballot with an obscene address on it was (the story was reported in this week’s edition of the Kommersant Vlast magazine), Putin said that such an attitude was nothing new. “When there was a war in the Northern Caucasus I saw a lot of cartoons about myself and heard lots of things,” Putin said, adding that Western journalists were especially active in spreading this sort of information. “I am sure that I was right back then and I am sure I am still right.”As for this particular phrase, Putin noted that it was important where it was made – it was made in London, where Russian citizens were taking part in the vote at the embassy. “And we all know who of Russians reside in London and for what reason,” Putin said, hinting at the fact that there is no extradition treaty between the UK and Russia, and a lot of people who face criminal investigation in Russia choose the UK as their country of residence.Above all, Putin said that he had personally called upon Russian citizens to come and vote in the last elections. “And that was what they did, and for this I have already thanked them,” Putin said, to cheers from the audience.

‘McCain wants Gaddafi fate not for me, but for Russia’

Another question dealt with a recent Twitter message by US Republican senator John McCain who warned Putin of the fate of Muammar Gaddafi. “This is the fate [McCain] wants for Russia, not for me,” the prime minister commented. He also criticized the violent scenes of the killing of the Libyan leader shown on TV, stressing that he had been executed without trial. Putin added that military rhetoric of Senator McCain is probably linked to his past, namely with the fact that he fought in Vietnam, and sees force as the only efficient means of international politics.“He was not only taken hostage, he spent significant time in a pit in the ground – anyone would go crazy in such circumstances,” Putin said.“Some want to put Russia aside, so that it does not obstruct them from ruling in the world,” he added. “We have our own opinion, we are leading independent international policies, this, of course impedes someone.”

Party performance is not a criteria of governors' success

Putin said that the government’s assessment of governors’ work was not based primarily on the performance of United Russia party at the elections in regions, but sometimes a lack of popular support is a sign for governors that it is time to resign.“The government has elaborated the list of criteria for the assessment of governors’ efficiency and there is no connection with United Russia’s results in regional elections,” the PM said.However, in some regions the governors were directly participating in elections and failed to achieve positive results and “this testifies to the level of support, or lack of support, from the citizens who live in one territory or another. And in some cases if I were in the governors’ place I would consider submitting my resignation,” Putin said.Addressing whether or not the regions that did not support United Russia at the elections will be excluded from programs of social support, Putin said such rumors were total rubbish. “Such things never happen in any country and it will not happen in Russia,” Putin said.

‘I won’t wish success to Prokhorov’

The issue of the forthcoming presidential election could not be avoided during the Q&A session. Vladimir Putin was asked what he thinks about billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov’s decision to join the presidential race. “I can’t say that I wish him success as I’m also running, but I’m sure that he will be a worthy and strong rival,” the prime minister responded. As a citizen of Russia “who has reached a certain age,” the businessman has every right to do so Putin added. He also reminded of Prokhorov’s failed attempt at leading the Right Cause party.“Mikhail Dmitrievich [Prokhorov] is a persistent person, he never gives up. As I see it, he decided to use a new platform in order to promote the ideas which he believes are right for the country. What he is doing is within the law and the constitution,” Vladimir Putin noted.

'Absence of opposition literary license'

He then commented on the statement that there is no opposition in Russia. “Judging by what I’ve seen in recent days on TV, on the internet, on the radio and even here in the studio, in the course of this Q&A session…the claim that we don’t have opposition and that it does not have the opportunity to speak out is something of a literary license,” Putin said, adding that the country does need to move toward further liberalization.“We can’t do only one thing in this country. We can’t create regional parties, especially in ethnic republics, where this can result in nationalism and separatism,” he stressed.He also said that it is necessary to treat all citizens with respect, “even those who do not accept the authorities in principle.”“But there are people who hold Russian passports but act in the interests of the foreign state and on foreign funds. We will try to establish contact with them as well,” Putin went on to say. “Although sometimes this is useless and impossible.”However, he noted that if he becomes president, he is going to work with everyone without exception.

Direct election of governors possible, after presidential ‘filter’

Answering a question as to whether the return to direct elections of regional governors was possible, Vladimir Putin noted that he had personally invented the current system and had valid reasons for doing so.He recalled that this system was introduced in the middle of last decade. Back then, the situation in the country was unstable, military operations were held in the North Caucasus where semi-criminal elites were acting.Putin said that at that time governors – who were elected by secret ballot – were often basing their power on criminal structures and separatist movements.However, now it may be time to consider changes, although they should be introduced gradually.“We must keep the presidential filter that would block the forces that promote separatism or, God forbid, a split from the Russian Federation,” he said. A system could be introduced in which all parties elected to regional parliaments submit their candidates for gubernatorial posts to the president. After that, those whose candidacy is approved by the country’s leader could compete for the job in regional elections. Currently the party that wins elections proposes candidates for the posts of governors to the president, who makes the choice. It is then submitted to regional parliaments for approval.

Federal support to North Caucasus republics to continue

When a question arrived by phone asking Putin to detail his attitude towards the slogan “it is enough to feed the Caucasus” – a protest against allegedly excessive state support to North Caucasus regions – Putin said that such an attitude is a mistake and the support will continue.Putin said that such sentiments are caused by the fact that more and more people from the North Caucasus region are arriving in big Russian cities and cannot adjust to city life and new realities. Thus, to counter the slogan the authorities must change life in the Northern Caucasus in such way that people choose not to leave their home places.“We need to develop the production, economy, social sphere so that no one wants to get away from there. For this, we must invest money there. This does not mean that we must throw in money without thinking,” Putin said.The PM added that the allegations about the high corruption level in the Northern Caucasus were groundless. “I know there are many questions to [leader of the Chechen Republic] Ramzan Kadyrov, but look at how he has restored the city of Grozny. This is unprecedented. And I can say that Chechnya has the minimum level of corruption component,” Putin said.The PM added that improving life in the North Caucasus region will eventually reduce the number of those who join the illegal armed formations, which is a good thing.

We should have saved the USSR

When a listener asked Putin his possible behavior would have been if he was in power during the breakup of the Soviet Union, the prime minister stressed that there cannot be a subjunctive mode in history, but in such a situation he would persistently and fearlessly fight for the country’s integrity.“What would I do? We should have started the economic changes and reforms in the Soviet Union in time, and strengthened them with democratic changes in the country. We should have been fighting for the territorial integrity of the state persistently and without fear,” Putin said.Putin added that in late ’90s the situation was much more dramatic than before the breakup of the Soviet Union. “The economy collapsed as a result of the 1998 crisis, the social sphere was on the zero level and the army ceased to exist. And we faced an aggression from the international terrorism, a civil war started. And the remaining part of Russia was on the brink of collapse. And you know what particular steps I took to preserve the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation,” Putin said.

Medvedev best candidate for premiership

Finally, Vladimir Putin reiterated that, in the event of his victory in the presidential election, Dmitry Medvedev will head the cabinet.“United Russia, led by Medvedev, received the majority in the State Duma. This allows the government to work steadily. It is an unconditional victory,” Putin said.

Vladimir Putin answered questions both from guests in the studio and citizens participating in TV link-ups with Russian cities. Questions were also submitted by phone, text message and online. The most interesting and relevant questions received by the call center were forwarded to Putin during the live broadcast.Some famous persons were in the studio to take part in the “Talk with Vladimir Putin”. A number of celebrities also accepted the invitation to work in the call center together with regular phone operators. It was the 10th live Q&A session for Vladimir Putin. The program lasted for four-and-a-half hours, breaking last year’s record of 4 hours and 26 minutes. The prime minister responded to 88 questions in total. Around 1.8 million questions were submitted during the broadcast.After the official part, Putin continued his conversation with the journalists in the studio. Among other things, the prime minister was asked if he would consider an appeal for a pardon by jailed former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin said that if Khodorkovsky filed such an appeal – which he has not done so far – he would give it consideration. “But for a start, I should be elected as president,” he said.

Read President Dmitry Medvedev’s full speech.Fellow citizens, countrymen, friends,This Sunday, Dec. 4, elections to the State Duma will be held.All seven of the registered Russian political parties are participating in the election campaign. According to law, they have been provided all the necessary conditions for free and fair competition.You too, I hope, have had an opportunity to consider those parties – both their programs and especially their actual performance, since most of them are represented in the current Duma.I would like to stress that elections are one of the highest manifestations of democracy. Your personal participation will determine what our new Russian parliament will be like. Each and every citizen of voting age is entitled to come to the polling station and vote freely for a political force they trust.But when people do something that is really good, appropriate and important, it is often not out of duty.  We do it because we feel responsible. It is the call of the heart. It is a moral imperative. We do it because we are aware that nobody except ourselves will make our life better. No one but us.Please take this important and proper step. Come to vote for State Duma deputies. Choose whom you want to represent you in Russia’s supreme legislative body.Our choice of the new Duma will have a great effect on the way the federal government in general will be working the next few years, whether necessary measures will be taken to further develop the economy and public services, to increase wages and pensions, to reform education and health care, to fight corruption and crime, and, finally, to protect our country against external threats.How much time will it take you to come and vote? Not much, perhaps 30 minutes or an hour. But this hour will determine what parliament our country will have for the next five years. Will the parliament be torn apart by irreconcilable differences, unable to decide anything – something that, unfortunately, has happened in the past? Or will we get an effective legislative assembly, with a majority of the deputies being responsible politicians who can really raise the standard of living in our country, politicians who are guided by the voters’ interests and Russia’s national interests?Dear friends,Direct and free participation of our citizens in elections is clearly an important achievement of the past decade. On such days, we see that power really belongs to the people. I am confident that together we will make Russia a really modern and highly-developed country that will be comfortable to live in.So please make the right choice on Dec. 4. Vote for those who you think will advance your interest, who are competent in economics and experienced in tackling crises, who can protect our homeland and preserve it for our children, who understand you well and tell you the truth. Vote for those whom you trust. Vote for Russia’s future.

Below is the full transcript of Dmitry Medvedev’s speech:Friends, colleagues and supporters, I welcome you all. I welcome all the people of Russia. Two months ago our convention approved the federal list of United Russia for the State Duma elections. I have the honour of heading the most powerful political force in the country in these difficult times, times that require enormous responsibility. I would like to thank you and all of our supporters once again.Today, upon my suggestion and upon decisions voiced earlier, the convention is to nominate Vladimir Putin as our candidate for the President of Russia. By doing so, we will officially announce our political strategy for a long-term, not a short-term, period. We have announced our goals, our candidates for parliamentary deputies, for the head of the cabinet and for the president of the country. We declare these names openly.So we know the names, we have a platform, the dates for the parliamentary and presidential elections have been fixed. It’s all clear now. But it’s up to the people to assess our proposals. It’s up to the voters to decide which of the politicians is worthy of their trust. Politicians, too, have the right to ask people for support.I would like to say to our supporters and to those who are still undecided, on my own behalf and on behalf of United Russia, I am talking to all people of Russia, – come to the elections on December 4th, in a week, and vote for United Russia. I call on you to vote for our party, our platform and our future, and by doing so, you will vote for our presidential candidate.Why should you do it? Because the results of the State Duma elections will of course reflect on the presidential campaign. A decisive victory at the December 4th elections would mean a landslide victory next March. I am sure that it would not only be beneficial for Russia if we won, I believe the country needs us to win. I will explain why.First of all, the candidate I am nominating, Mr. Putin, is the most popular, experienced and successful politician in Russia today.Members of United Russia just had the floor… That’s what I call support. Indeed, it’s most important that the overwhelming majority of our citizens trust him, they pin their hopes for the future on him. And I have no doubt that, at the end of the day, our convention will officially nominate him as our presidential candidate. And I wish Mr. Putin success in everything. Now I’d like to say a few words about our party and why this choice is both beneficial and necessary for our country. I would like to say again one thing here, it’s probably obvious but it’s worth saying. United Russia is a party of action. It is an efficient party which has taken responsibility both for the economy and social care system, and for the safety of our citizens, and for our wellbeing. It’s no secret that our party is being massively attacked by the opposition. I must say it is often true that such attacks contain next to no constructive criticism or none at all; instead they juggle facts, try manipulating them, and basically – which is regrettable – resort to lies. Despite that United Russia has been and remains the leading political party because it is driven by the right cause, because we never promise the impossible. We never promise the impossible, but we always do what is possible. We’ve had successes, we’ve had decisions that have not been implemented to the full. Of course, we’ve made mistakes and we deserve criticism for them. But it's only those who do nothing that make no mistakes. We are a party of action, and whatever some say, we have done quite a lot. It’s a fact you cannot deny, and that’s what makes us so strong. People know about this. They know what we are worth by our actions. Both our supporters and opponents are well aware that salaries have risen several times in the past couple of years. It’s a seven- or even an eightfold increase, compared to the figures we had back in 2000. Our opponents are well aware that pensions and real incomes have increased in the past years, the number of the poor halved, the average life expectancy rate grew by several years. We’ve managed to curb population loss, and the birth rate reached a record high in the last 20 years. Could there be a more important thing for our nation? This is a key index.Agriculture has become a profitable business. We all remember what it used to be back in the 1990s. In terms of investment in the R&D sector, we have been ahead of many developed countries. Upgrading production facilities and building an innovative economy have become the cores of our new industrial policy. Increasing the salaries of our servicemen, the supply of modern equipment to our army and navy are priority issues for us, and not just on paper, as has happened in Russia’s history all too often. These projects are being implemented because we’ve allocated the funds for them. We have managed to stop the rampaging attempts by terrorist groups, we undermined social, political and financial support for separatists. But most importantly, thank to economic and political stability, Russia has seen the emergence and strengthening of the middle class. I am talking about millions of self-made people with an independent way of thinking, who enjoy decent salaries and are free to express their opinions and to act as they think proper.Massive poverty of the 1990s was replaced with massive welfare, which is the main condition for the existence of any democracy. The rigorous state support of the national economy during the crisis helped to preserve this new class and protect it from bankruptcy. This, in its turn, also helped to preserve political stability and our prospects for further development.I have laid our hard and cold facts on the table. That’s a reality you cannot deny. But it didn’t come on its own. It was the fruit of appropriate and efficient policies followed by the leading political force, by the ruling party – United Russia. This is another fact you cannot deny.Friends, supporters, colleagues,We live in a country which is not isolated from the rest of the world. We need to keep in mind what is happening outside Russia. Just have a look at some of the European countries which seemed to be doing quite well, at the US, at the Middle East or Africa. The effects of the global shockwaves have proven devastating in some parts of the world. Our country has been able to remain on a stable track. And my meetings with leaders of other countries at various international forums confirm this. We have been able to get over the first wave of the crisis, but should the second wave roll in, we will cope with that, too. I am sure of it. We’ve been able to keep the jobs we had, our unemployment figures have reached the pre-crisis level, which is one of the world’s lowest. This year, the inflation rate hit a record low since 1989. Just fancy that! That’s one of our achievements.Here’s another figure, which I believe is very revealing. In this post-crisis time, banks have reported an 80 percent growth in deposits. This proves two things – firstly, people are confident in the national economy and, secondly, that they have the money to save.So here’s a simple question for all of you: is there any other political or managerial team in the country that is capable of withstanding the global shockwaves? Everyone, including our political opponents, realize there’s no alternative to our team. Thank you. And this is what we have to show to support our words. Let us ask ourselves another question. With all due respect to our political opponents, what were they doing over these past several years? All they did was talk, blab if you will, and criticize the ruling party. In some regions they have been lucky enough to have their representatives, with their utterly unrealizable agendas, elected into office. How did these people do their jobs? I would say they did not. They failed, some of them were caught in the act of corruption. Regrettably, this is also a fact. A fact of life for the opposition.Another thing I would like to say, the most important thing actually, is that if we win these elections we are going to carry out several large-scale political projects that will change our day-to-day life for the better. They will change the lives of all Russians. We have to create a government based on a different organizational structure. It will be based on the principles of transparency and feedback. We will use a diverse communication network that will reach every citizen of Russia. In order to do that, we will have to resort to traditional ways of communicating with the people such as public chambers and open offices, as well as innovative high technology methods of doing it. It will let us keep in touch with millions of people. I believe that no political power has a future without a communication system of this sort. It will be hard to do, but it can be done. The question of creating an open, transparent and accessible government based on this model, sometimes called ‘the extended government’, is a pressing issue. But why is it so important? Our society as a whole is becoming more educated and open. Our party has to understand that. Russian citizens are absolutely right in their desire to control the authorities. Everyone is sick of corruption and dealing with the system’s stupidity. We all want justice, but almost all social groups consider themselves to be insufficiently involved in the political process. They think their opinion is not taken into account, even in matters where their interests are concerned. This situation is unacceptable and I believe we have a chance to improve it.Heads of regional administrations are present here today. They are the very pillars that uphold the entire system of authority. These people are very important for the government, as work in the regions would stop without them. Ask them and they will tell you that people rarely come to them for advice. Their opinions are rarely taken into account. The same goes for heads of municipalities, in fact their situation might be even worse. Businessmen also think they should be consulted more often, so do NGOs. Perhaps even United Russia deputies would like to see more attention from the executive authorities. I am not even going to mention ordinary Russians. It can be very hard for them to get an appointment with an official. That is the reason why the new government, formed following the parliamentary and presidential elections, will work openly, making its decisions cooperatively with deputies, governors, municipal heads, experts and public organizations. I will say again that it will be a difficult managerial task to carry out, but it is entirely possible. We are simply obliged to create a system for receiving feedback from the people.I will outline another task that is very important. A task that I have recently been discussing with a lot of people. The task is to decentralize authority in Russia and review budget relations. A policy of centralization was justified in the past few years. The mechanism of collecting funds for the treasury was weak and inefficient. The federal center had to centralize financing in order to resolve the most relevant outstanding issues. To pay salaries, pensions, benefits, reconstruct roads and houses, to ensure national security. Over time, people started getting used to that policy, and now they are used to it. Today that policy would not be very efficient as it takes economic stimuli away from the Russian provinces. The strategy of budget leveling looks more and more like a one-size-fits-all policy now. Besides, this does not leave the regions with enough money to fulfill all of their own obligations. Regions and cities have been granted with the relevant authorities and tasked with relevant obligations but they have not always received the relevant funding. That's why our schools, housing and public utility services, and road construction projects are under-financed, that's the reason for low salary rates for primary school teachers, social and cultural workers, nurses. That's no good. We must make amends for this situation. But we should act carefully, we must ensure full-scope financing of federal obligations as well, I refer here to the army, police forces, a number of social projects, and many other things. That's why we need to find the optimal balance of federal and regional expenditures which would be relevant to our tasks today. And I am convinced that we shall find such a solution in the nearest future. And we'll find a way to make sure that a larger portion of people's earnings and business profits stays in the regions.Dear friends, we always speak of Russia, of our country as of a powerful state. We truly are a nation used to running large-scale projects, that's our nature, that's in our blood, if you will. We have a vast land and we set ourselves high goals to achieve, we've had great victories – all of it belongs to us. And let's say it honestly – citizens of Russia are far from being concerned only with their daily routine problems, they believe in Russia's historical purpose. Therefore we keep working on expanding our economic and cultural space, which had dramatically shrunk with the downfall of the Soviet Union, in a devoted and consistent manner. And you know what? We are succeeding.Just recently, together with the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan…(applause and crowd chanting ‘Russia’)I perceive this as a sign of support of our integration policy. Indeed, we just recently came to an agreement with our partners, i.e. with Belarus and Kazakhstan, to make integration our common goal. I expect more nations to join us in the future because our project is attractive, as it's based on the parity principle and historical connections between our peoples; it treats all economies as equally valuable. It creates a new economic space and a new union. We are creating large markets for Russian goods and services, developing the collective security system, and it's all especially worthwhile because keeping us together makes us stronger and richer, and our new union will give a greater sense of our geopolitical significance, which is certainly also important,it'll give benefits and advantages to every single home in Russia because it'll boost our economic capacity, it'll allow us to reinforce Russia's position on the international arena. And as we all know, Russia has earned this position through the hard work of a vast number of its people over many centuries.Colleagues and friends, these are our plans. And I'll emphasize this again – they are all crystal clear, 100% transparent. I would like once again to address all of our voters, all of our citizens. No matter where you are or what you are, whether you can hear me now or you get to hear of my address from people close to you, do remember that we have come a long way together, we have risen to eminence, we have worked together and overcome difficulties together, we have been protecting our motherland. Our goals are wellbeing, healthy families, and a stable future. We simply must continue working together for the sake of our country, for the sake of our people, for the sake of our children and loved ones. Vote on the election day of December the 4th, vote for United Russia!Vote for United Russia! Support us! We will not fail you! We will succeed! Thank you!

Below is the full transcript of Vladimir Putin’s speech:Dear convention members, dear friends, people of Russia! I thank you for your support. I thank Dmitry Medvedev and the United Russia convention for nominating me for the presidency. I gratefully accept your proposal.The State Duma elections are due to take place in one week. Presidential elections are scheduled for March. Then the government will be formed. Essentially, it will be a single cycle of complete renewal of our federal authority.Over the past decade, we have managed to lay the foundation for our country’s future. We have done a lot. My colleagues and President Medvedev have spoken about it. We have gone through the very important stage of restoring Russia. We have created a foundation for the country’s stable, sustainable development. Our goal now is to build a strong and prosperous nation on that foundation – a Russia of the 21st century.Thank you for chanting “Russia! Medvedev! Putin!” But when you chant “Russia!” alone, the entire audience should join in. Let us try again! Thank you.Russia has set grand goals for itself many times over the course of its history. We won because we held onto our common values that are the essence of our national character. What are those values? They are very simple: truth, dignity and justice. Victory over any injustice, respect for the dignity of every man, truthful relations between society and the government.The Russian people’s biggest desire is obvious today. It is to establish justice in the most general sense of the word. The country had to develop for the sake of the people, not at their expense. Our every decision, every step we take, has to be in line with the interests of the majority of our citizens. The basic underlying principle of any reform is to take care of the people. It means to take care of Russia’s future, to create Russia’s future even. Not only do we have to provide for population growth, we also need to increase Russia’s human potential. There have to be more of us. We have to be strong, efficient and competitive in all areas. I am sure this sums up Russia’s development strategy for the next several decades.We have to eliminate social inequality, which is currently critically high. A large middle class should become the social majority in Russia which is why we are focusing on new standards for quality of life. I am talking about growth of incomes – real incomes that is, adjusted to inflation – wages and pensions. This is not the only thing I am referring to, however. I am also talking about the things that shape the day-to-day life of every family in Russia: sensible tariffs for utilities and housing, clean streets and good pavements in cities and villages, no queues for kindergarten places and well-supplied hospitals – the things we have been talking about over the course of the past three months, especially in the All-Russian Popular Front. I have met with a lot of people. I meet with people all the time, and wherever I go, they always bring these things up. It is understandable: these things shape people’s lives. We have to make talent and professional merit the key factors of people’s social advancement, whether these people work in businesses or the government. The quality of education in Russia is therefore a key issue. We have to root out anything that might discourage young people from learning or kill their belief in the value of knowledge. Education and professional training need to become the main elevator in our society, the chief criteria for respect and the start-up capital that helps people to success, moving the entire country forward.In order to make Russia strong and successful, we have to guarantee truly equal opportunities for every citizen. That means creating good living conditions not only in our major cities, but all across the country, in every region, village and town. I frequently visit old towns. People approach me on the street and say: “Life in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities is good. We want to have the same.” Of course we can’t solve the issue overnight, but that is where we have to be headed. We have to guarantee fair economic competition for everyone. Our law enforcement and judicial systems have to be capable of defending the safety and rights of every citizen, regardless of his social standing, income or title. These problems concern every member of our society. Of course, simply listing them is much easier than solving them, which is much easier said than done. Many politicians have spoken about these problems, only in different words. It is a good thing these issues are brought up – these politicians are saying the right things. In this situation, people start asking themselves: who is against resolving these issues? Everyone is in favor. Regrettably, and this was also mentioned today, many people are using these problems to score political points, especially in the run-up to the elections. They speculate on our country’s problems, the justified discontent of the people who still have to deal with injustice and stupidity. Let us remember that those who are using the problems of our society and the mistakes of the authorities have already been in power. They have tried their hand at running the country. What were the results of that?The first group of these people led their own country to destruction. I am referring to the fall of the Soviet Union. The other group organized an unprecedented epidemic of thievery in the 1990s. History had never seen anything like it. They destroyed our industry, our agriculture and our social sphere. They have forced the knife of civil strife into Russia’s very heart, letting things come to bloodshed in the North Caucasus and driving the country towards disaster.Now I’ll say a couple of things which are not very pleasant for the party in power. Of course, when ordinary people encounter problems with utility services or financial difficulties or other problems like corruption, disrespect or humiliation, they do not recall the enormous problems of our recent past. This is only natural. Would you like it to be the other way? It cannot be the other way. This anger is built up inside and is finally vented against the ruling party, against the authorities in general. But, again, this is a natural thing.Where should people turn? Who should they turn to? Who will solve their problems? It’s the job of the authorities to address people’s problems and the ruling party has no right to shun responsibility by constantly referring to objective reasons which arebeyond its control. It has no right to do so simply because there is no one else to be accountable for the state of affairs in every village, settlement, city, region or the whole of our country. There is no other political force in charge. If you are the power, you have to tackle these issues.Does United Russia always come up to the mark? Does it always solve its tasks successful? Does it always respond to the appeals and aspirations of the people? Of course, the answer is no. The United Russia party suffers from the same problems and contradictions that our society in general is facing and that United Russia will work hard to eradicate.Nevertheless, it was with the support of United Russia that we made the key steps forward at critical times of our country’s history – we managed to bring the country together, secure quite a high rate of economic growth, preserve our sovereignty, pay off a foreign debt that had a humiliating and destructive effect on the nation, avert a demographic disaster, restore our social care system, support Russian mothers and children. We have achieved quite a lot.Over the past 20 years Russia has endured a number of gruelling social and economic blows. The financial downturn of 2008-2009 was the first time the authorities demonstrated their competence and ability to cope with economic upheavals, when they showed their ability to protect the country and the majority of its people, preserve and deliver on all of their social commitments and restore the nation’s strength, confidence and respect in the world. All this was achieved with the help and through direct support of the United Russia Party. This gives me the right to say that we, better than anyone else, know what is to be done at this new stage of Russia’s development, and how it is to be done. That is why I hope that every person with a reasonable, serious and unbiased attitude, a person who wants a better future for himself, his children and the whole of Russia, would support the United Russia party headed by President Medvedev at the State Duma election on December 4, 2011. To achieve the goals we have set, that is to fight injustice and ensure high living standards, we need to tap into new sources of growth, to strengthen our new economy. It should be an economy of cutting-edge innovation and breakthrough technologies which would be resistant to economic ups and downs. There should be multiple centers of growth across the country’s territory, reliant on a powerful infrastructure. To build such an advanced industry and social care system, we need to open up thousands of new initiatives, to boost the prestige of workers, engineers, farmers, scientists, teachers and doctors – all those people whose work is crucial to this country’s development.We will continue to enhance inter-budget relations and adjust the tax system to the interests of the people, we will go on with the structural transformations of our economy. But in implementing these changes we should be guided by the principle of justice. Independent, active regions that have embarked on their own development projects, that support the regional business community, that create new jobs, should receive additional incentives, opportunities and resources for their growth. Taxes on ordinary people should not be a burden while luxury and excessive consumption should be taxed at a higher rate – that’s a fact we cannot deny. Russia’s high-tech business, enterprises and companies operating in the social care system should pay fewer taxes than those companies selling natural resources.We will provide all necessary assistance to the Russian business community, to those entrepreneurs who want to do their business in this country, who set up factories and plants, who introduce new technologies at home, who develop Russia’s vast expanses and are active on world markets. But the business community should realize, too, that it’s not righteous or acceptable to hide their assets and funds in offshore accounts and evade their social obligations. The same goes for attempts to save money by ignoring occupational safety standards, environmental regulations or by violating the rights of their employees. Economic freedom should rest on a solid foundation of social justice, on the decency and responsible attitude of our entrepreneurs. We have never promised to make anyone super rich. We cannot promise to make people wealthy overnight, simply because that’s impossible. Such promises would sound like gibberish. But there’s one thing we do know – if we work hard and conscientiously, we can make it, and our country will be successful.I mentioned that economic freedom should rest on a solid foundation of social justice. But if we are to move ahead, we need strong state institutions that would serve the country and its people. We need to change the philosophy of state service and the work of state officials, from the national right down to the municipal level. Our priority goal is to involve in the running of our country professionals, people who are not indifferent, who have a modern way of thinking, who seek to make a career – which is a good thing – as well as to serve Russia, and to serve in good faith. Russia has always been rich in such people. There are plenty of them today, and they will definitely be in demand. What we have to do is to develop our political system in a consistent and responsible way so that our citizens will have more opportunities to interact with the authorities on every level, be it municipal, regional, or federal, and have effective feedback mechanisms. We have a young democracy, and we are in need of political institutions that would efficiently serve both ourselves and our future generations. We are in need of a stable political system. We are in need of mechanisms which would guarantee Russia’s long-term sustainable development for decades into the future. For Russia, with its history of revolutions and upheavals, it is essential to achieve our goals while complying with the principles of democracy – naturally. This is why we are in such great need of continuity, stability and consistency in our political reforms; this is why we must approach the task of developing our political system with great care and responsibility.We shall do everything to protect peace and harmony. We are talking about the future of our statehood, the wellbeing of our citizens, about all those things we shall take care of and protect. And I would like to address those who incite social or ethnic intolerance, and attempt to spread populist and provocative ideas which in their bare essence advocate national betrayal and ultimately the destruction of our state – we are both a multiethnic state and a single nation, we are the united and indivisible Russia!Dear friends! We shall keep maintaining our active position on the foreign policy agenda, we shall openly and honestly pursue our interests, and participate in the global problem-solving process as well as in developing a more just political and economic world order, and we shall speak the truth about everything that happens in the world even if some do not like it.We are open for partnership and dialogue with all of our friends and all countries. Yet, let’s point out that a dialogue with Russia is only possible on a basis of parity.We do not want anyone to try and impose their role models on us or influence our choice of actions. All of our international partners need to understand that Russia is a democratic power, a reliable and predictable partner one can negotiate and come to agreement with, but there is no dictating to us. It is with regret that I say that we know that these days, just before the parliamentary election and the impending presidential election, some circles in some states are now summoning those they pay, these so called “grant recipients”, and giving them instructions for their future “assignment” to try and ultimately affect the outcome of the election campaign in our country. It is all in vain! We call it a waste of money. First of all, that’s because Judas is far from being the most popular Bible character with our people, and secondly, they would be better using all that money to cancel their national debt and abandon their cost-inefficient foreign policy. Instead, we invite our international colleagues and partners to join their efforts with us to counter all the modern challenges and threats together, and there are more than enough of those in the modern world. We are witnessing a serious transformation in the global economy; new centers of geopolitical influence are emerging. That’s exactly why we’re putting forward our integration project and setting our priority goal at creating the Eurasian Union in the very nearest future. And incidentally, we have done a lot over recent years to achieve integration on the post-Soviet space.The new project – the Eurasian Union – is in line with present-day requirements and it opens new opportunities for our citizens, businesses, trade, investments, as well as co-operation in the areas of culture, research and development, and education, while providing firm guarantees of stability and peace across the entire Eurasian space. And in connection with this, I would certainly like to thank the leaders of Kazakhstan and Belarus. Indeed, they are devoted to this track, and they move along it consistently, in a composed manner, while protecting their national interests and enjoying the genuine support of their citizens. This, first of all, is impressive, and secondly, makes us confident that we shall arrive at our common destination.Over the next five to ten years, we must upgrade our army to a dramatically new level. Our task consists in creating an army and navy and defense industry capable of securing peace for our country while making sure that our economy, instead of sustaining losses, keeps growing and multiplying. This certainly requires considerable financial expenditure. Do we not know it? Of course we do. It’s not going to be easy, but we must do it if we want to stand up for the honor of our country, if we want to protect our sovereignty, independence and our citizens.Dear friends! Today, it is obvious for all of us that our country is entering a new stage of development. We have prepared for it and we can do it. While implementing our strategy we must listen to our people and feel their concerns. Fulfilling social obligations, protecting the interests of the majority, fighting injustice, protecting human rights and human value is what is of paramount importance, and only if we succeed in it we shall enjoy our citizens’ support. We must work on increasing the quality of life in our country on a daily basis; we must always tell people the truth no matter how hard it can sometimes be. We must learn to do it. This is the best national policy – the policy that keeps up with the people’s interests. It is our policy. We shall fight for justice and we believe in justice. We are protecting the honor of our country and every one of our citizens. Ours is the right cause! We shall prevail! Thank you.* * *Putin’s address upon completion of the vote establishing him as the presidential candidate:Dear friends and colleagues, I would like to thank everyone here today, and I would like to address all of Russia’s citizens, both those who have supported us and myself over the years, and those who still have some doubts. I’d like to say that throughout my entire life I have always felt that I am a part of our country, a part of our great nation.The goal of my entire life, and I’m not exaggerating this, has been to serve my country at every stage. Today, as I am addressing you and our entire country, I would like to say: if our people trust me with the supreme authority in the country, I shall do all I can to ensure that our work’s output proves to be worthy of your choice. I shall do all I can to have Russia develop, grow stronger, and to improve our people’s lives in every way. Our motto is, only forward!Thank you. Now, I propose to demonstrate how the United Russia congress feels about Russia. Hooray for Russia!

"Citizens of Russia, My address concerns the situation we have in Europe regarding NATO’s missile defense. Let me briefly review it. We are in a rather complex situation with the United States and NATO over missile defense. I recall how we welcomed the move when in September 2009 the US President revised his predecessor’s plans to deploy a missile shield in Europe. That was a smart decision, and it helped sign an important treaty reducing and limiting strategic offensive weapons. This treaty clearly says that strategic arms and missile defense are closely interrelated. I repeat, this treaty was a big step forward. However, later the United States began to implement its new missile defense plan, the so-called phased approach.  It is this approach that causes us concern. The problem is, it means that in the future, interceptor missiles and other missile defense elements may be deployed close to the Russian borders and in adjacent seas. At the Russia-NATO summit in Lisbon a year ago, I suggested creating a joint missile defense system in Europe. We suggested that if we have to develop missile defense, it is better to do it together. We suggested making this system sector-based, with each party responsible for the corresponding sector. Moreover, we said we were open to suggestions from our NATO partners and could make necessary adjustments to this layout, as long as its key elements remain intact. And the key element is that Europe does not need new dividing lines. It needs a common security perimeter, with Russia participating in it as an equal partner. I am still convinced that such an approach would offer unique opportunities for Russia and NATO to develop a real strategic partnership, because friction and confrontation in our relations can be replaced with the principles of equality, indivisible security, mutual trust and predictability. Unfortunately, the United States, and later other NATO members, failed to demonstrate serious readiness to take this way. They are not going to take account of our concerns regarding the architecture of the European missile defense system. At least they are not doing it today. They merely tell us that their plans are not aimed against Russia.  All they say is, “This is not aimed against you, don’t worry.” They say there is no reason for us to be concerned. But this comes from the executive branch only, whereas lawmakers in some countries tell us openly, “This is intended against you.” And when we ask them to put it on paper and give us clear, unequivocal legal guarantees, they give us a firm no. Our position is reasonable. We are ready to discuss the status and contents of these guarantees, but our partners should realize that these guarantees cannot be general and abstract. They need to be formulated in such a way that Russia can rely not on promises, but on objective military data to determine whether the steps the United States and NATO take in developing missile defense are in line with their declarations, or whether they are infringing our interests and undermining the strategic nuclear parity, which is the foundation of global security today. We will not participate in a program that may negatively affect our deterrent potential in a rather short time – in five, six, perhaps eight years. The European missile defense program is currently being implemented, and unfortunately, it is being done at a fast pace. It is happening in Poland, Turkey, Romania, Spain. Russia is presented with a fait accompli. Of course, we’ll continue our dialogue on missile defense with the United States and NATO, as we have agreed with US President Barack Obama during our recent meeting, where I once again had to tell him clearly about our concerns. We still have time to come to an agreement. And Russia has political will to reach an agreement that would open a fundamentally new chapter in our relations with the United States and NATO. If our counterparts act fairly and responsibly and take our legitimate security interests into account, I am convinced that we will be able to come to an agreement.  But if they want us to cooperate (or, let’s face it, simply work) to the detriment of our own interest, we won’t be able to find common ground. And then we will have to respond differently. Our actions will depend on the actual developments, as the US plan is implemented stage by stage.  Because of that, I have taken the following decisions:  First, I have instructed the Defense Ministry to immediately activate an early warning radar in Kaliningrad.  Second, as part of the Russian aerospace defense program, Russia will urgently strengthen its defensive capabilities for Strategic Nuclear Forces installations.  Third, strategic ballistic missiles coming into the arsenals of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be fitted with advanced missile defense penetration systems and the latest effective warheads.  Fourth, I have ordered the Armed Forces to develop a set of measures that will enable Russia, if necessary, to destroy the data exchange and control centers of the missile defense system. These measures are adequate, effective and cost-efficient.  Fifth, if the aforementioned measures prove to be insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy, along its western and southern borders, advanced offensive systems capable of destroying the European component of the missile defense system. This will include deploying Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. Other measures aimed at neutralizing the European component of the US missile defense system will also be prepared and implemented if necessary.  Next, if problems persist, Russia reserves the right to refrain from taking further steps as regards disarmament and arms control. Furthermore, considering that strategic offensive and defensive weapons are closely interrelated, Russia may have sufficient grounds to withdraw from the New START Treaty. Such a possibility is envisaged in the very idea of this treaty.  Nevertheless, I would like to stress once again that the door for further dialogue on missile defense with the United States and NATO and for practical cooperation in this area remains open. We are ready for that. However, before we start working, we need a clear legal framework for our cooperation. This framework should take account of our legitimate interests. We are open to dialogue, and we expect our Western partners to take a reasonable and constructive approach."

Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon! Remarks: Good afternoon!Vladimir Putin: I am open to your questions.Konstantin Ernst (Channel One):Mr. Putin, the latest convention of the United Russia Party made the political situation in this country much clearer. Just a couple of weeks ago we had a chance to discuss that with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Today we wanted to ask you the questions which we believe are of interest to our fellow citizens. The first one was voiced both by your supporters and skeptics: Why are you returning to the Kremlin?Vladimir Putin: I am aware of the wave of questions and comments in this regard that appeared on the Internet, in online and print media. And here’s what I would like to say. As I’ve mentioned many times, and as first Russian President Boris Yeltsin said, I never aspired to this position. It’s a well-known fact. Initially, when this offer was made, I explicitly expressed doubts over my ability to handle such a huge workload and enormous responsibility for the fate of the nation. But once I take up a job, I do my best to complete it or, at least, to yield maximum results. But your question seems to focus more on the criticism that our opponents have leveled at us. You know, I travel a lot across various regions of the country to meet with ordinary people, not some men of straw, but real ordinary people. Many of them turn out to be my supporters, as you said, and I hope they are in the majority, and they say that many people would like the see things developing this way. But there are people who, as you mentioned, that criticize me and Dmitry Medvedev. They say that if your humble servant takes part in the election, that would mean there would be no election at all. Perhaps that would be the case for them, but an ordinary citizen always has a choice to make. So our critics might see it their own way, but in this case they ought to present their platform, and, what’s more important, not only to present it, but also to prove in practice that they can do this job better. I often hear a phrase like ‘it’s so bad, it can’t get worse’. Indeed, this country still faces a lot of problems, a lot of outstanding tasks need to be addressed, and some things could have been done better. But I strongly disagree with those who say ‘it cannot get worse’… I would like to remind our left-wing audience, i.e., the Communist Party and leftist radicals, of the late 1980s. We all remember the many jokes of those times, here’s just one: “Friends come to a party, and the hosts ask them whether they want to wash their hands with soap, and when they get an affirmative reply, they say the guest will have to drink tea without sugar.” The gist of the story is that it’s too much to have both, too luxurious. Why? Simply because those were the times when ration cards were introduced to distribute the basic necessities as well as basic food items. Ideology and political life were controlled by a single political force which actually led the country to ruin and collapse, which led to its breakup.People lost the instinct of self-preservation and failed to comprehend the consequences of the events that unfolded back then.We threw the baby out, along with the bath water of a bankrupt political system and inefficient economic patterns. We let the country break apart. People were saying ‘it cannot get worse’. And there it came! The 1990s were marked by a complete collapse of the social care system, factories and even whole industries ground to a halt. People didn’t get their pensions, allowances and wages for months. There were times when pensioners, workers and servicemen had to wait for up to six months to get their money. Crime was rampant. Things were so tense that the country was heading towards civil war. We must call a spade a spade and remember the massacre in the Caucasus when aviation and heavy equipment, including tanks, were deployed. We still have a lot of problems there, also in terms of crime and terrorism, but, thankfully, it’s not what we had in the past. That’s why I would be very careful about phrases like ‘it cannot get worse’. Triggered by two or three missteps, this past could be back with a crushing blow before we brace ourselves for a response. Our gains in politics and economy are still very fragile. There are others who say that we are in for a period of stagnation, similar to the time when Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was in power. I do not want to sound too critical, there were indeed many achievements, but in fact I do not recall any of the post-war Soviet leaders who would be as hardworking as myself or the incumbent president Dmitry Medvedev. I don’t remember any.Remark: They couldn’t.Vladimir Putin: They couldn’t – due to their physical condition and a lack of understanding of what needed to be done. They might well have done something, but they didn’t have a clue or enough will for that. We can also refer to the experience of other countries. I didn’t try to hold on to power, and you know it perfectly well, although I could have easily taken the advantage of the constitutional majority of the ruling United Russia party to amend the Constitution. But I stopped short of that. I didn’t change the Constitution to suit one man only – myself. I wanted people to see that there would be no tragedy in a natural change of power. Now, let’s turn to other countries. Up to the end of World War II, the U.S. didn’t have any limits on the number of presidential terms. Konstantin Ernst: Yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected three times… Remark: Four times.Vladimir Putin: Prior to that, some U.S. presidents ran for a third time, but if I am not mistaken, none of the attempts was successful, except for Franklin Roosevelt who was elected president four times running. He stood at the helm throughout the ordeals of economic depression and World War II and was elected four times because his policies were effective. But the exact number of terms and years in power do not really matter. Helmut Kohl spent 16 years in power in West Germany. He wasn’t president, but his post was actually the most important executive job in the country. The same goes for one of the former Canadian prime-ministers. Look at post-war France where a president could have been elected for seven years without a limit on the number of terms. It was just recently that France introduced amendments into its constitution and cut it down to no more than two five-year terms. Very similar to what we have in Russia. What does that mean? When a country is facing difficult and hard times, when it’s recovering from a crisis and getting back on its feet, it’s these pillars of stability, including in politics, that play a vital role.We’ve been through what could be called the collapse of a state – the Soviet Union broke up. What was the Soviet Union? Basically, it’s Russia; it was just called a different name. We went through the turmoil of the 1990s and only in the past decade did we start to get back on our feet, providing for domestic peace and order and balancing out the situation. Russia is in a desperate need of a period of sustainable development. In terms of our plans, and my particular plans for the future, this is a priority – we must consolidate the basic foundations of our political system and democratic institutions, we must provide for progressive development and diversification of our economy on a new modern basis, we must ensure an improvement in our living standards. That’s our plan of action.As regards my return, nothing is decided until the people have voted. It is one thing when I hear some people say that they would like to see that happen, or when people in certain regions suggest something, but it is a different thing when the whole country goes to the polls. We need our people to come and express their attitude to what we have been doing.There is another important aspect here. The most active part of the political spectrum, people who talk about democratic institutions in Russia, they are concerned that democratic processes may be rolled back. This is definitely not going to happen, because I can’t imagine Russia developing without democratic institutions. This is exactly what I intend to work on. I will strengthen our country’s political system and its foundations. I will work to develop democratic institutions and market economy with an emphasis on social needs.Oleg Dobrodeyev (VGTRK): I would like to go back to the United Russia convention on September 24th. It’s been the talk of the town ever since, a thrilling topic for many. On Saturday, Mr. Medvedev said that these decisions had been taken beforehand, long before they were announced at the convention. Could you possibly shed more light on when and how these decisions were taken?Vladimir Putin: Alright. Naturally, there is no need to make a secret of it. Basically, it’s totally natural. It is not some sort of a secret agreement between two or three people (in our case, it is two). It is a perfectly normal practice in politics when people create political alliances and work out some rules of conduct defining how they will work together. Long time ago, I mean four years ago, we agreed that such a scenario is quite possible, if we manage to stand this trial together.Of course, we didn’t anticipate that we would be hit by a crisis, but we saw that something was looming, something was happening to the world economy that could cause a crisis. We understood it back then, we felt that… That’s why we decided to go through the next four-year term together, and if we managed to pass it successfully, we would be able to make our proposals on the power configuration to society – on the roles each of us would play, on the guiding principles and the path we would take our country along. And when this time came, we voiced our suggestions, but not as something decided only between us and not decided upon by the citizens – we laid out this configuration and it will be up to Russia’s citizens to approve these suggestions at the polling station or not. Elections decide everything! Oleg Dobrodeyev: But could you possibly reveal the details of the conversation the two of you had shortly before September 24?Vladimir Putin: There were no special details. We had been talking about this during this whole period of four years – I mean, three and a half years. After all, we met quite often. We spent much time together – on vacation, skiing, exercising or even doing our regular work, political or economic. We always kept that in mind, and quite often we would go back to that issue one way or another. Say, we discussed how to adjust certain details because of the circumstances. But on the whole the plan remained unchanged.Vladimir Kulistikov (NTV): Mr. Putin, did you discuss the following detail with President Medvedev: the president is known for his efforts to curb the monstrosity with which our state often treats individuals and make it more humane. He suggested a number of initiatives: a reform of the correctional system, a reform of the criminal law, a reform of the political system, etc. On the one hand, you are saying that these things must continue; yet, on the other hand, you have the reputation of a hardliner, a man who believes in an iron fist. That’s why I would like to ask you whether you will continue those initiatives launched by President Medvedev.Vladimir Putin: On strategic issues of our country’s development, we share the same views. But we are not the same person. We are different, and at a certain point Mr. Medvedev deemed it necessary to take some steps in order to make certain aspects of our public life more humane. That was his right as the head of state. If the voters, the people of Russia, support the configuration of power that we have suggested, I will make no major changes to what Mr. Medvedev has done as president. We’ll have to wait and see how those things will work. But, to tell you the truth, I don’t think those changes were very big. What Mr. Medvedev did as president was based on his understanding of what is right and what is wrong and on the current situation in our country. But I repeat, I don’t think those changes were revolutionary.Let’s take Mr. Kulistikov, for example.Vladimir Kulistikov: Yes?Vladimir Putin: You are the head of a major media outlet – NTV, a national television channel. But there was a time, if I’m not mistaken, when you worked for Radio Liberty.Vladimir Kulistikov: Yes, there was such a time.Vladimir Putin: Right.Remark: It’s a black stain on his reputation.Vladimir Putin: It’s not the matter of black or white. . . .Vladimir Kulistikov: I did not say that. Somebody else did.Vladimir Putin: In any case, you used to work there. And when I worked for the KGB, we viewed Radio Liberty as a branch of the CIA. Of course, it was only a propaganda arm, but still. Anyway, such an attitude towards that station was not unfounded. It was funded by the CIA and, what’s more, it was even involved in spying activities in the former USSR. Today, the situation has changed, but still, no matter how you look at it, Radio Liberty is a media outlet that expresses the views of a foreign government. In this case, it is the US government. So, you used to work there, and now you are the head of a national television channel in Russia. How long have you been working there? For quite some time, right? Isn’t this is a sign of liberalism? In other words, you can’t say that there is no liberalism at all in Russia. Of course, there was a period in our history when we were facing serious threats. Those threats were so grave that the very existence of the Russian nation was at stake. Naturally, during that period we had to tighten the screws and exercise tight control, especially in politics. What else could we do? The constitutions and charters of Russian regions were full of all sorts of things; the only thing missing was that those regions are parts of the Russian Federation. No wonder we had to be tough! But now the situation has improved, and, like you said, Mr. Medvedev decided to liberalize our public life, especially the criminal law and the criminal procedure. So, now we will see together how those things will work. I regard this simply as part of our efforts to develop our political system.Konstantin Ernst: Mr. Putin, why did you and President Medvedev decide that it is he who should be No. 1 on the United Russia ticket for the upcoming election?Vladimir Putin:I will explain it to you. Working as the president of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Medvedev has been able to implement a number of crucial projects that prior to that had existed only on paper and stayed within minister rooms. He introduced them into the public domain and practice. These things were initially formulated in the development program worked out for our country till 2020, the famous ‘Program 2020’. It included a development of democratic institutions, diversification of economy and its modernization. But earlier, these were mere words. President Medvedev has to take credit for turning these words out of behind-the-scene discussions and ministerial rooms and introducing them into public domain and practical work. So it’s important to have proper tools to continue this work I would like to remind you that according to the Russian Constitution, the Government is the main executive body in control of the key leverages and tools of routine, day-to-day policy-making – both in economy and social care. So it’ll be natural if Dmitry Medvedev heads the United Russia Party list, if the voters cast their ballots in favor of this ticket and we are able to form a viable parliament where United Russia retains its leading role. In that case Dmitry Medvedev could form a viable government to jointly implement the policies that we have put on his agenda. Oleg Dobrodeyev: Going back to the United Russia Party. In the summer, you often said that it was necessary to refresh the party ticket, and that’s when the Popular Front was set up. In September, you went as far as to say that half of the future United Russia faction in the State Duma will feature new names. But today we see that the majority of its members, at least among its supreme leadership, are still the same people that were there before. In hindsight, how do you assess the summer campaign?Vladimir Putin: I’m not sure it’s appropriate to use such expressions but I’ll say it: a Russian proverb says, “You should only make haste when you’re trying to catch a flea.” You should always be calm and take one step at a time. I’m not taking back anything of what I’ve said. On the contrary, we are moving in this direction, and this movement will continue.What I mean is the following. First of all, the election has not taken place yet. The State Duma election is slated for December 4, 2011. We had to put together the list of United Russia, and I said back then that we will draw new people onto the party’s list by using the potential of the Popular Front, by attracting new people with fresh ideas and the energy to implement those ideas. So what do we have? Out of 600 names on the list, more than a half have never taken part in federal elections. It means we have managed to update the party’s ticket by more than 50 percent. In the summer, I said that 20-25 percent of the ticket should come from non-members of United Russia. Now that figure has increased to a third. These are people who’ve been delegated by various social organizations – youth, women’s, trade union and professional organizations. They are all on the list. I know that many of them are on the top of the ticket and have high chances to make it to the State Duma. I believe that this task, which was the priority for us, will be met – we will significantly renew the Parliament within the United Russia faction. As for the party’s leadership, there will be changes there, too. But first we need to get through the election.Konstantin Ernst: Mr. Putin, you talk a lot about stability, but stability has its negative sides, as it sometimes results in nation-wide stagnation. How do you feel about the lack of staff rotation in the government? Some ministers have not only produced dubious results over their terms in office; what they produced was a series of failures. Don’t you think the fact that they are still in office is a sign of stagnation?Vladimir Putin: First, we need to define “failure” and “a series of failures.” It is true that we may have – and have had – shortcomings in certain areas. Sometimes, it is the minister’s fault but very often it is not. In fact, quite often the reason something bad happens in a certain area is not because of the situation in this particular area; it is because of the general situation in the economy or in society. It is wrong to make a person a scapegoat – although, of course, if a person is personally guilty, he should face the consequences.Second, frequent reshuffles in the government are a sign of weakness. They indicate that officials are either incapable or unwilling to accept personal responsibility. They keep passing it around like a hot potato. But responsibility has to be collective. If an official is guilty of making a mistake, the people have to know about it and his team has to make the appropriate conclusionsFinally, reshuffles and officials’ attempts to hide behind their superiors’ backs, all of that does not make administrative bodies function better. You have to try everything you can to make an official work before you decide to dismiss him. One more thing: when we choose people for certain jobs, we always try to make a good, thought-out choice. It does not always work out perfectly, of course, and in these cases we are forced to let people go. That is true.Oleg Dobrodeyev: Still, the best way to avoid too much of a standstill in your staff policy is to get rid of some of your old allies who are no longer working efficiently. Your predecessors – Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin – they never hesitated to drop off the ballast. This is actually the reason why politicians – especially notable political figures – are always essentially alone. General de Gaulle and Winston Churchill have spoken of this. Do you perhaps feel the need to let go of some of the people you have been working with over the past several years? Alternatively, will things go a different, way, which is perhaps easier to envision in Russia, with current Kremlin residents moving to the White House and vice versa, resulting in no changes? Vladimir Putin: Well, talking about the loneliness top politicians have to deal with… That concept does exist and I could say I know what you are talking about. I’m not sure it is because you have to sack people. On the one hand, you are right: if I sack a person, I doubt he will like me; but on the other hand, I have to appoint somebody in his place, which means I make a new friend. Their loneliness is not related to staff policy. It has nothing to do with appointments and reshuffles. It is there, but let me tell you what causes it. Prominent political figures cannot let anyone near themselves. They are not allowed to favor certain people over others. Their decisions cannot be based on personal sympathies. They have to be based on professional, impartial analysis and the will to take responsibility. Then again, if you don’t mind me speaking frankly, we are all only human, and everyone wants their share of the benefits that being close to someone in power provides. I am forced to put it plainly, but it’s true. Not everyone pursues that, of course. Some people, especially personal acquaintances, have their own moral code and never come to me with requests. They live their own life, sorting out their own problems, but the temptation to ask a top-ranking official for help is always there so we have to keep people at a distance. This is what causes that solitude that you mentioned.As for the willingness to get rid of people who have proven themselves inefficient (this is what we should be discussing), every high-ranking official – it does not have to be the president or the prime minister – any minister of business executive should be able to do that, but did we not discuss this earlier? We need a lot of new people in the government and the parliament.At the same time, we cannot go to extremes. There has to be a degree of succession in power, we cannot start playing games. We cannot go and dismiss the parliament just because someone on television or some print journalist said we have to. That would not be serious! We have to look at the people who are making their third or fourth attempt to resolve problems they have been working on, and if they are tired but their performance was adequate, we have to find some other place where they can apply their efforts, talent and experience. Once their positions are open, we bring in new people with fresh ideas and motivation to implement them. This is what we are planning to do.We have a lot to learn from the great politicians you mentioned. They each had plenty of experience in politics… I would even say they were philosophers as well as politicians. De Gaulle has a lot of different sayings. He is one of my favorite figures in politics. You are professionally connected to France, so you might know this saying of his: “Always choose the hardest way, you will never find rivals there.”Konstantin Ernst: You recently visited China and, as many noted, it was your first visit abroad since you announced you were going to run at the elections. Political connoisseurs noticed that the first trip President Medvedev made in late 2007 in his capacity as president of Russia was also to China. Does that mean China is becoming Russia's priority international partner?Vladimir Putin: it is a coincidence. If you look at the government's schedule, (it is not a classified document) you will see that Russian-Chinese intergovernmental meetings are conducted on a regular basis, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Russia last and it was my turn to visit China. It was a regular planned trip. We have a very tight working and summit schedule – Chairman Hu Jintao visited Russia as recently as June – which indicates that China is one of Russia's priority partners. We have all reasons to consider China a strategic partner of Russia, and not only because we share the world's longest border. Our trade is growing at a great rate. China is developing very rapidly, turning into a valued partner, a great market for Russian-manufactured goods and a source of investments into our economy.Vladimir Kulistikov: A partner, Mr. Putin, not a threat?Vladimir Putin: I have said this on more than one occasion to those who tried to scare me with the Chinese threat (in most cases it was our partners from the West). However lucrative the natural resources of Eastern Siberia and Russia's Far East might look, we all know they are not the prize in today's biggest global struggle. That struggle is for world leadership and we are not going to get in China's way there. China has other competition there, let them figure it out. For Russia, China is, first and foremost, a reliable partner. We can tell the Chinese authorities and the people of China are willing to build up good neighborly relations with us, to look for middle-ground solutions to issues that seem extremely complicated. We can tell they are ready to do it; we take measures to indicate we are ready and, as a result, we find points of contact. I am sure it will continue to happen in the future. Oleg Dobrodeyev: As for the global leadership, you recently wrote an article for the Izvestia daily, where you suggest creating a Eurasian economic space that would be a bridge between Europe and booming economies of Asia-Pacific. At the same time, everyone remembers you calling the downfall of the Soviet Union the last century’s biggest geopolitical tragedy. In this respect, what would you say to those who see in your words some sort of an imperial ambition, a desire to recreate a new empire?Vladimir Putin: Are we talking here about criticism originating in the post-Soviet space or from abroad?Oleg Dobrodeyev: There is criticism both here and there, because these ideas indeed give this impression… We all understand what is to come out of bringing together the potentials of those countries you refer to. And I indeed believe that speaking of the post-Soviet space, many there perceive it as a threat – I refer primarily to those who perceive it as an external threat. Vladimir Putin:Well, if we are to talk about criticism both from the post-Soviet space and beyond… Speaking of the post-Soviet space, I’d like to say the following. It takes as much as a pocket calculator, even the most primitive kind will do – you know there used to be this old mechanical calculator called Feliks where you had to turn the handle to do the sums – or you could just to the simple math on a piece of paper to see what economic big bang, what economic profits we shall get by putting all our capacities together. By the way, as for the processes currently under way which I wrote about I can say that I was not the sole author of those proposals and plans. Moreover, it wasn’t solely Russia. In fact the first impetus in this direction was given by Kazakhstan’s president Nazarbayev. He came to visit me here in Novo-Ogaryovo and said, look, I thought it over, let’s do this, that, and that. We already were on this track, but…Vladimir Kulistikov:When did it happen?Vladimir Putin: It was in 2002 if my memory serves me right, some time around 2002. We discussed the issue at my place – here, in the next building. There were four of us – Nazarbayev, Lukashenko, Kuchma who was the president of Ukraine at the time, and me. I suggested that we don’t start until he arrives, so we waited for him and started our discussion. You don’t need to be an expert to realize that if we combine our countries’ potentials – in technology, infrastructure, transport, energy sector, mineral resources, workforce, territorial and language opportunities, which are no less important for developing a common economic space, if we combine all these potentials, our competitiveness will surge. It will grow dramatically! We are using the potential we have inherited from the older generation and we can transfer it to a new, modern basis today. We will lift the restrictions that exist in the interstate relations today pertaining to the customs, currency rates and multiple approaches to technical control and so on and so forth. We will debureaucratize the economy, establish a single common market where goods, people and capital will circulate freely, introduce unified standards of economic regulation, provide secure borders for the common market space, in terms of economic security first of all, and we will make progress – be more efficient, more attractive for our foreign partners. And if we are committed to introducing the principles of the World Trade Organization into our operating procedures, this will make us more transparent for our external partners.To be honest, this is exactly what we are doing, but of course it is always up to the sovereign state to decide. It is not about a political coalition meant to revive the Soviet Union. Today’s Russia is not interested in such things. Russia is not interested in being exposed to excessive risks related to bearing the load of those countries that, for a number of reasons, have fallen behind us in certain spheres. But we are prepared to assume a part of this burden due to the common interest of all the parties including Russia in creating a broader economic space, we are prepared to assume this burden today, after an appropriate calculation of risks, of course. This is what I had to say on our CIS partnership.As to the foreign critics who say that Russia has imperial ambitions, what can I say? We see what is going on in Europe, for example – integration has reached a level even the Soviet Union could never dream of. I think you know – and if you don’t, I will tell you – that the European Parliament passes more decisions binding on the member states than the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union ever passed for the Soviet republics. Today there is talk of setting a new common government in the direct meaning of the word, a common controlling body for intercurrency relations in the economic sector, and nobody mentions imperial ambitions in this connection. And look at America! North America is engulfed in intense integration processes that involve the United States, Canada and Mexico. The same is true for Latin America and Africa. It is okay over there and nobody has any objections, but when it comes to Russia, here we are – imperial ambitions! I can tell these critics, who, by the way, don’t seem to be very conscientious or scrupulous, “You know what, mind your own business – go combat the climbing inflation, and the growing national debt, and even obesity. Do something useful.” Konstantin Ernst: Mr. Putin, Western countries did not react strongly to your decision to run for president at the upcoming elections. They said it was Russia’s internal affair and, as Angela Merkel put it, they were ready to work with any legitimately elected president. You must understand, however, that politically Western states consider you a “hawk.” How do you feel about that and what is going to happen to the “reset” of Russian-US relations, which exists as an idea but there is not many signs that it is working?Vladimir Putin: Well, the hawk is a good bird.Konstantin Ernst: But you are certainly no dove.Vladimir Putin: I am a man and I do not like clichés. Our foreign policy, in the past and today, was thought-out and aimed at creating a favorable environment for Russia’s development. This means we want to have friendly relations with all of our partners. Naturally, we have and always will defend our national interests but we have always been regardful of others when we did it and we plan to maintain that in the future. In case of a disagreement or a conflict, we will always look for a compromise that would be acceptable both to our partners and our country. We are not interested in confrontation. On the contrary, we are interested in cooperation. We want our countries to join their efforts. There is something I often say. In fact, it is not just me; our European partners and friends say the same thing. I have very many good friends in Europe – some of them used to hold top positions in their countries, others are still doing that. They say themselves that, without Russia, Europe has no stable future.Europe is not just a geographical concept. First and foremost, it is a cultural concept. We share the same values with Europe. Of course, those are mostly Christian values, but it goes beyond that. Even those who consider themselves atheists were raised on Christian values. But Russia is a multi-faith country. We have many Muslims in Russia as well; we have Judaism; we have [Buddhism], our fourth traditional religion. Our history, our culture and traditions make it easy for us to develop harmonious relations with any country of the world. And this is exactly what we are going to do.Vladimir Kulistikov: Mr. Putin, you mentioned friends in Europe. Indeed, you have excellent relationships with many world leaders. But this seems to be Russia’s only achievement in foreign affairs. What we see today is that some are trying to strip Russia of its leading role, of its status as a great power. We see this happening at international conferences where we are not even invited to sit on the platform. They give us a seat somewhere in the second row. Before we know it, they will move us to the balcony. Also, they have diluted the G8, turning it into G20 – all because they want to dissolve this inconvenient vitamin, or a ferment, called Russia. In fact, you know, this even has a negative effect on domestic affairs, because our people are accustomed to living in a great country. Psychologically, they are not ready to live in a second-rate country that plays soccer with Andorra. Do you agree that other countries have these dangerous plans regarding Russia? And if you agree that the danger is there, how will you resist these tendencies?Vladimir Putin: First of all, I would warn you not to disdain anybody, including small countries. It is unacceptable for us to disdain Andorra or any other small country. I have been learning martial arts all my life, and I have developed a kind of philosophy: respect your opponent no matter who he is. You should do that, first, for ethical reasons, but there are pragmatic reasons as well. If you think that people around you are small fry that you can safely ignore, all of a sudden you may take a punch, and a very painful one at that. Anyway, it’s always better to respect your partners regardless of their territory, their economic power or the condition of their economy.You may remember how China was in a devastated condition just recently, during the Cultural Revolution. And now, after a short time, what has become of China? In the early 1990s, many started treating Russia with disdain, but intelligent politicians who think about the future have always respected us. I know those people by name, and I am very grateful to them, because they also made me feel more confident. This is how we should think and act. As for those who would like to strip Russia of its leading role, they are wrong: Russia is not the kind of country you can treat like that. On the other hand, we are not imposing: if we are not welcome, we don’t insist. Why should we? Our top priority is to help our country develop and improve the living standards of our people. That’s what matters the most to us. Once we have that, once we have a stable political situation and an effective developing economy, once the growth rate of our economy makes it possible for us to boost our defense and ensure our security, we will automatically acquire such a status and such a standing in the world that it will be the opposite situation:they will keep inviting us and we will be thinking whether we want to accept the invitation or turn it down.But, of course, there is a lot we should do – like I said, primarily in the economy and in society. But the same is true of foreign affairs: we should always feel confident and understand what our national interests are. I agree, Russia is a country that simply cannot exist any other way. Our people have a special mindset. But I repeat: it would be a big mistake if we put on the robe of a superpower and start dictating terms to others over matters that have nothing to do with us. Of course, if a certain matter affects our interests, we will definitely fight to the end. But there is no need for us to pose as a world policeman. If somebody likes that role, let them do it. We all know what is happening in the world today. We all can connect the dots. I think nothing will come out of it except damage for those countries.Vladimir Kulistikov: I accept your criticism about disdaining little ones. From now on, I will respect the executives of minor channels as much as I respect Mr. Ernst and Mr. Dobrodeyev.I have another question for you though. Let us take the Arab world. Russia, formerly known as the Russian Empire, then as the Soviet Union and now as the Russian Federation, has traditionally held a very strong position in this region. Today a series of revolutions shook the Arab countries. It may be true that some of those countries were ruled by sons of bitches, as they say, but those were our sons of bitches! And now Russia’s position in the region has been undermined and we are no longer welcome there. What is your take on the recent Arab revolutions and what do you think are Russia’s prospects in this region?Vladimir Putin: You are right, this is a region Russia is traditionally interested in and has stable and deep-rooted connections with. There are certain political and economic forces in many of these countries that favor the development of cooperation with Russia. But what is going on there today is not new. Take the Egypt of a few decades ago. Don’t you remember a similar phase in its relations with the Soviet Union, when a period of renaissance was followed by an abrupt turn towards the West and the United States on the part of Egypt? We have seen it all. Oleg Dobrodeyev: A personal question, Mr. Putin. It is no secret that many Russians saw the past several years as a period of political uncertainty. In Russia, political uncertainly always stirs up the elite. There were rumors of discord in the tandem. People – officials, in any case – started to speculate. Did you experience any personal disappointments in this period? This is the first question.Secondly, over that period, did you ever feel like some of the people close to you, perhaps someone that you have brought to power, had stopped to consider your interests? Maybe even lost their respect for you?Vladimir Putin: So what you’re saying is that while being president I inspired a certain attitude towards me, but as soon my term was over this attitude changed – is that right?Well, thank you very much for this feedback. But I do get the question. You know, in the so-called elite circles there are always some people who are willing to, pardon my French, swindle and muddy things up, and try to fish in the muddy waters hoping for some gain, for some extra fish probably. But I cannot say that such things were anything like prominent or serious. And all the more so, there was nothing like that among my colleagues, my closest circles, there was no decline in the degree of respect or personal attitude, nothing like that. But I firmly believe that the most important thing for politicians today is not their official rank, but the trust of the people. That is the reason I am here today. It is the basis, the foundation that I was able to use to make my work efficient, and I do believe the Russian government’s work was quite efficient over that period, despite the crisis. The people’s trust allowed me to work comfortably. My team felt it as well and I am very grateful to Russians for this support. It was not always brash, sometimes quiet, but very clearly voiced. I felt that support and I am very grateful for it. This, by the way, allowed to implement quite a consistent and, let me say it again, largely efficient anti-crisis policy. Yes, many things could have been done differently, some things could have been more efficient, but on the whole our response was much more efficient and timely than that of other countries. We succeeded in more than just saving some individual businesses; we managed to save entire industries which were on the verge of collapsing – among them the automotive industry, financial and banking systems. We averted the possibility of a new 1998 crisis when people lost their entire lives’ savings in one instant. I promised that we won’t allow this to happen, and we kept it from happening. We achieved the recovery of the labor market bringing it up to the pre-crisis level. Even better than that, our unemployment rates today are lower than before the crisis. Yes, there were some negative issues and aspects to this, too, but in general we’ve done a good job on the labor market and our responses were quite fast and timely. I’d like to point out once again, this is all in terms of the average man’s perspective. Given this, I cannot really say…Remark: But what about the elite?Vladimir Putin: They are very important, but let me reiterate that the elite felt that support and that was decisively important.Vladimir Kulistikov: Mr. Putin, you just mentioned the economy and the crisis. It looks like there is another storm brewing: stock markets are tumbling, and people say there is only so much the traders themselves can do about it. Emerging markets are losing capital. The same is true about Russia. I recently read an article that said the government needed a new program to counter the next crisis. A program that would be like a good skirt on a girl: short and offering an attractive perspective. Supposedly, that would help win back businesses’ trust and stop the crisis. Does your government have such a program? And while we are at it, since our budget is calculated presuming the price of oil would be at least $100 a barrel and oil prices are falling, are you going to revise the budget?Vladimir Putin: You know, if we keep talking about the fall of stock market indexes, they might never recover. Russia will grow by 4% this year, which is satisfactory. China will grow by 9%, which is a good result. We have to push for a 6% to 7% economic growth figure. We managed to deliver that in the pre-crisis years and we will try to do it again, as I have said before.We will, of course, try to make our economy more open. There are fears, however, especially in the light of Russia’s WTO accession, that opening it too much might harm it. Returning to your metaphor, a short skirt looks good on some women while others are better off wearing something else…Vladimir Kulistikov: A longer skirt?Vladimir Putin: Yes, other clothes. From that point of view, I believe we have managed to make ourselves safe from unpleasant surprises as we negotiated on Russia’s WTO accession. Essentially, entire branches of Russia’s economy are going through a long transition period. We will work on making our industries work efficiently in a competitive environment to give Russians access to high-quality goods and services at reasonable prices. That is exactly what we want to achieve by having Russia join the WTO. I will say it again, however: we will only make our final decision when all of the failsafe clauses that we might need to protect our economic interests at one point or another are in place.My colleagues and I see these threats very clearly. There are a number of them. They are generated by so-called developed economies. What can I say? Russia turned out to be well-equipped for the 2008-2009 financial crisis. What are we dealing with now? We are carefully following developments in the global economy and the word's largest markets. Clearly, our economy is not sufficiently diversified at the moment. We say that openly to feel more confident. The problem is, when Western countries' markets shrink, we sell less goods and the prices for our goods fall. That is taking into account that only 4 to 7 Russian industries are represented well on those markets, therefore we are dealt a heavy blow: if we had 50 to 100 industries represented, the situation would be more balanced and we would be able to switch to a floating currency rate. Until that happens, our national bank will be forced to somewhat regulate rates. Generally speaking, therefore, we will only be able to say we are ready for any changed in internal trends after our economy is diversified.Some things are going better for us now than they were in late 2008, some are going worse. First, here is what is going worse. I will say that the recent crisis has forced us to burn through some of our resources and reserves. Nevertheless, we are planning to have more reserves this year. We will bring the government’s reserve fund to 1.7 and the national welfare fund to approximately 2.8 trillion. There are these two funds; then, there are the National Bank's currency reserves which amount to $550 billion. As you can see, we have quite a sizable safety cushion. The government's reserves are not quite as plentiful as they were before the past crisis. We have to keep that in mind.Now, what is going better?We have worked out cooperation mechanisms; we know what to do in situations of this sort. We have worked out the mechanisms and amended the legal framework. Now we will not even have to go to parliament if we decide to undertake certain measures. We know what instruments we have to use to stabilize the finance system, some of the industry segments and the social sphere. That is, obviously, a good thing. Taking into account the reserves we have and our experience of going through the 2008-2010 crisis, I would say I am sure we are ready to handle any problems that might come up.The budget was indeed based on the assumption that oil prices will stay at least at $100 per barrel. We are largely dependent on oil: over 40% of Russia's income comes from oil and gas. At the same time, over two thirds of our additional income this year came come from the same source, which indicates that the economy is, after all changing its structure and going the way we wanted it to go. The budget for next year is based on $100 a barrel, but let us not forget that the average oil price this year was $110. We do not think that oil prices would drop dramatically next year, but still, we took our estimation down to $100, I would call that a pragmatic move. Even if it goes down to, say, $95, we would not have to borrow too much and stress our finance system.Returning to this year's additional revenue, we are planning to spend over 320 billion to cover the budget deficit, therefore we will not be borrowing more at the global market, which means this money will remain in Russian financial institution and in the country’s economy. This is a very important positive factor. By the way, the inflation rate of 4.7% that we have today is the lowest in the history of modern Russia. Yes, most of our spending will be made late in the year (late October, November, December) and inflation will grow but I think the overall figure at the end of the year will still be the lowest in Russia's history.Vladimir Kulistikov: Colleagues, I beg your pardon for coming up with this question but if I fail to ask it, the shareholders will dismiss me.Mr. Putin, Gazprom has been facing certain problems in Western Europe: the German offices of Gazprom have been searched. What is your take on a situation like this around one of our major companies?Vladimir Putin: It’s quite simple. I have repeatedly said in public that the sellers are always trying to sell the commodity at a higher price and the buyers always want to get it cheaper, or even free, what is still better, for nothing as we say. You won’t get anything for free, naturally, but at a smaller price – yes, and that is what they are after.And as a result unilateral decisions are taken – the Third Energy Package, for example, which was adopted retrospectively. This is unprecedented. This should be considered unacceptable in the modern world, but it is done despite all considerations. We think the ultimate goal behind this course of action is to bring down the cost of the product and to disrupt the market pricing mechanism which is closely connected with the price for crude in Russia. It is we who set the price in a centralized manner, we depend on crude: the crude goes up – the natural gas price goes up, the crude drops – so does the gas price. I don’t think this is a farsighted approach to pricing because today the price for crude may be fairly high and tomorrow it may plummet – and Gazprom will be suffering losses and the buyers, on the contrary, will be benefited. I don’t think this is justifiable. Besides, the natural gas market is very specific, it largely depends on a concrete supplier. It is a mistake to introduce a third party in the process, as our partners suggest, or a third buyer and a third seller… This is to say, the Russian gas that has reached the border with Western Europe should be first sold to a third party, a legal entity that will further sell it to the consumers. Do you know what this scenario can lead to? Someone will simply be given an opportunity to pocket additional margin. The price will not necessarily go down. This is first.The second change provides for differentiation between the owner of the pipeline gas transmission system and the owner of the product itself. Under this provision, owners will be compelled to part with the gas transmission systems! The question has already been popped in some Baltic states where the national governments are trying to take away what belongs to us and our German partners by law, and was made our property by an act of purchase. What implications can all this have for the gas sector? When there is no unified structure that produces natural gas and then distributes it, when it is separated from the gas transmission system, the latter may degrade because, taken separately, it tends to be loss-making today. Or the pumping tariffs will have to be increased dramatically, which will inevitably result in a price growth for the end buyer of the gas or the total degeneration of the entire gas transmission system.Can we lower the price of natural gas for the European consumer and at the same time supply it under long-term contracts? We certainly can. What should be done? We should eliminate the intermediaries we have today. No one should come between us and our European partners, the big companies that purchase our gas and supply it to their own power plants, avoiding any margin at this stage.If Gazprom supplies natural gas directly to the power plants, there will be no intermediaries, no additional margin, the product cost will decrease. If Gazprom deals directly with the end buyer, this can eliminate the rest of the intermediaries. There is another component to be taken into consideration as well – the social tax burden on the energy resources including our gas is enormous, the tax goes to the budgets of our partners. Who makes them stick to such high taxation rates? They should bring the tax down. It is unfair that we should be the only party that pays the bill. All these urgent issues are on our current agenda, and no matter how acute and complicated they may seem I hope we will be able to reach an agreement on these problems in the course of a partners’ dialogue.Konstantin Ernst: Mr. President, returning to the elections, do you think your project, the Popular Front, will help United Russia win?Vladimir Putin: You understand, of course, that I want United Russia to win at the elections. First of all, the party is headed by the incumbent president. If voters voice their approval of our suggestion on how power should be configured in Russia it would allow us to create a stable and capable government headed by Dmitry Medvedev. Secondly, the goal we had in mind when we created the Popular Front was not only to make United Russia stronger, although it is very important as we need an adequate parliament. It is extremely important, but so are other things. We need to enable democratic elements, to let people feel they are connected to the administration. Since the times of Peter the Great we have been used to putting patterns of Western goods in display and pointing our fingers at them, encouraging people to follow the example of the West. There is a positive but also a negative side to this – we can’t go on doing this and saying that everything is always much better over there, because it may lead us into a trap and we will commit errors. In this sense, if we talk about democratic developments, we should admit that the West is going through an economic crisis that has evolved to a political crisis today. Many Western experts say that the West is facing a crisis of power and public distrust of the multiparty system installed there. They say that this multiparty Western parliamentary democracy cannot produce politicians that would enjoy the trust of the overwhelming majority of their citizens. The Russian Popular Front, the preliminary elections among most noteworthy people there, these are the instruments that I think should work towards expanding the democratic element in Russia’s governance – it is a real, direct-vote democracy and I think, generally, it will help make Russia’s political system stronger.Oleg Dobrodeyev: One more question on the same subject Konstantin asked about. Do you foresee any possible complications for United Russia in this election campaign? There is slightly less than eight weeks to go, and the campaign looks completely different from those in 2003 or 2007. Upon President Medvedev’s initiative some significant adjustments have been made to liberalize the electoral law. The State Duma ballot threshold was brought down, and more importantly, the law ensuring equal access of parties to mass-media has come in force. As a result, political competition – or, at the very least, what we can see now on TV screens – has grown much tougher than before.Is this current situation that has come about now in any way likely to make it harder for United Russia to get those Duma seats it was counting on getting?Vladimir Putin: On the whole I’d say yes, it will be harder now. The competition is escalating, and in general this is rather good news than bad news. The only question that remains is how exactly we should be developing these democratic institutions. We should always be on the lookout for the best ways. We should consider, for instance, whether we really need to have 10–15 parties represented in the parliament.Another question is – should we, perhaps, remove the ballot threshold altogether, or rather keep it? In this respect, we know what’s going on in the neighboring state of Ukraine. Are we interested in our parliament taking up the Ukrainian model which makes it practically impossible to run a constructive discussion? Let’s take a look at the United States – they have many parties represented and no ballot threshold, right? Yet in addition, they have a number of tools ensuring that only two major parties make it to the Congress, and it all starts with a very tough competition inside these parties at the initial stage. And that’s where democracy is indeed working and developing, and this kind of primary election is one of its tools. It ensures that only the most efficient and popular candidates get nominated to compete against each other. And the same thing happens further on in the houses of parliament. Our political system is still evolving. We shall avoid any voluntary decision-making. We shall maintain the dialogue with the society, with general public. We shall look for ways and formats to make our political system sustainable. This is one of my priority tasks – I mean of course that’s if people vote for me. As for the government, if the voting goes smoothly and people support United Russia’s list of candidates with Dmitry Medvedev’s at its top, we shall be able to set up a competent government. One of our tasks is to develop a sustainable political system which would develop further based on its own foundational principles rather than on advice and criticism from abroad. There is no way our country can be a satellite state. We are in need of a stable, sustainable political system which would be up-to-date, flexible, and capable of standing up to the challenges of the present day while leaning on our national traditions. There is no way we can do the same as some of the countries of the so-called Eastern bloc, Soviet bloc, the Warsaw Pact countries of which I know that they cannot even have a defense minister or a chief of general staff appointed without prior consultation with foreign officials. That’s no way for us. But in order to preserve our independency and sovereignty we need to have both an efficiently developing economy and a sustainable political system – and the latter can only be sustainable if people feel that they have a real say on the formation of government authorities, I mean here both formation and their policies as well. And we surely need to define the optimal political structures and mechanisms of formation of government authorities. We shall see how efficient the tools proposed by President Medvedev will prove to be. Just to make it clear, we’re working on it together. But of course as the president Dmitry Medvedev has a final say on these matters, and I respect that. These decisions have been made and will be implemented, they will work. And we shall see all together – I mean here both United Russia and Russian Popular Front – we shall see how they will be working out. If necessary we’ll make relevant adjustments.Oleg Dobrodeyev: What would be a good percentage for United Russia in these elections?Vladimir Putin: You are trying to get a political forecast out of me.Oleg Dobrodeyev:I am not asking for any numbers. I just asked you what result you would be satisfied with.Vladimir Putin: United Russia has to remain the leading political party in the country and the Parliament. That would be a good result.Konstantin Ernst: Thank you very much for this talk, Mr. Putin. I believe we are finished for today. Good luck to you.Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

CCTV: Good evening, Mr. Prime Minister. I am deputy editor-in-chief of the Xinhua news agency. This is a renowned Chinese anchor.Vladimir Putin: Nice to meet you. Good evening.CCTV: Two years ago, on October 13, we interviewed you at the Russian Embassy to China. We still remember every detail of that interview.VP: It is very nice of you.CCTV: Before proceeding with my questions, I would like to wish you a happy birthday on behalf of all Chinese media workers, although we are a few days late.VP: Thank you very much.CCTV: Let us begin. This year will see the 10th anniversary of the Russian-Chinese treaty on friendship and cooperation. What is your view of the current level of Russian-Chinese relations? What areas do you think would benefit from an additional boost?VP: The treaty is a framework document that provided a new foundation for our relations. With that treaty, we have brought Russian-Chinese relations to a very high level. I would even say it is the highest peak in the history of our relations. First and foremost, we have achieved an unprecedented level of trust in international affairs. We cooperate very closely on the international arena. Of course, both Russia and China are large countries. They are both major players on the international arena. Russian-Chinese cooperation on the international arena has become a major influence on global politics. We have learned to coordinate our efforts in order to protect our legitimate interests. This treaty made it possible for us to work together in some sensitive areas, such as military-technical cooperation. We are talking about multi-billion dollar contracts and the prospect of bringing our cooperation to a new level. We are introducing joint R&D projects and joint manufacturing of certain types of machines. Today, we have made another step in this direction as we agreed to create a network of workshops in China that would maintain and repair Russian-manufactured machines. We have reached an unprecedented level of economic cooperation. Even in the best pre-crisis year, 2008, Russian-Chinese trade was estimated at $55.9 billion. But now, after the crisis, we have not only recovered that level; we even surpassed it. This year, we expect our trade to hit at least $70 billion, perhaps more, closer to $80 billion. It is quite possible that our trade will grow to $100 billion by 2015 and to $200 billion by 2020.Look at what is happening in the humanitarian sphere. We had a year of Russian culture in China and a year of Chinese culture in Russia; a year of Russian language in China and a year of Chinese language in Russia. It was very much encouraged when I saw how the year of the Russian language in China was organized. We were even a bit surprised by how many people took part in it and how enthusiastic they were.I think it was only natural for Russia to help the people of China deal with the consequences of the severe earthquake. As you know, we invited Chinese children from the areas struck by the earthquake to visit Russia. Chairman Hu Jintao supported this initiative and later invited a group of Russian children to China. All of that indicates that our relations have reached an unprecedented level, and all the progress we have made was, of course, based on the treaty you mentioned.CCTV: I remember that, during the rescue operation in Sichuan, the last living person saved from the rubble was rescued by Russian rescue workers. That was in Dujiangyan.VP: Yes, it is quite possible, because Russia has a well-equipped rescue service with advanced technical capabilities that is ready to be deployed anywhere. But that is not the only area of our cooperation. I know for a fact that whenever Russia is confronted with a serious problem, our Chinese friends respond immediately, offering assistance, sympathy or support. This, too, helps to create a good atmosphere in relations between our countries.CCTV: Your visit is in the spotlight of many media – both in China and Russia, and in other countries. Perhaps, this is because it’s your first major trip after you announced that you would run for the president of the Russian Federation next year. During your visit, Russia and China have reached mutual understanding in many areas and signed contracts worth billions of US dollars. Does this visit have any special significance for you?And another question: have you been able to make progress in the key areas of cooperation, say, in natural gas exports? VP: I do not consider gas exports to be a key area of our cooperation. Our partnership covers a lot of areas, and it’s becoming even more diversified. I believe the priorities for collaboration must lie in the high-tech industries – not only the traditional ones like machine-building but also in aircraft manufacturing. This is an area where our national interests definitely converge. If we want to get a solid share of the global market, we need to join our efforts, for example, in designing and manufacturing wide-body passenger planes. We need to pool our technological and financial resources.There are also other areas, like nano- and biotechnologies, information technologies and medicine. But even in energy, both countries have prepared numerous proposals for cooperation. We do work with hydrocarbons, with oil and natural gas, but our plans are not limited to gas exports to China. We are now discussing joint projects to develop oil and gas fields, for example, in the Russian region of Udmurtia. We may work together on the Sakhalin-3 project in Russian Far East, on the island of Sakhalin, or on the Magadan-1 project on shelf sites. And of course, we’ve talked about supplying natural gas to China. There are two routes available, the eastern and western one. Our Chinese friends have chosen the western route for the first stage. It runs through Russia’s Altay Region. But we are also considering the eastern route – starting from around the city of Vladivostok. Russia has recently completed a pipeline from Sakhalin to Vladivostok via Khabarovsk. Once we’ve reached sufficient volumes, this option may become feasible too, including the possibility of building LNG plants.Pricing policies have come to the fore here, of course. In a meeting with my counterpart, the head of the State Council, I said that a buyer always wants to buy cheap whereas a seller always wants to sell high. We are not directly involved with trade at the political level – it’s up to our companies to find a fair solution that would be good both for China and Russia, which I think they will do.I don’t want to go into details. Commercial negotiations are a very complicated matter. Just like in medicine, the first rule is you don’t do harm. We are aware of China’s demands, and China knows what our resources are. They are huge. We are capable of meeting the needs of our Chinese friends as regards this type of fuel. It will provide a solution not only to economic and energy challenges, but also to environmental ones because natural gas is the greenest fuel option among hydrocarbons.Also, we have resumed power supplies to China, and are now constructing a high-voltage transmission line. If I am not mistaken, the stretch over the Amur River has been completed. Russia may build additional power-generating plants on its territory. Another area of cooperation are coal exports. Some of our companies already work with their Chinese colleagues, and they have some interesting projects for expanding cooperation with the direct participation of Chinese companies.Finally, we cooperate in nuclear energy. We all know about the tragedy that happened in Japan. But we also realize that countries like China and Russia cannot do without nuclear energy. Therefore, we should not panic and close down all the nuclear plants. Rather, we should introduce the newest technology that would rule out the very possibility of such a disastrous scenario.We have completed the first stage of the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant project. It was built according to the highest world standards both in terms of efficiency and safety, using the most advanced technology. We have completed the construction of the experimental fast-neutron reactor, which was actually completed nine months ahead of schedule. I would like to emphasize that this is state-of-the-art equipment, a cutting-edge technology. There are only four reactors of the kind in the world: two in Russia, one in Japan, and now there will be one in China. To sum it up, our economic cooperation is quite diverse and multifaceted. Of course, our cooperation in natural gas may also reach big proportions, and, to repeat, we will do our best to find a compromise that would be acceptable for both sides.CCTV: For such large countries that have reached an unprecedented level of political trust, $100 billion dollars by 2015 is actually not that much.VP: That’s true. We can do a lot to reach this benchmark earlier and achieve a greater figure by that time. That’s quite feasible. I have not yet mentioned such spheres of cooperation as space, shipbuilding and many others. The project of designing a new wide-body aircraft alone will greatly boost the high-tech sector both in Russia and China. So far, China has been purchasing aircraft from the United States and Europe, and Russia has been recently leaning the same way. Of course, we are very happy for our partners, but countries like Russia and China can, and should, have their own aircraft-manufacturing industry. Besides, this is not something new for Russia. We just need to further cultivate the technologies, the personnel and the level of research that Russia had in the past. Both Russia and China have markets for aircraft, and this is a huge advantage. In fact, we have many areas where we can have this kind of cooperation, and if we focus on them, we will definitely achieve better results than the ones I mentioned earlier.CCTV: You have arrived on an Ilyushin IL-96. It must be a very good aircraft.It is a good aircraft. It has good engines, which are also Russian-made. In the modern-day world, nothing remains unchanged. The United States produces practically all types of aircraft. Well, not exactly every type though: there is an amphibious jet plane, Be-200, and it is only produced in Russia and nowhere else in the world. But in all the major aircraft categories, the United States can definitely secure its leadership in production, which European countries can no longer do: they have had to pool their resources and set up a pan-European aerospace company, which includes Germany, France, Spain and other countries. I repeat, we need to pool your assets, including human resources, research, technology, finance and available markets.CCTV: Some political analysts and commentators believe that Russia and China, being two rapidly developing emerging markets, can largely influence, and possibly even spearhead, the establishment of a new world order. Cooperation within BRICS is also rapidly developing. How do you view cooperation between Russia and China in terms of reforming the global economic system? VP: I am not sure whether your question got properly translated: at first, you mentioned establishing a new world order, and now you are asking about reforming the existing system. In case that interpretation was correct, I have to say that creating a new order is not the same thing as reforming the existing one. I think that we should consider reforming the current global architecture, especially global financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. I definitely agree that the BRICS countries should play a greater role in these international institutions, considering our nations’ growing economic clout. It is certainly necessary to straighten out those hedge funds and other sophisticated financial instruments, decrease the volatility of mineral commodity markets, and generally pay more attention to production industries and limit speculation. In this respect, the BRICS countries, including Russia and China, can, and should, play a positive role in stabilizing the global economy.CCTV: We have mentioned the global economy. As we all know, right now Europe is increasingly ravaged by a sovereign debt crisis, coupled with a banking crisis. Has it had any impact on Russia? And as a follow-up on that, I remember you have voiced some stark criticism of the United States, saying it was feeding off the global economy like a parasite. What do you think should be done to bring about a change?VP: I would like to note from the start that luckily, there is no banking crisis in Europe so far. They have financial difficulties, that is true, but that has not inflicted any fatal damages on their financial system or any important financial institutions. Moreover, the leaders of France and Germany, Europe’s leading economies, have announced that they do consider bailing out certain financial institutions in view of the debt crises in some of the euro zone member-states. This is a very good sign. Of course, the debt problems are there and they were caused by the lack of financial discipline. At the moment, however, the debt crises are more of a political problem than an economic one. What is the essence of that political problem and why do I say it is not economic? Greece is currently the most problematic country in the euro zone but, unless I am mistaken, Greece only accounts for 2% of Europe’s combined GDP. It is possible to bail Greece out, it would cost 1 to 1.5 trillion euros according to different estimates. The figure is quite substantial but it is nothing the euro zone cannot handle. It is not that much money by European standards: a substantial sum, but still payable. Now, why is it a political problem? Because, in order to provide the necessary funds, Europe’s larger economies will need to help out the countries that are facing difficulties. That will require some political courage on the part of their leaders because those measures would obviously be unpopular with the people.In the long run, however, the united Europe will benefit from such a move. Thus, something needs to be done. Why are we discussing this issue? Because, unfortunately, everything that is happening in Europe has a negative effect on the global economy. Incidentally, I don’t think the BRICS countries may play a significant role in the bailout. Europe’s heavyweights have enough resources to solve the problem.As regards my remarks about the US economy, I don’t think I said something special. Listen to European experts, heads of states, government members, finance and economics ministers of leading European nations. They are saying the same thing. My remarks were nothing new. Obviously, if a country’s debts and expenses are growing it means that the country is enjoying benefits at the expense of its national debt. Let us take a look at what is happening there. The Federal Reserve is buying up treasury bonds. In other words, they are simply printing money. I don’t want to say whether it is good or bad. Maybe our colleagues in the US have a better understanding of how the economy works than we do in our countries, but I will say their actions go against the recommendations they used to give us in the past. I repeat, at this stage, some of these measures may be justified, but only to an extent. This is the way politics works.Besides, I never said the US was feeding off the global economy like a parasite. What I said is that it takes advantage of the monopoly situation where the US dollar is practically the only world currency. That’s another problem. I think this is bad both for the global economy and for the US itself, because it causes the country to let its guard down and not show enough financial discipline. But I don’t want this to sound like sweeping criticism, like I am trying to smear someone. I am not. Every country has its own problems. There is nothing to be happy about here. What we have to do is to stand together with our partners in Europe, with the US and with the BRICS countries, and think of a way out of this situation. The G-20 may be a good format for that. We need to look for collective, coordinated solutions.No one is interested in destabilizing the situation any further. In today’s global world, we are all pretty much in the same boat. Rocking that boat is a bad idea, because it might turn over.CCTV: Some commentators, mainly in the West, believe that the current economic situation will adversely affect Russia’s economic growth, saying that it will slow down next year. What do you think of such assessment? Russia is now actively pursuing a policy of modernization and innovation. What’s the ultimate objective of this policy?VP: We are keeping an eye on our domestic economy and the financial situation in the world. Our economy has been very vulnerable and dependent on world markets. The problem is that the bulk of the budget revenues come from exports, mainly exports of raw materials like oil, gas, chemicals and metals. And when a crisis breaks out in developed economies, which are the consumers of these resources, they cut down on consumption volumes, therefore decreasing our exports volumes. This is the pattern of dependence on raw materials. It’s one of the reasons why we have set as our priority goal the need to diversify our economy, to introduce more innovations, which would make it more effective long-term, to make sure it has the competitive edge and is immune to possible ups and downs of the world markets.It’s a long and slow road, slower than we want it to be, but we are moving ahead. There’s been some progress, for example, we have now been able to garner additional revenues to our national budget, and, mind you, more than two-thirds of these funds have come from the areas other than oil and gas, which means that we are witnessing a new trend emerging. As we move down this path, we will see an improvement of relations with China. Why? Because in absolute numbers, we will not cut down our production and sales of raw materials that China and our other partners so desperately need. Rather, we will change the structure of our industry and the structure of our budget revenues. Our long-term plans have mapped out the transformations along these lines till 2020. With the development of the high-tech industries, China will certainly be among our partners, and hopefully provide a good market to implement our achievements in the promising areas that I earlier mentioned, I mean nanotechnologies, biology, medicine, medical equipment, etc.Here’s another example. Russia remains the absolute world leader in the number of commercial rocket launches. As you understand, this is a perfect example of a high tech business. And if we manage to convert this experience into our joint space exploration projects, both Russia’s and China’s technological level will only increase. It’s not only about the production of rockets and commercial launches in the interests of third countries. It will spur the development of a whole chain of other businesses, like satellite scanning of the earth. The method has been employed by many companies for a variety of purposes, including the exploration of natural resources. Take space-based positioning systems. We’ve made significant progress in the development of the Glonass navigation system. At the moment, it is operated with the help of 26 satellites, providing almost global coverage. In this respect, we are slightly ahead of our European partners, although initially we launched our independent programs at the same time. Apart from the satellite fleet, we have to develop the ground infrastructure. It’s the area where we would greatly appreciate the help of our Chinese partners, with their technologies, advanced production facilities and qualified experts. It will boost the sales and beef up production, but also it will have an indirect positive impact on the economy in general – streamlining logistics for transportation by land, sea or air. There are multiple applications. I think our progress in this area will not do any harm, on the contrary, it will open up new horizons.CCTV: Russia has been trying to join the WTO for 17 years now. Do you hope to complete the process of accession by the end of the year?VP: It took China some 15 or 16 years of negotiations, too… CCTV: Yes, we have a similar situation.VP:Our aim is to join the World Trade Organization. This is a task we have set for ourselves. We believe the impact on the Russian economy will be mainly positive because it will increase the level of confidence in the economy and procedures existing within the economy, both administrative and legal. I would like to say that we have adjusted our national legislation to the WTO standards. Completely! We have settled the major issues with all of our major WTO partners. I think this matter is also quite politicized. If our partners in Europe and the US would like to see Russia joining the WTO and make the organization truly “universal,” as it claims to be… I don’t think we can say it was a universal structure without Russia in it: still, it has existed in that form for some time and will continue to exist without us. Nevertheless, Russia is the world’s top oil supplier and it would probably be better if Russia was in the WTO. A country that has potential in other areas of the economy to add to that (there are plenty of economic branches that influence global trade these days) should definitely be part of the WTO. Still, the decision is not ours alone to make, a lot of it depends on our partners.We have had quite a few debates on agricultural cooperation within the WTO: sanitary measures, quotas and so on. Then we had an equally long and tedious series of debates on regulations in the automotive industry. We have settled the majority of the problems. I am hoping we could finalize Russia’s accession this year. Russia, for its part, has done all it could to make that happen. Let me say again, however, that the issue is political and that the final decision is to be made by our main partners in the organization.We are very grateful to our friends in China for supporting Russia’s WTO application. Did you know, by the way, that not all of Russia’s economy branches are unanimously in favor of joining the WTO? Some think that Russian manufacturers are not yet able to compete with US, European and some Asian companies. These people are saying Russia would be better off outside of the WTO. Others encourage the government to push for accession as quickly as possible. I think that, overall, WTO accession would be a positive thing, but we have to become a member on standard conditions, with separate agreements in place that would help protect certain sectors of Russia’s economy until they are able to compete with foreign industries. Let me say again that we have already negotiated the main parameters of the accession agreement.CCTV: We wish Russia good luck.VP: Thank you.CCTV: I still have to personal questions for you. You are very well known in China as a multifaceted politician. You have a black belt in judo; you have flown a fighter jet and dived underwater… How do all these facets of your life come together and help you in your political career?VP: Frankly speaking, I do not think it is anything special. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people do judo and other martial arts, including those of Chinese origin. Actually, I think that all martial arts were influenced by China in one way or another. Everyone has heard of wu-shu. A great number of people fly planes and even more dive. I just like discovering new things.CCTV: But you do not often see one man do all these things.VP: You know, I think there are a lot of such people. They are not spoken of so much and never shown on television at all. In any case, I have many acquaintances of the kind. And, of course, I like to try new things, to master new skills. That’s true. It is the process itself that excites me most. At the time I am trying to learn ice-skating. I had never put on a pair of skates in my life before. I told Prime Minister Wen Jiabao about it earlier today, we actually talked on a wide range of topics. But what I am doing is partly driven by my desire to win the right to host big-scale sports events for Russia. I am doing this primarily in order to attract the public attention to the importance of leading a healthy way of life, in order to boost interest in sports, in physical culture, to get people to take care of their health. Besides, trainings help me in whatever activity I am involved in – in politics, in business, in industry. No matter what job a man may do, health is always a great asset. It always helps.I remember my visit to Shaolin and the breathtaking performance of the monks who practice martial arts. I envied them, because I can’t do things they were doing.CCTV: You are known for your never ceasing interest in new and unexplored spheres and disciplines. They say you are a man who is always ready to face a challenge. You know what really hard work means, you even gave a detailed description of your experience, saying you worked like a galley slave. Have you decided to take up this work once again? Could you please reveal your understanding of the prospects of Russia’s development to us? What made you take such a decision?VP: First of all, I think that the decision we took together with Russia’s incumbent president Dmitry Medvedev is absolutely correct. It does not impair the system of state management in Russia, on the contrary, it makes it stronger.Secondly, we expect to get the voters’ support in the firm belief that we have gone through a very difficult period in the life of our country and economy, keeping the related losses to a minimum. I am talking of the world financial crisis.We have showed commendable performance in the pre-crisis period. Under my presidency the number of people living below the poverty line was cut by a half (I deem this to be the most important achievement) and the economy nearly doubled. I repeat: we have survived the economic crisis that hit Russia’s economy rather perceptibly with minimal losses.We are aware of what we are to do to ensure our country’s best possible economic performance and the proper quality of life, and we know how this should be done. Therefore, I believe we can present our vision to the people and the citizens of Russia in the run-up to the coming parliamentary and presidential elections. I would like to reiterate: We have a clear understanding of what should be done and how we must do it. We are honest and outspoken with regard to the challenges we are facing. We are straightforward in presenting our strategies to the people and explaining what we plan to do. And that, to my mind, is the most important criteria. It sure is great when somebody involved in politics also does sports. But it is much more vital for a leader to be open-minded and honest to his fellow citizens, and be capable and straightforward in laying out his vision, addressing both the prospects and the challenges, and proposing the most balanced solutions for achieving the nation’s strategic development goals – and I do mean balanced. Both myself and President Medvedev have a vision, and we look forward to presenting that vision to the public in our country. CCTV: Well, good luck!VP: Thank you.