Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 28th, 2016 #61
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with Mayak radio station



March 18, 2000 - 00:01





Anchor:

Hello and welcome to Mayak radio station. Our guest today is the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and Acting President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

Welcome, Vladimir Vladimirovich.



Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon.



Anchor:

Let us start with the most critical questions, the questions that arise and that our listeners often ask. My first question is connected with Chechnya. On the one hand, we hear from the military that the campaign is about to be completed, that a turning point is about to occur, that the main military actions are drawing to a close. On the other hand, we witness the tragic death of OMON soldiers in an ambush and heavy losses among paratroopers from Moscow. All this has led to allegations that it has a lot to do with the desire to report a victory ahead of the elections on March 26. What is actually happening in Chechnya? What is your assessment?



Vladimir Putin:

As for the military and their declarations, one should treat them calmly. The military are engaged in a fight. And naturally, every victory they score (and we know they are scoring real victories) creates a surge of positive emotions. That is good. That is how it should be. At the same time, there are some things that do not fill us with positive emotions, I mean the tragic deaths of our servicemen. The questions “What to do? What is the current situation on the ground? And where to go further?” are of course relevant. I thought that many of us knew the answers, but if you think the issue should be clarified, let us discuss it once again.

We have just seen on our television screens (I think you have seen it, too), all of us have seen the beast that the FSB has brought to Moscow. I mean the beast named Salman Raduyev. There are still many such beasts at large. They can form themselves into packs and bite back and attack and cause us certain damage – that is true. But it is equally true that there will be no organized resistance there from now on.

What is to be done in the near term? Since certain changes have occurred and organized resistance has been crushed, we will withdraw superfluous armed forces. And we will recognize that large-scale military measures are coming to an end. The military have spoken about it, and that is true. I repeat, it is also true that militants can form themselves into groups and attack and commit terrorist acts and so on. That means we will leave behind as many troops as are necessary to control the situation. We will cut off from the rest of Chechnya the mountainous part where the militants still feel more or less “comfortable” (in quotation marks, of course, because they no longer feel comfortable anywhere). In the remaining part we will carry out social and political activities, take measures to restore the economy, bring social life back to normal, strengthen the law enforcement bodies and special services. In the mountainous part where the militants are still present we will carry out special operations with our troops, we will finish them off. What are the alternatives we face? Either to finish them off or to leave. Two lines or behaviour to choose from. A third is to enter into negotiations with the militants and bandits, but that in effect would be a prelude to the second scenario involving our withdrawal. We pulled out of Chechnya once before. I wouldn’t like to call it a crime or qualify it in any way, but it was a big mistake, a grave mistake. Perhaps the people who were advocating that decision at the time and were prodding the government to take such a step were not aware of the possible outcome.



Anchor:

This prompts me a question, Vladimir Vladimirovich. At present there is determination in society, people want to see order: in the whole of Russia, including Chechnya. But the mood within the political elite is not so unequivocal and monolithic, there are some differences. Do you feel that you are coming under any pressure in this connection?



Vladimir Putin:

Elites in society always try to exert influence and pressure. But I am convinced that in this case we should think not about elites, but about the interests of the people. And the fact is that if we leave again, as we did three and a half years ago, we will again allow them to build up their forces and we will again be fighting them. And we will be fighting them not on this territory, but in other parts of the Russian Federation. This is something we can no longer afford; Russia will not be a target of such experiments ever again. After the withdrawal from the Chechen Republic we made at least two major mistakes. First, we left the Chechen people at the mercy of these bandits, and the things that started happening there have nothing in common with the interests of the Chechen people. And we have made a major mistake in regard to the whole territory of Russia, the whole of the Russian state, because Chechnya came to be used as a bridgehead for achieving goals that have nothing in common with the interests of the Chechen people. Was it independence they were fighting for when they came to Dagestan? And that territory has become a bridgehead for constant attacks on Russia in order to humiliate it. I repeat, it won’t happen again, we have no right to allow such things to happen.

We face several major challenges: rebuilding and strengthening (not only in Chechnya but throughout the country) of the common constitutional space and preserving the territorial integrity of our state. These tasks will be solved, the necessary resources for it will be provided.



Anchor:

Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich. I have a slightly different question now. It is connected with elections, this is what the public is concerned about today. How many rounds will there be in the presidential election? As somebody actively involved in the process, what do you think about it?



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think I am all that actively involved in the process. Formerly I could never imagine taking part in any kind of elections. As for the first round or the second round, of course if you throw your hat into the ring, you always count on a positive result, otherwise there is no point in getting involved. To me it would be best if I could reach the result in the first round. Suffice it to say that elections cost a total of 2.4 billion rubles, of which the first round costs about 1.5 billion. And the second round, if it happens, will cost another billion. That’s almost as much as all the pensioners in the Moscow Region are paid.



Anchor:

So much?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, so much. And secondly, there are some politicians who are pushing society toward disrupting the elections.



Anchor:

You mean the campaign to urge people to vote “against all candidates”?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, of course. This is nothing but an attempt to thwart the elections or drag them into the second round, but they would prefer the elections not to take place at all. What is their plan? They count on the degradation, on the economic situation in the country to worsen. I think that is an immoral position. The life of ordinary people is hard as it is. And they want it to become even worse. I think this is a harmful and unpromising position. As regards the first round or the second round for me personally, I think it is the final result that matters.



Anchor:

But I would like to know your forecast.



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think it is such an important issue. I repeat, the main thing is the result.



Anchor:

There is another question connected with elections. In addition to elections of the President, attention is riveted to elections of the Governor of St. Petersburg. It is often claimed that Valentina Matviyenko is a Kremlin appointee. How would you comment on such statements and what is your overall view of the election situation in St. Petersburg?



Vladimir Putin:

That contention is not true. In general, people know that I come from St. Petersburg myself, so I know the people there well. And I assure you that no one, not even the Kremlin has any chance of imposing any candidate on Petersburg. That is one thing. Secondly, Valentina Matviyenko handed in her resignation some time ago (few people knew about it at the time) and she wanted to quit the Government. I asked her to stay. She stayed and her letter is still in my safe. That was several months ago. Now she has decided to stand in the St. Petersburg elections. I think she has the right to do so, to take part in the elections. If you ask me, she has been one of the best deputy prime ministers for social affairs in recent years. That is a fact. I repeat, the allegations that she is a Kremlin appointee are absolutely not true. Moreover, I am convinced that she should seek her support not in Moscow and at the Kremlin, but above all, among the people of St. Petersburg.



Anchor:

At present she has the support of many political organizations in St. Petersburg, so let us hope that…



Vladimir Putin:

I am not a member of any of these parties.



Anchor:

Speaking about parties. One problem partly connected with the elections and partly with the country’s life in general, are the relations between the Government and business. Some time ago you said you took a negative view of the “oligarchs” or rather what may be described as merger of the government and private business (government administration and private economy). If this is so, what are you going to do about it? And what will become of the so-called Russian “oligarchs”?



Vladimir Putin:

It depends on what you mean by “oligarch”. If we mean a representative of big business, that is one thing. We will cooperate with them in the same way as we do with the owners of small and medium-size enterprises and with the trade unions. We will cooperate with all the social strata. If by “oligarchs” we mean representatives of the groups which are merging or contributing to the merger of Government and capital, we won’t have such oligarchs. If we do not create an equal playing field for everyone we won’t be able to extricate our country from its current situation. We face several major challenges: the fight against poverty and crime. These are the two main challenges. The fight against crime has several aspects to it, and one of them is the fight against corruption. In that sense there will be no “oligarchs”.



Anchor:

Do you have any practical plans for restructuring state administration?



Vladimir Putin:

As regards the improvement of the government structure, many ideas have been proposed and governors have been coming up with various ideas. Today we had discussions about it with Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov and Governor of the Moscow Region, Boris Gromov. Other governors too have come up with their proposals. All this will be discussed and then we will come to making common decisions.



Anchor:

Thank you. And in conclusion I would like to ask you a question connected partly with the elections and partly with the Chechen problem. It is a question about your recent meeting with the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. As far as I understand, it was your first meeting with a representative of a major western power as Acting President. What are your impressions of the meeting?



Vladimir Putin:

I have ample experience of communicating with the top leaders of foreign states, Russia’s partners, but it is true that it was my first meeting with the leader of another European power in my capacity as Acting President. Tony Blair is not an ordinary man. He comes from an interesting background (his father is a Conservative and he himself is Labour). He has done much to change his party’s political line. As far as I know, he takes the credit for amendments to some programmatic Labour principles. They have shifted a bit towards the center. All this makes him a very interesting interlocutor. We are of the same age. It was useful for me to hear his opinions about various problems, including the North Caucasus. I think we should really listen to the opinions of our partners (especially people like Tony Blair who, I think, was very candid in presenting his point of view on a whole range of bilateral issues and on European affairs). We discussed election campaigns and campaign technologies. He told me in passing on how it is in his country and he spoke about his relations with the Parliament. Naturally, I told him what is happening in our relations with the State Duma and how our election campaigns are run.



Anchor:

Sorry for interrupting you, but I would like to ask you about electoral promises. During the course of the presidential campaign I heard the promises that pensions and wages will be doubled. And what about your promises?



Vladimir Putin:

I said at the start of our talk that I could not imagine myself campaigning. Mainly because, you know, all these modern election technologies are a pretty dishonest thing. They always involve looking into the eyes of millions of people and giving promises you know are impossible to fulfill. I cannot bring myself to do that. And I am very glad that so far I have not had to. So that was one of the reasons I decided to dispense with advertising spots, debates and other such things.

Regarding promises. Of course, you can give any number of promises. I believe that as the head of Government and as Acting President I should fulfill the promises enshrined in the law (in the event, the law on budget). If there is a chance to do even more than we promised, it should be done, the way we did it with pensions. We promised to raise pensions by 12%, but as things shaped up, we could not just meet that promise, but do more and raise pensions by 20%. That is the way to proceed.

Furthermore, we should keep in mind that raising wages or pensions does not count for much in itself. It sounds grand, but it does not make much difference. You can promise to raise pensions and wages not by 1000, but by 3000 or by 5000 roubles. But nobody mentions that it may result in all the shops being denuded of goods. The thousands a person would get in the shape of notes in his wallet may become worthless tomorrow. So, in addition to raising wages we should simultaneously pledge that the main budget parameters will be kept. One such parameter is the rate of inflation for which we set the target in our budget. When we come to discuss all this, we realize that though the level of incomes is very important for the people and for economic development, it is still only one element of economic development. Another major component is investments. If we look at all these things together we are sure to come to the conclusion (and I think you would agree with me) that what matters is not the formal increase in pensions and wages, the main thing, the goal we should strive for, is to improve the quality of life of our people. I repeat, there are many components in tackling this task. Raising wages and pensions is just one of these components.



Anchor:

It is a consequence of the overall economic policy and national development as a whole. But we are running out of time. We on Mayak radio station have a tradition of allowing our guest to say what we forgot to ask, or what was omitted during the conversation, or whatever parting remarks our guest wants to make. Perhaps you would like to add something to what has been said?



Vladimir Putin:

I think you have asked me really important questions today and if you think I have made my position clear enough, I can feel happy.



Anchor:

Everything is quite clear. I hope that our listeners feel the same way. I think you have given exhaustive answers. Let us hope that this is not your last appearance on Mayak and that in the future we will hear you and apparently see you.



Vladimir Putin:

Thank you.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24186
 
Old September 28th, 2016 #62
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Speech at a State Duma Meeting to Consider the Ratification of the Treaty Between Russia and the United States on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2) and Documents Relating to the May 26, 1972 Treaty Between the USSR and the US on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles



April 14, 2000 - 01:00 - The State Duma, Moscow





Vladimir Putin:

I would now like to deal very briefly with remarks which I think cannot be left unanswered. First of all, I support Yevgeny Primakov on what he said about Cabinet members, including the foreign minister. If the foreign minister is seen making contacts with representatives of foreign states outside his official duties, he, like any other members of the Cabinet, State Duma deputies, or faction leaders will be subjected to certain procedures in line with the law. And I must say that recent investigations by the Federal Security Service tell us that the issue is an important one. That is point one.

Point two. Concerning the detention of “one legless person and one eyeless person.” All of us together – I mean all State Duma deputies and the Cabinet – are doing some tremendous work, and not only as part of the so-called counter-terrorist operation. In effect, we are regaining lost territory. We are rebuilding Russia. We are going through pain, blood, suffering and deaths. The fatality toll already numbers more than two thousand people. And I think it would be wrong to throw stones at the Armed Forces, which are doing their duty in a way we have not seen for a long time: admirably.


<…>


True, people are different, and approaches to the current events are different, too. But servicemen are eager to get back to their units from hospitals. This has never been seen before. And I think we must not forget about this. Such things must be dealt with seriously.

The same applies to the remark that our people are willing to invite any invaders. This has never been the case in Russia, nor will it ever be. I am absolutely certain of that.

Now let me comment on the basic points raised today. I would also like to dwell briefly on remarks concerning extending the service life [of missiles] and deadlines for their withdrawal from operational status, and so on. Before coming here, I summoned the top men of the General Staff to show me their schedule. I studied it personally. All the heavy missiles – the ones the Americans call the Satan, R-36s and their derivatives – are set to be withdrawn from duty in 2007, after their service life has been extended many times. The General Staff leadership has told me just now in all earnestness that there would be no further extensions. It is inadvisable and dangerous, they said.

Of course, we could listen to experts from various research institutions and production associations speak their minds. It would be interesting. But I assure you everything would have boiled down to lobbying for the interests of production groups.

I do not think that these institutions, no matter how deeply we respect them, should define the concept of national security and the concept for the development of the Armed Forces. This must be done by the government, the president and the Federal Assembly. And proceeding from these concepts, specialists at the Defence Ministry and the General Staff should decide what to order, when to order it, and so on and so forth. That is of fundamental importance.

Now to the gist of the matter.

For seven years, since the START II Treaty was signed in 1993, we have been discussing and debating its ratification. Much of what I am going to say has already been said here. But I think I must reiterate it despite it being already said. Over this period, we have seen different political factions and deputy groups of several State Dumas formulating, rephrasing and sometimes rejecting their points of view. To say that we have done it offhand or in haste would be politically incorrect, to say the least.

We have witnessed this document being used as a means of political infighting, as a tool to tie START II with all treaties in that sphere, and with the full range of Russian-American relations.

The president of the Russian Federation has submitted the START II Treaty to the State Duma for ratification three times – in 1995, 1998 and 1999. And each time the ratification was postponed for various natural and human reasons: in 1995–1997 it was events in Chechnya; in 1998, sharp debates about a Cabinet head; and finally in 1998–1999, Yugoslavia, bombings of Iraq and so on. To be frank, it may be just as well that the issue has been contemplated so extensively. At any rate, both ordinary people and those concerned with the problem – political scientists and specialists in every field – were able to look deep into these things. But to postpone the solution of this major problem, which will determine the future of our strategic nuclear forces – a credible guarantor of Russia’s national security – is no longer possible. We consider this to be dangerous.

Today, we have two fundamentally different points of view. The first totally rejects the need to ratify the START II Treaty on the grounds that it is not in Russia’s national interests. The second suggests ratifying it on certain conditions. I think both of these views can be justified.

Actually, these conditions, which I have mentioned and which were supposed to be operative upon ratification, have already been fulfilled. There is a federal law on financing a programme for the development of strategic nuclear forces until 2010, a declaration of Russia’s right to withdraw from START II if the US violates the 1972 ABM Treaty, and so on.

Ratification opponents have put forward the following basic argument: it is highly important for Russia to retain its traditional structure of strategic nuclear forces, with its emphasis on intercontinental ballistic missiles. As we have heard many times, and as I have said, these are R-36 missiles. Let me dwell briefly on this and other arguments against ratification.

A few words about the claim that it would be to Russia’s advantage to preserve its strategic nuclear forces at the level stipulated by START I and to resume the production of heavy missiles.

The problem has some serious political implications that can bring down the entire structure of treaty relations and initiate an unacceptable and, I want to stress, an absolutely unnecessary arms race for Russia … Something that has already once been imposed on Russia. If we allow ourselves to be drawn into one for a second time, the consequences will be worse than the first time. Such a choice involves heavy spending of cash and resources. I want to stress again: absolutely irrational, sometimes even absurd, expenses are inevitable here.

I agree with some speakers that things are difficult with conventional armaments.

Let me say it bluntly: our Air Force pilots have logged an average of four flight hours each in the past three months. To give you a better grasp of the situation, I can also mention ships that have sunk and so on. The facts cited were correct, but we must draw a different conclusion from them. Last year, American pilots each logged something like 200 flight hours each on average. You may ask: and how many hours did our men fly? Mr Kornukov over there can tell you. I can’t, because I am ashamed of the figures.

Some mention has been made of former co-production. As you know, the previous production setup has been lost, its essential and most important component has stayed in Ukraine and has completely deteriorated. To develop and organise the production of new intercontinental heavy missiles will require a series of full-scale research and development programmes lasting at least 7 to 10 years and costing (including production) no less than 62.3 billion roubles ($2.38 billion).

To keep the grouping of strategic nuclear forces at its present strength, full development and maintenance costs between now and 2010 will be: under START I, 950 billion roubles ($36.33 billion), under START II (3,000 to 3,500 warheads), 750 billion roubles ($28.68 billion), and under START III (2,000 to 2,500 warheads), 400 billion roubles ($15.3 billion).

As regards the existing intercontinental ballistic missiles, their scrapping is not stipulated by the START II. I want to stress once more: it is not the treaty that dictates it, but the fact that multiple extensions of their service life have reached the end of their tether. Our main objective is to make the United States cut its real nuclear potential down to 3,500 warheads, as stipulated by START II, and proceed further to START III, as agreed in Helsinki in 1997. We have a vested interest in this. I, for one, do not know how interested the United States is in view of the changes that are taking place and that have already taken place in politics and military confrontations, including in the distribution of strategic weapons.

And last but not least – what is not covered by the Treaty, but raises certain concerns, which, generally, is only right and proper. I am referring to the so-called non-strategic nuclear arms, or long-range sea-based cruise missiles. The advantages reportedly enjoyed by the United States in this field are far from apparent. Now that you have decided to alter the tone of our debate and make it open to the public, I will not go into details, but I will say that they are not apparent. Speaking of sea-based nuclear cruise missiles, our deployment possibilities and those of the United States are about the same.

What will Russia gain from ratifying and implementing the START II Treaty?

First: the balance of forces will be maintained. Under START II, the number of warheads in Russia’s strategic nuclear forces will be reduced by approximately 47%, and those of the US forces, by roughly 66%. And this even though the Treaty leaves out Russia’s naval and air nuclear forces, does not stipulate the scrapping of a single submarine, a single heavy bomber, or a single warhead in the Navy and the Air Force. Our grouping is to cut back ground-based ballistic missiles, which, owing to physical obsolescence and for safety purposes, and whether or not the Treaty is ratified, are set to be phased out by 2007 anyway. Meanwhile, under the Treaty, the United States will have to scrap its most modern MX missile and almost halve its sea-launched strategic armaments.

Second: the potential for deterrence will be preserved. Ratification of START II will enable Russia to maintain its deterrence potential. In this respect, or regarding the number of warheads that could be delivered in retaliation to an enemy’s sensitive spots, Russia, should it fail to ratify START II, would be 1/15th as strong as the United States by 2010. I would like to emphasise this: if we fail to ratify the treaty, Russia will have 1/15th the potency of the US. The implementation of START II will make the overall ratio of the US and Russian deterrence potentials three-to-one. Should a START III treaty be concluded and implemented, the ratio of the potentials would be 1 to 1.1, as the defence minister said earlier.

It is of fundamental importance that as Russia’s forces of nuclear deterrence are reduced numerically, their survivability and response effectiveness will grow, improving the quality of Russia’s retaliation potential.

Third: the START II Treaty will be linked firmly and indissolubly with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ratification of START II, with the proviso that it can take effect only if the ABM Treaty is fully preserved and unfailingly observed, will give the US a choice: either be a globally condemned wrecker of the underpinnings of strategic stability embodied in the treaty-based system for the limitation and control of strategic arms, or refrain from deploying a national missile defence system.

Fourth: a physical count of nuclear munitions is introduced for every heavy bomber. The START II Treaty credits every heavy bomber with the number of warheads it actually carries. In that way the ratification and realisation of the treaty removes any imbalance not only between US and Russian strategic aviation armament inventories but also between the sides’ strategic offensive arms groupings. I would like to stress that there has been no ceiling up to now. START II introduces them.

Fifth: Russia’s nuclear deterrence matches its economic potentialities. I am not going to give a more detailed description, I did so at the beginning.

Sixth: possibilities for converting nuclear deterrence forces to a more rational financial and economic modality are created. This is to say that if we refer to heavy missiles, we cannot depend on their manufacture in another country, even one as friendly as Ukraine. We cannot allow this even with separate small components. We must produce everything on our territory and count only on our own production facilities geared to a planned conversion of our nuclear deterrence forces to new weapons systems.

There are also political advantages. One is precluding the possibility of accusing Russia of slowing down the disarmament process and inciting the spread of and a race in nuclear weapons. Another is forestalling a situation in which the United States can cite Russia’s non-ratification of START II as an excuse to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty. A third is prerequisites for further and deeper cuts in nuclear weapons, a subject already dealt with.

I wish particularly to stress that the ratification of the START II Treaty is closely tied to the ratification of agreements on the demarcation of strategic and non-strategic anti-ballistic missiles signed in 1997. These agreements provide for a mechanism to prevent the bypassing of the ABM Treaty by building up a non-strategic ABM system and preventing the establishment of a strategic ABM system and banned basing modes disguised as non-strategic ones. The totality of bans and ceilings on the parameters of non-strategic ABM systems and on conditions for testing and deploying them, combined with a package of confidence-building measures, creates a serious legal and technological – I want to stress the word ‘technological’ – basis for confidently addressing the ABM Treaty, not steering clear of it. At the same time, these agreements allow us to build effective systems of non-strategic anti-missile defences, which by virtue of Russia’s geo-strategic position will add a major component to its deterrence potential.

If, following our ratification of the START II Treaty in tandem with these agreements, the United States sets out to destroy the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we met with faction leaders in the Kremlin quite recently, who, as you know, voiced some fairly good and not just fairly good, but quite specific proposals and remarks on the problem we are discussing today), then I wish to stress that in this case we are in a position to pull out and will pull out not only from START II but also from the entire system of treaty-based relations on the limitation and control of strategic and conventional armaments. We can also raise the issue of reviewing our decisions on tactical weapons. And in these conditions we will opt for Russia’s pursuing an independent policy on nuclear deterrence. The point I want to make is this: the ratification decision does not mean one-way disarmament.

There are two questions we must answer: will this step preserve the nuclear shield or will it not? Will this step foster the development of our Armed Forces, will it make them more effective or not? Our answer to both questions is yes. Our nuclear forces, those of nuclear deterrence, even with a decision adopted on the START II Treaty, will be able to destroy any enemy many times over and with full guarantee at any moment and in any corner of the globe. It sounds like something out of a nightmare, but it is true even if we presume that we will have to engage several nuclear powers at the same time.

This will allow us to cut extra spending and divert funds to the development of new weapons, to making our Armed Forces more effective and more combat-ready, considering (this was also mentioned here today) that Russia will face its main threats, in view of the world’s situation, from local conflicts. Attempts to undo Russia’s status as a world power will not be made through the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. We can see such attempts already today. The basic threats stem from local conflicts.

If one asks whether or not the START II Treaty and agreements on the limitation of strategic and non-strategic anti-ballistic missile systems meet Russia’s national interests, the answer can also be only affirmative: yes, they do.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21357






Statement on the Ratification of the START II Treaty and Documents Relating to the May 26, 1972 Treaty Between the USSR and the US on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems



April 14, 2000 - 02:00 - Published in Russian media





The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia just now approved a decision to ratify the Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, better known as the START II Treaty, and a 1997 package of agreements on anti-missile defences. It was a wise and important decision; important both for the national interests of our country and those of international peace and security as a whole.

For Russia, the conclusion of the START II Treaty opens up avenues for safeguarding its security to the same extent as the US and with a lower level of strategic offensive arms than before. At a level half as high as that of the existing START I Treaty and, understandably, at a lower cost.

The ratification of the START II Treaty opens up the way to official negotiations on further cuts in the strategic arsenals of Russia and the US within the framework of a START III Treaty. We are also prepared to reduce our strategic offensive arms, naturally on a reciprocal basis with the US, to a lower level than was envisaged by the Russian-American agreement of 1997 in Helsinki, or down to 1,500 warheads instead of 2,000–2,500.

The State Duma’s decision is a good and positive signal to the world community. As a great nuclear power, Russia demonstrates its responsible attitude by advancing consistently along the road of armaments reduction and disarmament. We have served as an example of the practical fulfilment of the obligations assumed in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus strengthening the regime created by this Treaty.

There is yet another fundamental aspect of the State Duma’s decision.

Of late the world has been paying increasing attention to the problem of missile and missile-technology proliferation, and has been talking of the so-called growing missile threat and the need to take prompt measures to defend against it. For this reason, the United States has put forward the idea of building a national anti-missile defence system, which would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

We advocate joint measures with other states to counter the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. But this should be done, in our view, not by scrapping existing disarmament agreements and the ABM Treaty in the first place. We stand for a different course – that of strengthening the existing non-proliferation modalities and of working out new treaties to reduce arms. Russia’s ratification of the START II Treaty is its concrete contribution to these efforts.

We also look to the United States to make the same constructive choice: it still needs to complete the ratification procedures for the START II Treaty to become effective and to approve the package of anti-missile agreements reinforcing the 1972 Treaty. The success of the cause of disarmament and the political climate in the world depend above all on the actions of our two countries.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24067
 
Old September 28th, 2016 #63
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

News Conference Following Security Council Session



April 21, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow





Question:

Could you tell us about the Security Council’s decisions on the first issue, the Caspian region.



Vladimir Putin:

I believe that it is crucial to establish a coordination team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The team will include spokesmen not only from different ministries and departments but also from Russia’s largest energy and transportation companies. The issues we discussed during the meeting today concern security and our military presence. They have to do with promoting oil and gas projects Russia is interested in, and certain transportation projects.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been instructed to be more active in its consultations with our partners in Caspian countries. A decision has been made to establish the office of a presidential envoy, who will deal with the Caspian related problems we discussed at the Security Council session today. The rank of that official will be determined when we have a new Cabinet.



Question:

Has a nomination been made?



Vladimir Putin:

Not yet.



Question:

There is a wide range of problems concerning the Caspian region, including oil production and transportation. Will the presidential envoy deal with all issues?



Vladimir Putin:

He will supervise everything but, I repeat, the coordination council, which will include Russia’s leading companies, will be a consultative body at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.



Question:

Are we going to drive out the Americans, too?



Vladimir Putin:

We are not going to drive anyone out. We are going to cooperate with everyone. We will respect the legitimate interests of all those involved in the process, but we will not overlook our own interests.



QUESTION [about the situation in the Chechen Republic]…



Vladimir Putin:

We have never refused to engage in political processes and political negotiations. I have said so on a number of occasions. Moreover, we are in contact with Maskhadov’s spokesmen, and have been in contact with them for a long time. I have said so repeatedly, and I can say it again.


<…>


What’s important for us here is not the negotiation process in itself but Russian security guarantees. What matters to us is to make sure no that one will ever be able to use Chechnya as a bridgehead to attack Russia, or to take advantage of the situation there, as was the case last summer.

Now, who can give us such guarantees? No one but ourselves. That is why our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies will stay in Chechnya, while we continue to cooperate with everyone who is prepared to contribute to solving the problem. In that, we will rely primarily on the Chechen people, who are sick and tired of the militants and realise that they have been framed and are being used to achieve certain ends that have nothing to do with their interests.

Russia has openly stated its conditions to beginning political negotiations: immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held to this day in some mountain areas in Chechnya. There are more than two hundred hostages, according to our calculations and the estimates of our law enforcement agencies and special services.

[Another condition is that militants are handed over to us.] The names of those militants and terrorists are well known to us. Now, if Mr Maskhadov is willing to do all that but cannot, if he has developed a disease called political impotence, we are ready to help him. Let him come to the negotiating table and meet the conditions I have mentioned. If, however, he cannot hand over the militants and terrorists, let him join us as we track them down and catch them. Let him make the men who are victimising his people flee Chechnya or go behind bars.

About a month ago, one of the go-betweens – a man I generally respect – passed another proposal for our talks. We made our conditions very clear to him. We were told Maskhadov was willing to concede, to accept our conditions and come to the negotiating table. We said no – not before he put it down on paper – because we know what can happen only too well. We have seen a lot of meaningless talk, and it’s going on to this day. All those words have only one aim: to engage us in pointless negotiations and take advantage of the lull. By the way, there is going to be no lull at all. Our 42nd division is already settling down for permanent stationing there. It will stay there.

He put down his commitments on paper, the Security Council made its corrections, and passed it back to Maskhadov in writing. On the whole, the document listed, I repeat, what I have just described, our conditions for starting negotiations. And that was it – the negotiators vanished after that. We have not seen them or heard anything from them for a month now. It all stopped at that.

Everyone vanishes as soon as we come to practical steps. That’s how it is. No one will ever again engage in empty talk with them. That is something everyone must understand, and we must put an end to wishful thinking.


<…>


As things stand, some people are just using him [Aslan Maskhadov] to settle certain tactical problems, but when the people who control him realise that he cannot manage even that, they will change their attitude to him, I’m afraid. As for our response to his hypothetical answer to our proposals – in writing, I stress – we will be ready in a month if he replies in a month, and we will be ready tomorrow if he replies tomorrow. I want to stress the main point now. We will not have anyone lead us by the nose and will not believe anyone if we see that we are dealing with empty talk.

There can be only one kind of guarantees – our armed forces will stay there forever. We will take political measures together with the Chechen people to bring the social and political situation back to normal. We will do it together, and we have every reason to expect that there are people we can join efforts with – apart from Maskhadov and the militants who support him.



Question:

There is a certain contradiction in what you’ve said. On the one hand, you say Maskhadov is not a man who can make any decisions, and he is just being used. On the other hand, you say you are ready to begin negotiations with him. Some regional governors, like Mintimer Shaimiyev or Aman Tuleyev, would never take steps like that on their own unless they coordinate their position with the federal centre…



Vladimir Putin:

Shaimiev and Tuleyev are in no way involved in this.



Question:

But they have been advocating the start of peace negotiations with Maskhadov.



Vladimir Putin:

First, I am afraid you haven’t been listening to what I’ve been saying. If you had, you would not have seen any contradiction at all. What I said is that if he really wants to hand over the bandits to us but cannot do so, we can offer him a way out. He can join us in fighting the militants for his own people’s sake. So there is no contradiction here whatsoever.

To be honest, we are assuming he cannot do anything. We have told him: if you cannot act, join us and fight the militants and terrorists together with us. Then, if he cannot do even that, and is not ready to do anything else, and empty talk is the only thing he is capable of, that is not the kind of negotiator we need. We’ll manage without him.



Question:

Could you clarify one point, please. What is Maskhadov’s status as far as Russia is concerned? Do you regard him as a lawfully elected head of a constituent entity or a wanted criminal, with police on his track? What is he?



Vladimir Putin:

To us he is a criminal. The amnesty applies to him, and if he wants to take advantage of it, let him, while the going is good. His election did not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but he was elected, nevertheless. That is what we proceed from. If he wants to use the chance offered him by the State Duma of the Russian Federation with the amnesty law, he can do so.



Question:

Mr Putin, you have recently visited three countries – Ukraine, the UK and Belarus. What were the most important issues discussed during each of the visits?



Vladimir Putin:

Each had a dominant idea. For Belarus, it was progress towards a Union State, certain military technological partnership issues, and coordination of economic policies; in Britain, it was European security and bilateral economic partnership; and in Ukraine, it was similar economic issues, energy, military technological partnership, and the Black Sea Fleet.

Progress has been made on some of those matters, at least at the level of agreement and the formulation of our objectives. That is very important, as I see it.



Question:

Let us get back to Belarus. In an interview a few days ago, President Lukashenko referred to the stationing of a 300,000-strong military force. You have already clarified this to a certain extent. But still, what exactly is that force? What does “stationing” imply? Are the troops on the move?



Vladimir Putin:

Certainly not. As a matter of fact, what is happening is the implementation of a treaty signed in 1997, if I am not mistaken. That was when the State Duma ratified the interstate agreement. What is the issue here? The Belarusian Armed Forces and a part of the Armed Forces deployed in western part of the Russian Federation will undertake coordinated action in particular situations. The Belarusian Armed Forces will be subordinate only to their defence minister, and the Russian to their own leadership.

If, for some reason, the Belarusian Armed Forces need support from the Russian military, they will have such support. The matter concerns coordinated action by the two countries’ armed forces in circumstances that we expect never to arise.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24070
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #64
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Speech at the Inauguration Ceremony



May 7, 2000 - 00:02 - The Great Kremlin Palace, Moscow





President Vladimir PUTIN:

Esteemed citizens of Russia, dear friends!

I am addressing you today, you specifically, because you have entrusted me with the highest government post in the country. I understand that I have taken on a great responsibility, and I know that in Russia the head of state has always been and will always be the person who is responsible for everything in the country. The first President of Russia, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, recalled this today, as he leaves the Kremlin, with words that many will remember. He repeated today in this hall: Take care of Russia. This is precisely what I see as the primary responsibility of the President. I will require that my comrades in arms and my colleagues fulfill this duty. I also expect to get help in this patriotic effort from the citizens of Russia and from all those who hold dear the future of our Motherland.

Today I would also like to thank my supporters, everybody who voted for me in this election. You have supported the initial steps that have already been made. You believed that together we can change our life for the better. I am deeply grateful to you for this. But I understand that your support is only an advance [of trust] to the authorities in general and, obviously, to me, the one being inaugurated today.

I am also addressing the people who voted for other candidates. I am confident that you cast your votes for our common future, our common aims, for a better life, for a prosperous and strong Russia. Each of us has his own experience, his own views, but we must be together, we have a great deal to do in concert.

Today truly is a historic day; I want to draw attention to this once more. Really, for the first time in Russia’s history, power is being transferred in the most democratic and simplest way, by the will of the people, legally and peacefully. The transfer of power is always a test of constitutional order, a test of its durability. This is not the first test and, obviously, it will not be the last, but this challenge we have met, this boundary in our lives we have crossed. We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state. The peaceful succession of power is a critical element of the political stability of which we dreamed, to which we aspired, which we strived to achieve.

The road to a free society has been neither smooth nor simple. We have both tragic and great chapters in our history. The construction of a democratic state is far from complete, but many things have been achieved. We must guard what we have gained, we must protect and promote democracy, we must make sure that the authorities elected by the people serve the people’s interests, protect Russian citizens everywhere – both inside and outside the country – and serve the public. This is a principled, staunch position that I have defended and will continue to defend.

For today’s grand occasion we have gathered here in the Kremlin, a place that is sacred to our people. The Kremlin is a focal point of our national heritage. Here, within the walls of the Kremlin, the history of our nation has been made for centuries, and we have no right to be ‘Ivans who don’t remember their predecessors.’ We must not forget anything, we must know our history, know it the way it was and learn its lessons; we must always remember the people who created the Russian state, defended its honor and made it a great, powerful and mighty state. We will cherish this memory, and we will maintain this link between eras, and we will pass on the best of our history to our descendants.

Esteemed citizens of Russia!

We have faith in our potential, we have faith in our ability to truly reform and transform the country. We have common aims, we want our Russia to be a free, prosperous, strong and civilized country, a country that its citizens are proud of and that is respected internationally. In recent months, both in Moscow and during meetings in Russia’s regions, I have felt your understanding and your support. And very often I have heard from people — from ordinary people, on the squares and streets of our cities — very simple words that are nonetheless very important to me. People have said to me: ‘We believe you, we’re counting on you; just watch you don’t trick us. ’

I can assure you that my work will be guided solely by the interests of the state. Perhaps it will not be possible to avoid mistakes, but what I can promise and what I do promise is that I will work openly and honestly.

I consider it to be my sacred duty to unify the people of Russia, to rally citizens around clear aims and tasks, and to remember every day and every minute that we have one Motherland, one people and one future.

Thank you!





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21399






Speech at a Reception after the Inauguration Ceremony



May 7, 2000 - 00:03 - State Kremlin Palace, Moscow





President Vladimir Putin:

Dear colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen!

Today's ceremony contained many festive moments. Being sworn in as President is, of course, a formal ritual. But my words were not simply a tribute to ritual. The words of the presidential oath represent the very essence of work as President. Indeed, in its proper meaning, the oath addresses the people. Today I think it is important to emphasise that a country’s history and destiny do not begin with the election of a new head of state, nor do they end with his retirement. We will continue the work of those who did everything for the first time and attempted to simultaneously resolve a number of complex tasks. There were no blueprints for the work they did and there were no guarantees that it would be successful. And as I emphasise this I would also like to welcome the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin, who is here today.

I would like to thank everyone that I have worked with during all these months. People did not believe in me alone; they saw a harmonious team, felt our unity and our desire to work conscientiously to make a real difference. It is very important that the circle of people who share our opinions are not limited to the Kremlin and the White House. We have support in the Federal Assembly and in the Russian regions. Our proposals are popular among Russian citizens. It was among the public itself that these approaches and these ideas were born and came to flourish. And it was because they were needed. And our ideas and plans will remain as open as they were before. We must be honest with our citizens. It is only then that we can preserve their trust and rely on their support.

Dear friends! We have left the extreme qualities of our political beginnings and our democratic youth behind us. Many mistakes were inevitable. But since that time both the authorities and society have grown quickly, and their confidence and maturity has certainly grown as well. We cannot promise miracles but we are ready to act professionally and expeditiously. Today the government cabinet, the deputies of the Federal Assembly and, most importantly, our voters are in the mood to work. And this implies that the harmony we dreamed about and have aspired to for so long now exists. Of course, one would be right to bet that we will still disagree on details, but I am convinced of the main thing: we share one goal, namely to preserve the dignity of our country and the prosperity of our citizens. The authorities are obliged to strive for this laudable goal.

As we come to the end of this difficult day I would like to once again thank everyone for their engagement. I would also like to express my hope that amount of energy our union benefited from today will continue to help us better understand one another and to simply help one another. And that, eventually, it will allow all of us to work for Russia in a dignified manner.

And the last thing. The length of the presidency is, of course, determined by the Constitution. But if we serve our country then we will serve her all our lives, regardless of our office or decorations. This is a moral obligation for all those who believe in Russia. And today the President of the Soviet Union and the first President of the Russian Federation act as the best examples of this.

I would like to propose a toast to the well-being and prosperity of our country! To peace and harmony on Russian land! Long live the people of the Russian Federation! Long live Great Russia!





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24104
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #65
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Televised Address to the People of Russia



May 17, 2000 - 00:02 - Moscow





Vladimir Putin:

People of Russia,

This is the first time since my inauguration as president that I am submitting a package of bills to the State Duma. On the one hand, this is the usual practice of a head of state, but on the other it concerns laws meant to strengthen and cement the Russian state. I consider them vital for the future of our country. I promised that the government would follow transparent policies and explain their aims and practical steps to its citizens.

The bills being submitted to the Duma continue the project launched by the May 13 decree introducing federal districts. It is a project aimed at strengthening state unity, and it has the support of governors, deputies, and all the people of Russia. One might say this is the first time there are no divisions in the country on such a fundamental issue. The common aim of all these acts is to make both the executive and legislative branches of government work more effectively, and to ensure the application of the constitutional principles of delimitation of powers and the integrity of the executive vertical structure.

What are these bills about? They boil down to three basic points. First, they propose changing the way the Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, is formed. The Russian Constitution stipulates that the State Duma shall be elected and the Federation Council formed from representatives of the executive and legislative branches. But it does not specify that these must be chosen from regional leaderships – governors, presidents of republics, or speakers of regional legislatures. But today’s practice is precisely that. I think regional leaders should focus on practical problems facing their regions; after all, this is what they are elected for, and their representatives should make the laws, but regularly and professionally, not once a month as now.

The Russian president will have his work cut out for him dealing with a professional parliament, but this is in the best interests of the goal we are trying to achieve. That the quality of laws will improve is beyond any shadow of a doubt. We will also do away with a glaring discrepancy in the way the government operates in Russia. Today, governors and heads of republics are both executives and also, because they sit on the Federation Council, members of parliament, i.e. co-authors of the laws they are supposed to enforce. As we say, it is a mixed bag, apples and oranges, a clear violation of the principle of delimitation of powers.

The second major goal of these bills is to introduce the procedure for dismissing regional leaders and dissolving regional legislative assemblies that pass legislation that violates federal laws. It may be recalled that even the president of the country may today be stripped of his powers for violating the constitution. The same procedure must apply to heads of regions and local government bodies.

The third and last point logically proceeds, in my view, from the second. If the head of a region may be removed from his post under certain circumstances by the president of the country, then this regional leader himself must have a similar right with respect to lower authorities. Today such a power structure is not only correct, but simply necessary in order to rebuild a functioning chain of command in the country. Lacking such tools, neither the federal parliament, nor the government, nor even the president has for a long time been able to do simple but absolutely necessary things, and, above all, to ensure that civil rights are strictly observed and Russian legislation uniformly understood and enforced both in Moscow and in the remote Russian hinterland. This is a dictatorship of the law. And it will mean that we live in a strong country, an integral state, Russia.

I wish here to emphasise that all the bills I have submitted fit within the framework of the current Russian Constitution. Now I would like to address State Duma deputies and Federation Council members. Today we have debated these issues for a long time with a large number of Federation Council members in the Kremlin. The bills might get a mixed reception and may give rise to additional debate. We are ready for that. I am sure that together we will translate these far-from-simple decisions into life. The time has come to separate party, local and personal ambitions from the urgent need to strengthen the state and enhance authority. The people of Russia have long been waiting for this. We must live up to their expectations.

I am deeply convinced that we should have effectively functioning authorities, with every one pulling their weight. Lawmakers in the upper and lower houses should pass laws, and governors, who bear enormous responsibility for the social well-being of the people and for the success of their regional economies, should do their jobs. No one can replace them in this role.

Today, they are as concerned with strengthening authority as the federal centre. Some have proposed even more radical measures than those in the bills, up to and including the direct appointment of governors by the Russian president. But I believed and still believe that heads of regions should be elected by the people. This procedure is already established and became part of our democratic system.

I also consider it important to say that the bills are not directed against regional leaders. On the contrary, I am sure that the heads of regions are the president’s main support and will remain so in strengthening our state. A state is not simply a piece of land on which we live and work, not a geographical area with drawn boundaries; it is, above all, constitutional order and discipline. If these instruments are weak, so is the state. Or it just does not exist.

It is a glaring fact when – just consider the figure – one-fifth of legislative acts passed in the regions conflict with the country’s fundamental law, when the constitutions of republics and statutes of regions disagree with the Constitution of Russia, when Russian regions erect trade barriers or, worse still, border posts, which also happens. The effects of such violations are disastrous. These seemingly small things gradually combine to give rise to separatism, which sometimes develops into a more dangerous evil – international terrorism.

Once more, I address the lawmakers, and once again I want to stress that the time of forced compromise leading to instability is gone. And I do hope that you will support the policy of strengthening the Russian state.

People of Russia, you know as well as I do that lack of government discipline costs millions of ordinary people dearly. Official incompetence is damaging to personal safety, the inviolability of the home and property, and ultimately our own welfare and the future of our children. This is why we need a strong and accountable government. Therefore I am seeking your approval for the steps being taken. I was elected Russian president with that mandate in mind, and I am going to carry out this policy firmly and consistently, the way we are doing it today.

Thank you for your time.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21440
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #66
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excerpts from a Speech at a General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences



May 22, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow





VLADIMIR PUTIN:

I, as President of the Russian Federation, the President’s Administration and the Government will support the Russian Academy of Sciences in all the areas of its activity.

We are all aware of the heavy blows to science during the past decade. Yes, much can be attributed to objective causes. Fundamental changes have taken place in the state and society which overturned our lives, affected practically every person, not to speak of state institutions. Scientists had their full share of hardship. The average salaries of scientists are so low that I am ashamed to speak about it.

The question is not only of how well the academy has managed to fit into market relations. Scientists do not have to be businessmen, although I must say, to the credit of those present, that many of our leading businessmen come from scientific backgrounds.

I think the most distressing thing for our scientists was the knowledge that their work was no longer needed. That period has dragged on for an unpardonably long time. Today it is obvious that links between science and government must be restored and built in accordance with the requirements of the time, as they should be in a state that works effectively to meet people’s needs.


<…>


One need hardly argue today that it is impossible to meet the challenges facing society without relying on science. Science is an important resource of economic growth and national security. I am sure that scientists and industrialists are capable of putting Russia in the lead in areas where our positions have always been very strong.

In the context of the market, one has to face tough competition in promoting one’s product. So far we lack not only aggressiveness and self-confidence, but a coherent strategy in this sphere of government policy. The country counts on your support and assistance. There is a great need for constantly reviewing and if necessary adjusting the course our state is following. We must know what is in store for us. We would like the academy to speak with a full voice that will be heard by the public.

The academy, which is by definition not under the jurisdiction of any government agency, can become a vehicle for a single scientific-technical policy in the country emphasising the practical application of the latest achievements. By the way, such an approach could be helpful in financing science itself.

I have already said that scientists are not entrepreneurs and their interests lie in a different sphere. But of course, we need talented managers and modern organisers of science, including in the academy. So far, success has been very modest. One of the reasons is the dramatic “ageing” of the academy staff. The average age of a Ph.D is 50, and only 15% of university graduates take up science. It is a sad realisation, but it is fashionable and prestigious to be a banker and it is not lucrative or prestigious to be a senior research fellow. Such a public attitude is dangerous for the state.

It must be said for fairness sake that money, or lack of it, is not the only reason. The academy must be more modern, more aggressive and must be sensitive to the changing times and its demands. The state for its part should be more attentive towards its main strategic resource, the nation’s intellect.

I repeat: I don’t think the Academy of Sciences is in need of a large-scale reform. But there are a host of problems – ranging from managerial to financial – that need to be addressed. These problems should be handled very carefully after weighing all pros and cons.

Speakers here have mentioned the problems connected with taxes and rent payments, and have expressed fears lest the adoption of the new tax code adversely affect science as a whole and the activities of the academy in particular. I would like to share my thoughts with you on how this problem should be tackled. All our economic actions must be meaningful, transparent and clear. The state must fulfill all its obligations. Scientists should research and organisers should manage. There should be no undercover channels of financing. That applies to taxes, rent and all the rest.

I am aware of the scientific community’s concern over the crippling tax burden and I promise to take another hard look at the issue.


<…>


I’ll share with you the most general thoughts on what practical steps are to be taken in the short term.

First. The Government will shortly have a meeting which will for the first time discuss ways to attract young talent to science. We are planning to develop a five-year national programme to support young scientists. We will provide financial support for scientific schools, talented young scientists and increase the number of youth scientific contests.

Your recommendations on adjustments to the system of deferments for army service merit attention. It may be difficult, but we will think about it. We will also discuss the proposal of attracting young scientists to defence industry research institutions.

One should not ignore other problems, in the first place social problems. So far pitiful amounts are earmarked to address these problems.

Second, fundamental science must receive modern equipment and telecommunications. It is a disgrace that half of the academy’s institutes have no Internet access. I think that too requires a special programme.

Third is further support of science funds and fundamental research. But I draw your attention to what I mentioned earlier, the need for financial flows to be “transparent”. That is only possible if the national budget clearly states how much money will be spent and on what. Funds are a very flexible instrument, sometimes too flexible. But, I repeat, we will also work with funds. I make it a special point to reassure those who count on their support and are afraid that it will be cut off today or tomorrow. But the activities of funds must, first, be under control and, second, we should introduce direct financing of research from the budget. If the state is interested in such research let it pay, if it is not, the whole question becomes irrelevant.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following. The state cannot assume the whole burden of responsibility for the state of science. We should determine the unquestioned priorities for which the state will be fully responsible and the areas in which its function can be only of support. Ultimately, our joint work must become more effective and the Academy of Sciences must play a much larger role in the life of society and the state.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21449
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #67
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Speech at the Congress of the Unity All-Russia Political Movement



May 27, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow





Vladimir Putin:

Colleagues and friends,

I am pleased to welcome you here today.

Present in this room are delegates from all 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, a high-powered group of people who want to, can and will engage in politics. I welcome you all. But I hope you won’t hold it against me if I extend a special welcome to the 18-man delegation from the Chechen Republic.

You have just taken a responsible step by voting to create a party. I congratulate you on that event.

I am sure you have taken the right decision. First, Unity has had to keep up the momentum and build on every success and move forward. Secondly, reforms, both in the economy and government, need a solid political backing. Russian citizens must have an opportunity to participate in government affairs and be active in the work of the party. So far, unfortunately, not only are our government institutions weak, but our civil society is also weak, as a previous speaker quite rightly said. I absolutely agree with him.

The party’s task is to overcome these weaknesses and draw as many people as possible into its organisations. A political party can only be a partner and a pillar of the government if it contributes to forming the government. We know that Unity has joined this process and it is strongly represented in the State Duma. You have taken an active part in the campaign to elect the President of the Russian Federation. The next stage is local and regional elections.

Political parties so far have played a very modest role in regional elections, as we know only too well. The candidates, for whatever office, try to distance themselves from all parties, and that is not accidental. But there is another snag in store for many candidates. They often fall under the influence of clans and groups that are separated from society and pursue their own corporate interests.

So the building of an effective party system that is open to the people and understood by the people is a national challenge in the full sense of the word.

I must say that as the head of state, I consider it to be one of my main tasks. I will tell you honestly that I dream of the time when these institutions, these instruments are up and running in our country. If we manage to do it and if I manage to contribute to this process, I will believe that I will have fulfilled many of the tasks that face me as President. The survival and competitiveness of our society and state in the historical perspective depends on it. I am absolutely convinced of this.

We want to see the emergence not of “pocket” parties, but parties that actively contribute to the formation of government, promote charismatic leaders capable of creating teams that work effectively and are responsible to society and the state. A constitutional congress cannot accomplish that task. Prolonged and challenging work lies ahead. I would like to tell you that your movement and any other political movements and various parties, even those opposing you, will have the support of the state. But only a party that embarks on this arduous road can have a future.

I would like to say some words about what we will have to do together. We know that the main thing is to overcome poverty and backwardness. There is no more important task for us now and there won’t be any time soon.

Of course, the key to solving these problems is sustained economic growth, but it is also necessary to create political and economic systems that would provide solid protection against political risks. These two processes – achieving political stability and sustained economic development – must go hand-in-hand.

There is yet another long-term challenge that will need to be met if the economy is to develop successfully. It is the building of the state. That is why a package of laws has been drafted and submitted to the Duma aimed at making the country more governable in tune with the times, in strict compliance with the federal laws, protecting the rights of Russian citizens throughout the country’s territory no matter whether they live in Moscow or thousands of kilometres away from the capital.

It is no secret that we often see attempts to establish authoritarian rule and curtail local self-government. That is why medium and small business is not developing and we have seen the appearance of “states within a state” with their own laws that contravene the Russian Constitution and laws. I think it is time to rectify this situation.

Mind you, nobody is challenging the priorities and principles of federalism and the autonomy of regions. God forbid us to embark on that path. But everyone must understand that there are fundamental principles of state and that by violating these principles we erode the foundation of the building which will inevitably collapse, however magnificent and powerful it may look. In fact, the more massive the building, the more likely it will collapse if the foundation is destroyed.

There has to be a balance of interests. It should be reflected in the balance of all the branches and at all levels of power. This is the aim of the package of documents submitted to the State Duma which I have just referred to.

Our actions are aimed at uniting Russia. No one can be allowed to undo our gains in the field of human rights: freedom of business, creative work, freedom of speech. Every Russian citizen should feel secure. Security can be provided only by the state and only through developed institutions of civil society by ensuring privacy, property rights, stable rules and norms of life that are the same for everyone in Russia. This is one of the tasks of the government today. I think this is what ordinary Russian citizens, our voters expect from us.

I understand, and we have heard Sergei Shoigu say in his report, that Unity intends to be a partner of the government. I must say that this imposes obligations on the authorities as well because the authorities feel that they have the support of such a powerful political force, such a party. First of all, we share the responsibility for everything that will happen in the country. As several speakers have said, today you do not claim to be the ruling party. I think this is a fair approach. Attempts to create such parties have been made in Russia’s recent history. They drew support mainly from civil servants, and what is more, top-level civil servants. Let us be frank, in their time these political forces and political entities played a positive role in the life of society and the state, but for a variety of reasons they failed to gain enough authority to become integrated into the system, to strike deep roots in society.

You know that popularity and authority do not come by themselves, they cannot come about by fiat. That is a futile undertaking, as witnessed by the fate and experience of many Russian parties. You, the Unity party, which is only starting, would do well to learn from their experience.

State Duma elections are only your first success that has earned you some trust. It would be a pity if you wasted it; it would be an unpardonable mistake. People must know that the party and its leaders champion their interests, make a difference in the life of the state, change it for the better, and truly respected people join the party in the regions.

But let us be honest: it is always the case that the people who seek to become involved in government are precisely the people who shouldn’t be allowed near government. It has always been that way. I don’t think you will be spared that problem. I am sure Unity will also face that problem. I just want to alert you to this.

Colleagues, among your voters are people of diverse political views, and this is a great asset. It is not a minus, but a plus. It is very important to preserve the unity and consolidation, to find things that unite people who adhere to different views and opinions. Unity and consolidation are the key tasks for the President and for various political forces. I think we no longer have any need for parties committed to revolutionary transformation; we have had enough of them.

Our common task is to achieve a mutual understanding, to take into account the interests of various social forces. Unity has already demonstrated that it can contribute to the consolidation of society, protect the interests of the state as a whole and every Russian citizen individually. What is needed is that every Russian citizen, every individual feel it. If that happens then Unity can be hugely successful. I have no doubt about it. But the road to success, the road to that goal is an arduous one.

I wish you success along that road. I wish you all the best.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21443
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #68
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

From the Transcript of an Interview with the American NBC News Channel



June 2, 2000 - 00:00





On the Presidency

Question:

Mr President, before you took office you were known mainly to your family and your friends and colleagues. Now you are the President of one of the most powerful countries in the world at a time of historical change. During your inauguration, did you ask yourself the question: “Vladimir, how did it all happen?”



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think it is quite accurate to say that until recently I was known only to a small number of people close to me. After all, I worked as the Deputy Mayor of one of the biggest Russian cities, St. Petersburg, for five years. I repeat, it lasted for five years. It is a huge city of more than 5 million people, with a massive industry, and well-developed science and culture. And for a long time I worked at the President’s Executive Office here, in Moscow. So, it would not be true to say that I was totally unknown. But of course, what happened in the last year and a half happened very swiftly. And surely I was asking myself the kind of question you have now formulated: how did it all come about?

I might offer a variety of explanations, or opinions, but I prefer just to state the fact that it happened. I am indeed the President of the Russian Federation.


* * *


But still, it means a dramatic change in my life, and I admit that it was somewhat unexpected. As a matter of fact, I had never set myself such a goal. So there is an element of surprise there for me, too. And of course, I asked myself this question, but I couldn’t come up with anything more coherent than saying that “It is destiny”.

But I am grateful to my destiny because it gave me a unique opportunity to influence the destiny of my country in the most direct and resolute way. I have no other motives for acting than try to improve the life of ordinary Russian people: to make it more wealthy, more secure. And I think if I succeed in making even minor movement in this direction my life will not have been wasted.


* * *


Question:

What would your grandfather think about a grandson who has become a democratically elected president?



Vladimir Putin:

The fact that my grandfather worked as Stalin’s cook says nothing about his political views. It was a different country and life was different. Nobody seems to be scared by the fact that many of the prominent Russian statesmen, prominent economists who preach the principles of democracy and a liberal market economy – that their parents and members of their families belonged to a different system. I think this is a natural process. I would like to think that my grandfather and my other relatives would have been glad and would have wished me success.



On Family

Question:

Did your wife help you to take any decisions formerly? Now that you are the President of Russia, does she help you?



Vladimir Putin:

I think that in a normal family the partners should always help each other, and my family is no exception. In my new position I have faced many situations for the first time. One of the problems I had to confront (and I think it is a problem of the number one person in any country, be it small or large, but especially if it is a large country) is the problem of isolation from the external world. And perhaps the only credible compensation for this shortcoming is family, children and friends. In that sense, of course, my close ones are supportive and helping.



Question:

Does your wife give you any political advice?



Vladimir Putin:

My wife has never been into politics and she is not interested in these problems, for which I am very grateful to her. She has other interests, she is a philologist by training. But if she puts into practice the ideas we discuss with her, the ideas connected with the spread and support of the Russian language, I think she would help me a great deal in my practical work today.



Question:

Is your wife a modern woman or not a very modern woman?



Vladimir Putin:

I am sure she is a very modern woman, we have a lot of discussions with her about the place of the woman in the modern world, in society. She insists that society and the state are not paying enough attention to women and are not involving them enough in governing the state as a whole, in tackling national, ethnic and regional problems. I agree with her there. So, in a way it can be said that ideologically, and philosophically, of course, she influences my ideas of what decisions to take in this or that sphere.


* * *


Question:

Have your daughters got used to the security that has to surround them now?



Vladimir Putin:

They are getting used to it.



On Religion

Question:

At a meeting with the Russian Orthodox Church you said that spirituality is reviving in Russia. You have been baptized in Orthodoxy. Do you intend to become a champion of the Russian Orthodox Church?



Vladimir Putin:

As regards my convictions in that field I would rather keep them to myself, because I believe that it is a sphere that you should keep in your heart, in your soul and not parade it. On the contrary, I think parading such things always smacks of insincerity. My attitude to religion and various denominations should correspond to the place I occupy. As the President of Russia, undoubtedly, I will support the confessions considered to be traditional in Russia and all the people who adhere to certain religious views, whether I like it or not.



Question:

You are shortly to meet with Pope John Paul II <…> [question about the relations with the Catholic Church and its presence in Russia – Ed.]



Vladimir Putin:

I think deciding whether or not to allow the spread of this or that religion or religious views is outside the remit of secular authorities. It is up to the believers and the Church and the citizens themselves. People themselves should decide what denomination they should belong to. And to impose my own opinion and contribute to the spread of one current while suppressing others is not, I think, the right way to approach such issues. I do not intend to build my relations with religious confessions in this way. There are some disputed issues between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. I think they should solve these issues themselves without government interference.



Question:

Could you speak in more detail about how you feel about the growing role of the church in the life of society?



Vladimir Putin:

In the most general way, after the collapse of the communist ideology we have offered nothing in terms of propagating universal human values. In that sense, of course, religion as a whole, individual confessions and churches do play a huge role in the life of society. We will certainly support everything that is done in this sphere. And of course, we should count on the increased influence of the church in society in the sense that the church must bring and is bringing to society the universal human values which should govern relations among people and between the citizens and the state.



On Special Services and Human Rights

Question:

You have worked at the KGB. Many people cannot understand how a person who in the past suppressed the rights of other people in the interests of the ruling elite can now promote the principles of a democratic state?



Vladimir Putin:

You have asked me how my grandfather would have felt about me becoming a democratically elected President of Russia whereas he himself used to work for Stalin. I replied that he would have wished me success. I haven’t the slightest doubt that this would have been his reaction because I know that my grandfather and my father, and all my relatives loved Russia, they were patriots of my country and they brought me up in that spirit.

We lived in a different system, in a different country. The security bodies performed their function within the state. By the way, the security bodies have many faces. When you said that as a security man I was suppressing freedom, you were mistaken, because I worked in the foreign intelligence service. As far as I know from the history of the United States, some former intelligence chiefs have become presidents of the United States. And this did not, I think, provoke the kind of reaction in the West that you have just spoken about. I see nothing unusual there. Ultimately it is up to the citizens to choose. Our citizens saw nothing wrong with that. Commitment to the interests of the state and love of the Homeland have always been the absolute priority for any statesman.

In my opinion the past does not matter very much. What matters is that past activities should be in accordance with the law. In my case, it was so.



Question:

Is there anything in your training as a KGB agent that helps you in your new job?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes. And I think my colleagues in Russia and other countries, including the United States, would agree with me that the main advantage of the people working in the special services is communication skills: the ability to listen and the ability to hear. In my opinion, this is very important. I think it is vital. But in addition, as I said, I have not just worked with security bodies, I worked with the foreign intelligence. And foreign intelligence is akin to your work, the work of journalists: it is an information service which broadens your horizon and enables you to meet a lot of people from very different walks of life. And of course, it couldn’t but provide a certain intellectual basis, a professional basis for work at a higher level. I think my colleagues from the United States would agree with me on that.



Question:

The situation in Russia has changed now. The security bodies no longer snoop on citizens in their daily life. Still, are people aware of being protected by them?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, of course. Everything has changed, the country has changed. We are a different country now. There is no Soviet Union, there is the Russian Federation. There is no KGB. In succession to the KGB several special services have been created, the functions of intelligence and counterintelligence, electronic surveillance and security of top officials have been separated. Previously it was all in one body, the KGB, now all that is separate. And, surely, today the special services are protecting the interests of the state. Let me just note that this was also what the KGB was doing. The only difference is that the KGB was also an ideological organization which catered to the interests of the ruling party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Now, thank God, we have no ruling party, no official communist ideology and, naturally, that function is no longer relevant. By the way, there is nothing odd about the KGB having such a function. That is history now.



Question:

This is precisely my point. When you worked for the KGB in the past, it was an ideological organization, and now everything is absolutely different. So, my question is, has that ideology left any trace in your heart or are you a totally pragmatic man?



Vladimir Putin:

You mean communist ideology? If you mean the communist ideology I should say the following. You know – and I would like to repeat it – that we lived in a different country and in a different world. We were brought up on other ideals and, of course, we were guided by these ideals. It was not by chance that the General Secretary of the former Communist Party initiated perestroika. Apparently the ideas that demanded change in society had matured within society.

I have to tell you that even the organization in which you are showing such a keen interest, the former KGB, had many people who believed that a lot of things needed to be changed. Speaking about my personal views, I am sure that the communist idea is no more than a beautiful and to some extent harmful fairy-tale – for society and the state. It is beautiful, attractive and if these ideas are embraced by millions of people it is not something to be ignored. But it is absolutely clear to us that having lived under that ideology for 70 years the country has found itself in an ideological and economic impasse. Clearly, this cannot provide the foundations of a state. To me, it is obvious. It is equally obvious to me that there is nothing more coherent to replace the communist ideology other than the principles of democracy. So, there are no contradictions there, we are witnessing evolution and development. And I think there is nothing unusual about it.



On the Situation Around Media-Most Company

Question:

The Media-Most company scandal happened shortly after your inauguration. It provoked some disappointment because it was a sign that you were not supporting the press freedom.



Vladimir Putin:

It provoked disappointment among those who used biased information that diverged from reality. The reality was a bit different. The reality is that there was no attack on Media-Most as a media outlet. The law enforcement bodies were looking into the activities of the Media-Most security structures, and our security bodies have grounds for thinking and they claim that there is evidence that Media-Most security structures engaged in illegal activities. They violated civil rights and human rights, they engaged in surveillance, wiretapping, bugged offices and so on.

This was what attracted the law enforcement bodies. As for the way it was done – ski masks, weapons – I too, don’t like it. But you know and I know, for example, that in the crisis with the Cuban boy (I think his name is Gonzales) in the United States the secret agents forcibly took him from his family, and we have all seen on television the American special service agents with automatic rifles.

And this surely prompts questions, as it is a humanitarian problem and a kid’s fate is at stake. Should automatic weapons have been used to take the boy away from his relatives and bring him back to Cuba? Some people would say it shouldn’t have been done. But I think there have been and still are people who would claim that it had to be done and they, too, have their reasons. And they will probably say that the boy was being guarded. There were crowds in the street and they were armed, it was necessary to demonstrate force. That is one way of looking at things and it has to be reckoned with.

In the case of Media-Most, I repeat, it was about its security structure which, in the opinion of our law enforcement bodies, started illegal activities and started spying on citizens, and, by the way, these security guards were also armed.

So, it is not surprising that the operations you are referring to were carried out by armed men. At the same time I would like to stress that our law enforcement bodies had not taken any illegal actions against Media-Most, and the latter hasn’t even complained. Everything was strictly within the law.

As for press freedom, let me note that I am deeply convinced that we won’t be able to build an independent, free and democratic Russia with an effective economy without a free press. There can be no doubt about that. It is a key element and instrument in creating a democratic society. As a matter of fact, we have no complaints and we haven’t been taking any actions against Media-Most information services as a mass communications outlet, nor with regard to any other media outlets.



On the Economy

Question:

(Inaudible) How will you go about fighting the oligarchs?



Vladimir Putin:

I understand that you are interviewing the President of, as you have put it, a great country – the Russian Federation. It wouldn’t be right for me to give characteristics to concrete individuals. But I wouldn’t demonize anyone and I don’t think there is anyone who rules all the oligarchs. That is unlikely, practically impossible. Just like it is impossible to imagine in the United States that a single individual or even a group of individuals would lead all the big businessmen and manipulate their opinions. As for the oligarchs, I have made my position known, and I can repeat it. If by oligarchs you mean representatives of big business, the government will cooperate with the representatives of big business and will support them at the national and international level. We will support Russian business. If by oligarchs you mean people who merged with the government and try to get close to the government in order to pursue their selfish ends, I assure you, everything will be done to prevent such a situation from ever arising in Russia. There will be no oligarchs in that sense.



Question:

[Mr Berezovsky] has said that monopolies are good for Russia. They have made massive investments in Russia which are very beneficial for it. Do you agree with that?



Vladimir Putin:

Mr Berezovsky has many original opinions about what is good and what is bad for Russia. He does not express any official opinions, he expressed his personal opinion on the issues he thinks he should pronounce on. If you believe you should interview him and disseminate his opinions among millions of people, this is your choice.

I believe that Russia has its antimonopoly laws, which should be strengthened, and I will act in this way.



Question:

The main challenge now is to restore Russia’s economy. When we talked with our businessmen in the West, they said they wouldn’t invest a cent until you have conquered corruption. But corruption is connected with the handful of people who have monopolized the entire economy. What can you do to rectify the situation?



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think that monopolization of the economy by a group of people is Russia’s main problem. That is obviously an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that we should strengthen the law. We should guarantee property rights to all owners. It is the duty of the state to protect the property owner, and we will be consistent in this. We will develop more coherent rules for investors and create a more acceptable investment climate. We are already working hard at the State Duma and we have introduced a package of tax laws.

We will seek to make commercial activities less bureaucratic and create equal conditions for everyone so that they are at an equal distance from the government. That I think is one of the main tasks, including the task of fighting corruption. Of course, we will seek to strengthen the banking system and address the problem of “money laundering”. But let me point out to you that two notions are often confused in the West, and in the United States: the outflow of capital under the current law and money laundering. These are different things and different concepts and they will be treated differently. As for the outflow of capital, we will pursue our economic policy in such a way as to ensure that the first investors in the Russian economy be precisely the people who have taken their money out of Russia. But, needless to say, we will be tough on those who violate the law. Make no mistake about that.



Question:

Will [Boris Berezovsky and] the people who control all or most of the Russian economy retain their leading position?



Vladimir Putin:

I think you are exaggerating if you think that Mr Berezovsky holds most of the Russian economy in his hands. Russia is too big for any person or group of persons to control its entire economy. I think we would make a big mistake if we provide such publicity to certain individuals, no matter how talented they may be in promoting themselves. In general, I have a sneaking suspicion that you might have agreed with Mr Berezovsky to do a sales job on him. But seriously, I don’t think this is the case. I have made my position clear: any person who has worked in Russia for some time or is entering its economy now should be at the same distance as all the others from the center where political decisions are made. And in that sense we will act with persistence, let me stress this, and without creating such a situation we won’t create a good investment climate, and that will be one of our main tasks.



Question:

Do you understand the reasons why investors are in no hurry to invest their money, because they have done it in the past and it was unsuccessful?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, the reasons are clear. First of all, it is red tape in the economic sphere, excessive bureaucracy. In this respect, we will undoubtedly move towards the standards of a free economy. We will seek to combat bureaucracy in decision-making in the economy.

As I have said, we will work to improve the tax sphere. The Presidential Executive Office and the Government are actively supporting the drafting of a new Tax Code at the State Duma. We will lower the customs barriers. I have already said that we will seek to provide greater protection of property rights whether the property owner is a domestic or a foreign investor. We will seek and go on to discuss Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization. And finally, a very important element is uniform interpretation of legality and laws throughout the Russian Federation. If we manage to make progress in all these areas, I don’t think there will be any names bandied about of people who allegedly monopolize part or all of the Russian economy or have a chance to do so. If we manage to create explicit conditions, on the one hand, and make the state strong enough to guarantee the compliance with these conditions, I will consider my mission fulfilled.


* * *


Question:

(Inaudible)… A prominent American businessman has said that Russia is the biggest problem and the biggest opportunities at present. But the problems may be dangerous. Do you agree with that?



Vladimir Putin:

I agree that there are many problems and opportunities in Russia. You wouldn’t deny that where there are no problems there are fewer opportunities. These are the facts of our life. Let me just note that we are aware of these problems and we are ready to work jointly with the man who said it – and one feels that he has a grasp of our current problems and knows Russia’s realities quite well – we are ready to work jointly with such people to solve these issues and we hope very much that they will come to Russia and they will feel the support of the Russian Government and the President of Russia, and will contribute to the economic growth of our country. And we for our part will guarantee the interests of business in the Russian Federation.


On Anti-Missile Defence, Relations with NATO and the US

Question:

During the course of his forthcoming visit to Europe Bill Clinton will discuss missile defences because new systems are to be deployed there. Both presidential candidates in the United States support this idea. Mr Clinton has said that he was ready to share the technology with you. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for you to support the new missile defence technology? After all, you too can become a target of potential attack.



Vladimir Putin:

The architecture of international relations in the security field has evolved over a long period and with difficulty. It has now reached a level and quality that we must all cherish. We should approach these problems with care and caution, following the principle of medical professionals: do no harm, do all you can to improve things, but above all, do no harm. That is why we have always attached a high priority to security matters in our cooperation with the United States.

Let me note that the level of confidence and the level of mutual relations in this sphere have improved in recent years. This is very important. We propose deep mutual cuts of offensive nuclear weapons while preserving the foundations of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We think it is an important basis for understandings in this sphere and we believe, given the mutual will, and taking into account each other’s interests and the changing world, we could combine our efforts in this sphere and find a solution without destroying the ABM Treaty.

You know it prompts some philosophical thoughts to me, which are however, very important, even for an ordinary citizen. We should proceed in such a way as not to destroy the system of balance to which we owe the present level of global security. We should be careful not to destroy it, because if we do it, we will undoubtedly make the peoples of our countries – both the Russian Federation and the United States – less secure. We will bring down the level of security because somebody may get the idea that he can act with impunity, and that is a dangerous move towards wrecking the existing agreements.

But we respect the opinion of our negotiating partners and we think there is some logic to what they are saying. We go along with that logic up to a point. New threats arise and we must respond. But we suggest that we respond together. I think these proposals have a future. I am sure we will have a substantive and useful dialogue with President Clinton on this matter.


<…>


Question:

So you want nuclear missiles to be cut to 1500 for each side and (inaudible) the ABM Treaty to remain in place?



Vladimir Putin:

We are just proposing it for discussion. We propose making the threshold of mutual threats as low as possible and we believe that it would benefit all the countries. The United States and Russia have stockpiled such quantities of nuclear weapons as to ensure overkill and mutual destruction and much of the rest of humankind. Why do we need such a level and such a threshold of mutual threats? As to the exact number of warheads on both sides – that is negotiable. In our opinion, the fewer, the better.

A system of agreements in the field of missile defence is in place. It is effective, and we believe that it should not be destroyed. But we agree that new threats are arising and we should react to them. We propose to do it together. You see, defending the whole territory means defending the triad: outer space, the world ocean and the land area. Speaking about the threats that Russia or the United States can be exposed to from this or that particular territory, the countries that possess such capabilities can only strike from their own territories. They have no nuclear submarines or nuclear-carrying planes. We can unfold these umbrellas over the potential threat territory. We can jointly protect the whole of Europe with this umbrella. There are both technical and political and ideological opportunities for that.


* * *


Such mechanisms are possible if we pool our efforts and direct them to neutralize the threats which may be directed at the United States or at Russia or against our allies or Europe as a whole. We have such proposals and we intend to discuss them with President Clinton.


* * *


As regards our relations with NATO, they are based on certain principles. These principles are expressed in joint documents. We intend to stick to these principles and build our relations on the basis of partnership. Only, we would not like NATO to supplant the mechanisms worked out in the framework of the United Nations. I believe that the instruments created after World War II were being worked out gradually and based on the balance of interests and forces. And we should handle that mechanism with care.

As for the NATO itself, we do not see NATO as an opponent, still less as an enemy. We would like to see NATO as a partner, a partner in the settlement of major problems and a partner, above all, in creating a safer world. But we should bear in mind that the prerogative of the UN Security Council as the main body for the settlement of international disputes should be respected.


* * *


Regarding the security issues between the United States and Russia, I would like to note that our approaches have much in common. True, we differ on some aspects of the problem, but we have much in common. And I would particularly like to stress that in recent years, especially during the previous year, our relations had their ups and downs. But we have invariably achieved mutual understanding and cooperation. I am absolutely sure that it was made possible by the significant progress in the relations between the United States and Russia achieved in the last eight years. Our relations have reached a very high benchmark. It gives us hope that we will together solve the current issues connected with key problems of international security. I feel strongly and I hope that events will move in that direction soon.



On the Fight Against Terrorism and the Situation in the Chechen Republic

Question:

Every three months the press reports that victory is at hand, yet Chechnya remains a festering wound. Is there a danger that Chechnya may turn into another Afghanistan?



Vladimir Putin:

As for Chechnya turning into Afghanistan-2, that is ruled out, absolutely ruled out. Afghanistan is a foreign country, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. That makes a lot of difference. That is one thing. Secondly, as regards declarations in the press about victory. I have not seen such declarations. And it is not our task to conquer the people of Chechnya. That would be a perverse interpretation of the task. The Russian leadership and the Russian military have never set such a task. We are fighting international terrorists there, that is undeniable.

I could imagine what would have happened in the United States if one state launched an armed attack on the citizens of another state. If people, thousands of people armed to their teeth had come and killed the citizens of another state, seized their property and destroyed their houses. How would the federal authorities in the United States react to such a turn of events? And yet this is what has happened in our country. For some reason the Western citizens, including the citizens of the United States, are not being told anything about it.

An attack was launched from the territory of the Chechen Republic on the neighbouring Republic of Dagestan. By the way, it is also a Muslim republic. As for the status of Chechnya, we have never said we were going to settle the problem by force of arms. It can be settled only by political means. That is how it will be solved.



Question:

Can it happen that Russia will have to keep its military or law enforcement presence in Chechnya in the same way as Britain has long kept its forces in Northern Ireland?



Vladimir Putin:

It is a very pointed question. In any case it pinpoints the problem. During the time that Russia was out of Chechnya – and Russia withdrew from Chechnya totally in 1996, there was not a single Russian soldier, or policeman, or judge, or prosecutor – Chechnya enjoyed de facto state independence. During these three years from 1996 to 1999 Chechnya turned into a haven for bandits. No state had been created there.

The territory was flooded with terrorists and religious fanatics from across the world. We in Russia understand that if we leave Chechnya, its territory will again be used as a bridgehead to attack Russia. Russia cannot afford it. We will not repeat such an experiment again. There is a clear understanding of this in Russian society, including in Chechnya itself, because the Chechens – many of them – believe they have been enticed into a trap, they have been exploited and that the striving of the Chechen people to self-determination is being abused.

So, it is better for us to keep our forces there – our Armed forces and law enforcement bodies – and tackle the problem of fighting terrorists there, rather than wait for them to attack other regions of the Russian Federation. It is our duty to solve this task and we are determined to solve it.



Question:

(Inaudible) Is Russia threatened by the terrorists based in Afghanistan?



Vladimir Putin:

The biggest threat to Russia is economic mismanagement. And speaking about external threats, I must say that the problems of religious extremism are present in Russia just like in other countries. You know, there are many Muslims in the Russian Army and they are fighting religious fanatics and terrorists. As I have said, last summer Dagestan was attacked from the territory of Chechnya. Dagestan is a Muslim Republic and Muslims there took up arms to defend their homes and to defend the Russian Federation. We are not fighting Muslims, that is rubbish, a distortion of the real situation. We believe that everyone should fight religious extremism. And speaking about Muslim extremism, Muslims themselves are interested in suppressing it not to invite an attack by all the other members of society.

By the way, this is happening in Russia.



On Globalization

Vladimir Putin:

In the context of globalization, countries must have common features, especially such big countries as Russia, the United States, major countries of Europe and Asia. There is something in common and it will grow. But I would not like my country, Russia, to lose its originality and its identity. I would like the cultural roots, the spiritual roots of Russia which we are so proud and so fond of and which shape us as individuals, to be preserved. I would very much like, with all due respect for the common features of the world, which we also cherish, I would like my children to feel themselves Russian.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24204
 
Old September 30th, 2016 #69
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

News Conference Following the Russian-US Summit



June 4, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow





Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to start summing up two days’ work with our guests and partners, US President Bill Clinton and his team. It was very intense work and, I daresay, the Russian party cannot but feel satisfied both with the spirit and the quality of our negotiations, and their achievements.

As we see it, the questions we discussed were of interest not only to the United States and the Russian Federation. Those issues concerned global security and, undoubtedly, involved the interests of the entire humankind.

We had detailed discussions of everything done within recent years in that crucial field, which interests both parties. We have agreed to continue our team efforts in that sphere.

We discussed new global threats, such as mounting terrorism, organised crime and drug trafficking. We talked about problems to which we saw one solution, while our US colleagues insisted on others.

We also exchanged opinions on matters to which we had different approaches.

All those talks were very outspoken and to the point.

As you know, the US President and I have signed a number of documents, including a statement on security issues, which say and determine a great deal.

As I see it, our principal achievement was in not only confirming the high level of our relations but also fixing the development trend of US-Russian relations for the near future.

Ladies and gentlemen, in this connection I would like to point out the following: Russian-US relations have lately being going through some ups and downs, including last year. There were some disagreements. However, the high level attained through the efforts of the Russian leadership and the US Administration within these eight years have always given us a honourable way out of those crises. We always work not merely to restore our relations but to settle disputes. We believe this is very important.

I am happy to repeat that we see in those complex areas a desire not only to speak up but to come to joint decisions.

We also discussed matters concerning bilateral economic relations. As I want to point out in this connection at once, the Russian Federation, through myself, and through the Government (Prime Minister Mr Kasyanov and the leading ministers who took part in the talks), not only informed our US colleagues about the current economic situation in Russia but discussed with our partners team efforts in bilateral relations and within the framework of international organisations, including financial ones.

I want to say at once that Russia not merely intends to carry on its market reforms, as we have said on many occasions, but to make the most resolute practical action. I mean promoting the Tax Code and the production-sharing agreement. There are certain issues here that we have not been able to resolve with the State Duma yet.

As we see it, those are rather technical issues, and we will continue working with State Duma members to pass those bills.

We talked about the nearest international events. These are a meeting of heads of state in Okinawa, the UN Millennium Summit in New York, and a meeting in Brunei. Thus, Mr Clinton and I have agreed to continue working on a number of problems, which we discussed yesterday and today, and which we have an opportunity also to discuss in an eye-to-eye talk tomorrow. These problems will be on the agenda of our nearest meetings, which I have just now mentioned.

I want to thank the US delegation on behalf of the Russian leadership not only for accepting our invitation to come to Russia but also for a very constructive and businesslike approach to discussing and settling the issues we were debating.

Thank you.



Bill Clinton:

I would like to first thank President Putin and the Russian delegation for making us feel welcome and for these talks.

I have come to Moscow at an important time. Russia, after all, has a new President, new government, new Duma. Its economy is showing encouraging signs of growth. This gives Russia a pivotal opportunity to build on the strong record of engagement between our two countries. It is also an opportunity for the United States.

I welcome President Putin's interest in building a Russia that enjoys the enduring strength of a stable democracy. President Yeltsin led Russia to freedom. Under President Putin, Russia has the chance to build prosperity and strength, while safeguarding that freedom and the rule of law.

We've had good discussions both last night and today on a range of common interests, including non-proliferation and arms control. We expressed our differences with clarity and candor. And I, for one, appreciate that. The importance of this relationship to ourselves and the world demands that we take every opportunity we can to find common ground and that, where we cannot find it, we express our differences with clarity and candor.

I congratulated President Putin on the key role he played in the Duma's ratification of START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The United States ratified START II first, and I hope we will now follow Russia in ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I also look forward to the ratification of the START II protocols by our Senate so that we can get about the business of further reducing the number of nuclear missiles that we have.

I am very pleased today we agreed on two other major steps to reduce the nuclear danger. We reached an important agreement each to destroy 34 tons of military-grade plutonium, enough to make thousands of warheads. This raw weapon material will now never fall into the wrong hands.

We also agreed to establish a joint data exchange center in Moscow to share early warning information on missile and space launches. This is terribly important. It is the first permanent U.S.-Russia military operation ever.

In this new center, Russian and American military officials will be working side by side, 24 hours a day, to monitor missile warning information. It is a milestone in enhancing strategic stability, and I welcome it.

The President and I also discussed our common commitment to prevent the proliferation of missile technology and our determination to exert firm control over exports of sensitive technology and strictly enforce export control laws and regulations.

We discussed our common interest in commercial space cooperation, including the successful joint venture that launches commercial satellites. We agreed that our teams would soon meet to discuss future cooperation in the commercial space area, with the aim of moving toward eliminating existing constraints on commercial space launches.

We also had a thorough discussion of our work on the START III treaty and the issue of national missile defense. We have agreed to a statement of principles, which I urge you to read carefully. It makes clear that there is an emerging ballistic missile threat that must be addressed, though we have not yet agreed on how best to do so.

We have acknowledged that the ABM Treaty foresees the possibility of changes in the strategic environment that might require it to be updated. We have reaffirmed our commitment to pursue further reduction in offensive arms in parallel with our discussions on defence systems, underscoring the importance of the doctrines of strategic stability and mutual deterrence as the foundation for this work.

We've asked our experts to keep working to narrow the differences and to develop a series of cooperative measures to address the missile threat. And we have agreed that we will continue to discuss it in our next meeting.

We spent a large share of our time discussing economics. I'm encouraged by the economic plan President Putin has outlined and by the current recovery. I look forward to Russia's continuing to implement proposed reforms that will actually make the recovery last, reforms such as tax reform, anti-money-laundering legislation, strong property rights protections.

I look forward to Russia's successful negotiations with the IMF. This is a good economic team with a very good opportunity to increase investment in Russia, both the return of money that Russians have placed outside the country and new investments from other countries.

Later this month, our former Ambassador to Moscow, Bob Strauss, will come to Russia with a delegation of investors, including some of America's best-known chief executive officers, to discuss opportunities in Russia and the steps Russia is taking to improve its investment climate. I think this will be only the beginning of a very successful effort at economic reform, if the intentions that President Putin outlined become reality.

The President and I also discussed another area where we disagree, Chechnya. I have restated the opposition that I have to a policy which is well-known. Essentially, I believe a policy that causes so many civilian casualties without a political solution ultimately cannot succeed. I also urged President Putin to move forward with transparent and impartial investigations of the stories of human rights violations and to authorise a speedy return of the OSCE to the region.

Finally, I stressed to President Putin the importance the United States places on protecting religious freedom and the rights of an independent media. I strongly agree with what President Putin himself has said, that Russia has no future if it suppresses civic freedoms and the press.

We agreed to advance our technical cooperation on climate change. We believe it's essential to complete work on the Kyoto Protocol, including market mechanisms, to protect the environment, promote clean energy, and reduce costs. I think Russia has a great economic opportunity here as well as a great environmental one.

And on these issues, the President and I are asking the U.S.-Russia binational commission, under the leadership of Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Kasyanov, to carry forward the work.

I was encouraged by our discussion, pleased with our agreements, pleased with the candor and clarity of our disagreements. I am eager for more progress. I'm also looking forward to the chance to talk to the Russian people tonight in a radio talk show, and tomorrow, as I have the opportunity to speak to the Duma and the Federation Council.

Again, Mr. President, I thank you for this and especially for these two agreements, and I look forward to our continued work together.



MAYAK radio station:

A question to the President of Russia. What priority do you give to Russian-US relations in a changing world that, as we know, is continuously reshaping? Thank you.



Vladimir Putin:

The history of relations between the former Soviet Union and the United States, and between Russia and the United States contains, as I have said, many dramatic and very positive elements. We were allies, and there was a time of confrontation between us. We hope the worst period in our relations is long past.

Today, the United States is among our principal partners. As for Russia, it will never make a choice in favour of confrontation in its relations with the United States.

We are determined to work together. We are determined to come to an accord on all problems that may arise. Certainly, there are such problems, as there were in the past, and some may appear in the future. But that is not what matters. What truly matters is that there can be only one approach to settling such problems. It is not to bring us to destroy our latest positive achievements. It must be a future-oriented approach. As you see, the Russian leadership and the US Administration and President share that determination. These are the principles we will follow.



Associated Press:

A question to the US President. Mr President, do you see the chance that the United States would exercise its option to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty if it is not possible to negotiate changes to permit a national missile defense? And was this possibility raised in your discussions with President Putin?



Bill Clinton:

Well, first of all, I have not made a decision on the national missile defense stage one. It is premature. The statement of principles that we have agreed to I thought reflected an attempt to bring our positions closer together. I do not believe the decision before me is a threat to strategic stability and mutual deterrence. The Russian side disagrees. But we had a lot of agreement here.

And again, let me say, I urge you all to read that. I do not want the United States to withdraw from the ABM regime because, I think, it has contributed to a more stable, more peaceful world. It has already been amended once, and its framers understood that circumstances might change and threats might arise which were outside the context of U.S.-now Russian relations. We acknowledge that there is a threat. It needs to be met, and we're trying to bridge our differences. And I think that's where we ought to leave it.



Nezavisimaya Gazeta:

A question to the US President. Mr President, how do you feel about Russia’s proposal on continuing to reduce the number of warheads down to 1,500 warheads as part of START III? Thank you.



Bill Clinton:

Well, we had previously agreed to a range of 2,000 to 2,500 on START III. If we were to come down below that, it would require us to change our strategic plan. And we believe it would be much better if we were going to do that, if we could also know that we were defending ourselves against a new threat, which we believe is real. So we will continue to discuss all these things.

Let me say, I am certain – I am eager to get down to the START II levels, and I am eager to go below the START II levels, but I also want to try to solve the new threat, as well. And I will do whatever I can to achieve both objectives.



Reuters:

This is for both Presidents. Now that you have met together as Presidents, how would you describe each other's personalities and leadership qualities? And how do you see them affecting relations between the two countries? And in particular, President Clinton, are you any more or less assured about the future of democracy in Russia following your meetings today?



Vladimir Putin:

As you know, this is not my first meeting with President Clinton. He has been leading one of the world’s mightiest countries for almost eight years. He is an experienced politician. I consider the relations that have taken shape between us as very good professional contacts and friendly personal ties. To me, President Clinton is a very agreeable partner in talks.

If everyone follows President Clinton’s example in not seeking deadlocks but ways along which progress can be made, I think success awaits us in our future contacts with the United States.

Look at the ABM Treaty. There are many problems there. We wrote down in the statement we have just now referred to, a pivotal principle – preservation of this treaty as the cornerstone of maintaining security.

At the same time, we share a starting point from which new threats may emerge. We do not want a remedy that would be more dangerous than the disease. As we understand, there are ways, and there is a basis, on which we can solve that issue, however involved and sensitive it might appear.

I repeat: we know that an election campaign is on in the United States now, and we know the programmes of the two principal candidates. Those programmes point out the necessity to positively develop relations with Russia. We will be very pleased if those programmes are implemented, if the relay baton President Clinton passes to his successor at the end of the year, whoever the next president might be, is accepted.

Thank you.



Bill Clinton:

Well, let me say first, I think President Putin has an enormous opportunity and a great challenge. If you want to know what my personal assessment is, I think he is fully capable of building a prosperous, strong Russia, while preserving freedom and pluralism and the rule of law. It's a big challenge. I think he is fully capable of doing it.

And I want to use the time I have remaining as President not only to further the interests of the United States in meeting our national security threat but also to further our interest in having a good, stable relationship with a Russia that is strong and prosperous and free, respecting pluralism and the rule of law. That's what I'm trying to do. I think he is fully capable of achieving that. And I'm encouraged by the first 2 days of our really serious work.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21458
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #70
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Some fresh news last week:





Telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Bulgaria Boyko Borissov



Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Bulgaria Boyko Borissov at the Bulgarian side’s initiative.



September 27, 2016 - 13:00





During the conversation, the two leaders addressed current issues of bilateral trade, economic and energy cooperation.

Vladimir Putin and Boyko Borissov also touched upon some issues on the global agenda.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52972






Telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu



Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu.



September 29, 2016 - 16:50





In addition to sending a message of condolences on the death of outstanding politician and former President and Prime Minister of Israel Shimon Peres, Vladimir Putin telephoned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to express support and sympathy to the family of the deceased and to the Government and people of Israel.

The President spoke about Mr Peres’s personal contribution to the development and strengthening of friendly and mutually beneficial relations between Russia and Israel and his consistent efforts to promote peace in the Middle East.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52989





Telephone conversation with Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel



Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel at Germany’s initiative.



September 29, 2016 - 18:45





The two leaders continued discussing issues related to Ukraine with a view to intensifying efforts to fully implement the Minsk agreements of February 12, 2015.

They emphasised the need to coordinate efforts to enhance security and resolve political aspects of the settlement. In this context a positive assessment was given of the Contact Group’s Framework Decision on Disengagement of Forces and Hardware in three sections of the conflict zone and the role of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine in ensuring compliance with the truce.

In light of the recent decision by the Donbass leadership to declare a unilateral ceasefire, the President of Russia expressed hope that Ukraine will also refrain from armed provocations in the conflict zone and will finally take real steps to fulfil its political commitments. This applies, in part, to the commitments on amnesty and constitutional reform, granting a permanent special status to Donbass and holding local elections.

A schedule was coordinated for further contacts in the Normandy format at different levels.

The conversation also touched upon the developments in Syria, emphasising the need for the international community to work together to uphold the cessation of hostilities on the basis of the Russian-US agreements of September 9, 2016.

The President of Russia again stressed how important it is for the United States to fulfil its promises to ensure the separation of the so-called moderate opposition from terrorist groups.

It was stressed that Russia will continue its efforts to reach a sustainable truce and improve the humanitarian situation in Syria.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52990
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #71
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Meeting with VTB Bank Chairman and CEO Andrei Kostin



Vladimir Putin met with VTB Bank Chairman and CEO Andrei Kostin to discuss the group’s performance in the investment banking services market and participation in large PPP infrastructure projects, as well as consumer lending.



September 27, 2016 - 13:50 - The Kremlin, Moscow





President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr Kostin, I suggest discussing the bank’s investment activities and your contribution to public-private partnership projects. I know that you are working on this.



VTB Bank Chairman and CEO Andrei Kostin:

Mr President, seven or eight years ago Russia’s investment banking services market was dominated by foreign banks, predominantly US banks.

The situation has changed radically since then. VTB Group has become the leader in investment banking services not only in Russia but also in Eastern Europe.

This year, the bank has helped attract over 810 billion rubles to the national economy, mostly through the placement of stocks and bonds issued by Russian companies.

The largest placement transactions involved Finance Ministry bonds and bonds for Russia’s largest private and state-owned companies, including state-owned companies like State Transport Leasing Company and Sovcomflot. Large placements in the Russian market were made on behalf of RZD and RusHydro and the privately owned company Magnit. The latest placement was made on behalf of Russian Post.

We conduct these transactions in both the home and international markets, lately focusing on Russian infrastructure facilities, specifically the Moscow Exchange and the National Settlement Depository. In this way, we are strengthening the national infrastructure, which I believe will eventually become the basic platform for attracting investment to the national economy.



Vladimir Putin:

This is good. What about public-private partnership?



Andrei Kostin:

As for PPP, we participate in nearly all major PPP projects. Our aggregate investments in these have reached 320 billion rubles.

I have to mention this major project that we will complete by the end of the year, according to plan – the Western High-Speed ​​Diameter, the world's largest toll road project being built through a public-private partnership.

It is worth 210 billion roubles, but as you recently mentioned at a meeting in Crimea, it is not about money, but about building the road. The project will be completed on schedule.

To be honest, I recently flew over the construction site in a helicopter, and I can say that the three bridges that are part of the system are not only technically perfect, but they will further beautify the great architecture of St. Petersburg. I have absolutely no doubt.



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, I have seen it. It is beautiful.



Andrei Kostin:

I would like to say that we are certainly using those forums that have been established, including the St. Petersburg Economic Forum and the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Preparations for VTB’s eighth financial forum Russia Calling! are now in full swing.

I would like to invite you to speak at that forum on October 12. Your speech is already a tradition. It is central to the forum and always arouses great interest among investors from around the world.



Vladimir Putin:

All right.

I know that your bank has participated in the placement of government securities.



Andrei Kostin:

Yes, Mr. President. It was a success in spite of all the difficulties that we encountered, and we can continue this work if needed; we are prepared for it.



Vladimir Putin:

How is your work with individual clients?



Andrei Kostin:

The retail loan portfolio is growing now, the situation has improved and we are seeing increased demand.

The reduction in the Central Bank refinance rate is certainly a positive factor, which will lead to a reduction in the cost of loans to individuals, among other things.

Thus, the business is growing, and we are now building up these activities through our subsidiaries – VTB Group as well as its subsidiary Pochta Bank. We expect this work to continue.



Vladimir Putin:

Good.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52973






Meeting with Aeroflot General Director Vitaly Savelyev



Vladimir Putin met with Aeroflot General Director Vitaly Savelyev to discuss the company’s performance and plans for the future.



September 29, 2016 - 15:10 - Novo-Ogaryovo, Moscow Region





President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Let’s discuss how the company is doing and its results. The summer season is over. What is your assessment of its results? What do you think about the future? Go ahead, please.



General Director of Aeroflot Russian Airlines Vitaly Savelyev:

Mr President, first of all, I would like to report on the fulfilment of the objective to establish Aeroflot Aviation Group, a first entity of this type in Russia. The group includes four airlines. Aeroflot stayed in the premium segment. Rossiya Airlines, with two airlines that were merged into its structure, will operate as a mid-range carrier. The third airline is Pobeda, a very successful project launched with your approval and support – I will elaborate on it later in the presentation. There is also Aurora Airlines, a regional carrier operating in Russia’s Far East. The group has been created, it is up and running, as I will show a little later.

As for Pobeda, this has turned out to be a very successful low-cost airline. Last year, Pobeda’s passenger traffic was equal to 3.1 million people, with a passenger load factor of 86 percent. It is about to become profitable, which is sooner than initially expected. This year, Pobeda is expected to generate a profit of over two billion, which is a substantial achievement, and goes to show the efficacy of our efforts.

As for the pricing, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that on all destinations operated by Pobeda analysts noted that competitor prices declined by an average of 20 percent. This is my first point. Last year, 10 percent out of the 3 million Pobeda passengers bought tickets for 999 rubles. This trend remains in place, which means that Pobeda’s statements on offering tickets at very low prices are more than just words. We think that Pobeda has good prospects and we thank you for backing this project.

The third objective we had and that you supported was the flat rate programme. Our group carried 1.7 million passengers last year under this programme, up from 1.1 million in the previous year, which means that the progress is clearly visible. We transported some 700,000 passengers in Russia’s Far East, up 43 percent year-on-year. There are flights to Kaliningrad, to Simferopol. We propose to keep this programme going, since it was initially designed and approved by you for two years, but we now see how relevant it is. So we think that this can be done.

Regarding strategic targets, we are working towards the approved strategic targets and we are close to becoming one of the world’s top 20 airlines. We are in 24th place now, but in 2008 we were 68th. Today, we hold seventh place in terms of passenger turnover in Europe, up from 15th place only recently.

I would like to stress that the number of passengers on domestic routes has increased dramatically, from 4.9 million out of the total of 11 million on Aeroflot flights in 2009, to 23 million out of the total of 39 million last year. In other words, we have shifted the focus to Russian consumers and the domestic market.

Mr President, we have greatly improved the quality of our services this year. For the first time in the history of Russian aviation, a Russian air carrier has joined the group of the world’s 40 certified 4-star airlines. Aeroflot is rated by Skytrax as a 4-star airline. This means that we can fly where Emirates, Lufthansa, British Airways and Air France fly, and we have been officially identified as a 4-star airline. There are only eight 5-star airlines, but we will be working to join this group. The 5-star airlines are mostly Asian companies; there are no European or American airlines among them. But this is our next goal, about which I will speak later.

As for our achievements, Aeroflot has been ranked the best company in Eastern Europe according to TripAdvisor for the fifth time. TripAdvisor, a travel site with 340 million monthly visits, has held a survey on the world’s most-loved airlines, and Aeroflot is eighth on this list. This is an achievement.

Now for the situation in the airline industry, which is currently on the decline. Happily, the volume of internal transportation has been growing in Russia, and Aeroflot has been growing, too. This is very important for us, because we expect to report a 10 percent increase this year despite the slumping international market. We have earned a net profit of over 20 billion rubles, and we believe that if the Government decides that we should pay dividends this year after we complete all the corporate procedures, we will be able to pay out some 50 percent of our net profit in dividends.

We have done a great deal to introduce digital technology and solutions into the company. Here is another ranking: Aeroflot is one of the world’s leading air carriers in terms of digitising its business processes and operations, which is a substantial achievement.

How were we able to adopt digital technology and operate this way? An international agency looked at Aeroflot’s data. In terms of revenue, Aeroflot is behind the world’s leading airlines. But where do our profits come from? We have been able to cut costs to such an extent that even with our modest revenues we are able to remain profitable. This cost-cutting effort makes us feel quite confident in the market.

Pobeda also shows positive results compared to US and European low-cost airlines. Its revenues may be lower, but so are the costs. This is what makes Pobeda so efficient and has helped it generate over two billion in net profit.

As for market capitalisation, despite a challenging market environment, we have reached a historic high. As of today, Aeroflot is valued at 116 billion rubles. In fact, Aeroflot’s market cap in US dollars is higher than that of Air France-KLM. This means that our company is expanding, reaching unprecedented highs. Aeroflot is currently valued at 116 billion, which I think will please both our majority shareholders, including the state, and minority shareholders.



Vladimir Putin:

How about the dividends? How much do you intend to pay out?



Vitaly Savelyev:

Assuming that the net profit will total at least 20 billion or even more, 50 percent will be paid out in dividends, and the state will get half of it since it holds a 51 percent stake.

As for the Russian air passenger market, Aeroflot is expected to carry 28.9 million passengers, up 10 percent, as I mentioned. Overall, the group’s passenger traffic is expected to reach 43.4 million passengers. Despite a challenging market environment, we are seeing an upward trend and steady growth.

Here are some data from Rome2rio, an Australian agency, to show that we are quite efficient in what we do and that our prices for economy class are quite low. According to Rome2rio, Aeroflot was the number one carrier in the world in terms of M-class ticket prices in the first six months of 2016.



Vladimir Putin:

Go tell your passengers how cheap your tickets are. I doubt they would agree.



Vitaly Savelyev:

Mr President, I am referring to rankings by major companies. Of course, there are some small carriers out there, but we have Pobeda in this category. It is not just Rome2rio; the Daily Telegraph also published a ranking in which we were listed as the second best airline in the world in terms of economy-class fare prices.



Vladimir Putin:

The problem is that they do not factor in the income levels in the respective countries.



Vitaly Savelyev:

Maybe so, Mr President, but rankings are what they are, and we do not have any influence over them.

A few words about our fleet. Aeroflot once again has the world’s youngest fleet, with the average age of our aircraft being 4.3 years.



Vladimir Putin:

This is good.



Vitaly Savelyev:

We have Russian-made planes in our fleet, including 30 Sukhoi SuperJet planes, and our fleet is changing rapidly. We now have both long- and short-range aircraft. We are working on a contract for an additional 20 SuperJet planes and 50 MC-21 aircraft.

Regarding Sukhoi SuperJet, we expect to receive 20 SSJ aircraft in 2017 and 2018, if our colleagues from Sukhoi Civil Aircraft can keep up the pace. We are discussing the timeframe now. This is the current situation in the company.

As for our immediate objectives, the first thing we plan to do is to attain the strategic goals that have been set for us, that is, join the world’s top 5 and top 20 in terms of passenger turnover.

We want Pobeda to become the third biggest airline in Russia; we will be working towards this in the immediate future. We want to be certified as a 5-start airline by Skytrax, but we need to work hard not only in the air but also on the ground to achieve this goal. But there are reasons to believe that we can do this.

We want to be the best airline not only in Eastern Europe but in Europe as a whole. We want to achieve this goal in the near future.



Vladimir Putin:

Which company is the best now?



Vitaly Savelyev:

Turkish Airlines; it has been ranked the best in Europe twice. Europe is divided into segments, and we are in the Eastern European segment. But there is also a general indicator, and I believe there is every reason to believe that we can join the fight.

We will continue to digitalise our business since there is the big data and everything else connected with the analysis of passenger flow. We also want to change our fleet in the near future so that 40 percent of our aircraft will be Russian-made. This is another goal for us.

There are two issues I would like to focus on here.

The first issue concerns support for the flat rate programme in the next two years, about which I would like to speak in more detail.

The second issue concerns supporting us on the issue of blacklisted passengers, because the situation is absolutely abnormal. There are 3,090 people on the internal black list.

People are becoming harder to deal with, and there are only minor administrative penalties for such misbehaviour. We cite the western legislation in this respect, in particular European and US laws, which stipulate not only huge fines but also prison sentences of up to 20 years for attacking the crew.

First, we suggest that some administrative penalties be reworded as criminal penalties, and that fines are increased to 500,000 rubles. In some European countries, fines for such offences committed on the airplanes are as high as 100,000 euros.

We ask you to allow us to carry such restrains as handcuffs and belts on board, just as other European companies have, because now we use blankets to immobilise the violators. I believe that these measures, along with black lists, will help us discourage misbehaviour if we banish some passengers from our flights for five years, as our foreign colleagues do.

We ask you to support this idea; this is very important to us because of what this means for our cabin crews.

The situation at Aeroflot is very good; everything is fine and we hope to be able to achieve the targets set to us.



Vladimir Putin:

I support your proposal. We should have done this long ago.



Vitaly Savelyev:

Thank you.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52988
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #72
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Meeting with Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev



Vladimir Putin met with Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev. The Minister briefed the President on the planned grain harvest and the Russian agricultural industry’s export potential.



September 27, 2016 - 14:40 - The Kremlin, Moscow





President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr Tkachev, harvesting is gradually moving towards completion. What result will you report this year?



Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev:

The outlook is better than ever. Actually, we have a unique opportunity to gather in the largest harvest in the past 25 years: between 110 and 115 million tonnes. As of now, we have finished harvesting about 80 percent of the farmland.

We had a similar harvest in 1990, but this was due to several factors, including the area cultivated, which was 10 million hectares larger. The average yield is now 24 centners per hectare, thanks to higher yield and farming standards and improved farming technologies. Back then, we only harvested 10 to 15 centners per hectare. In other words, government investment in agriculture…



Vladimir Putin:

The yield has almost doubled.



Alexander Tkachev:

Yes, it has almost doubled. Some years, say in the 1950s and 1960s, the yield was 7–8 centners across the country, both in the southern regions and in the Russian Far East.

We can gather in large harvests in Russia thanks to unprecedented state support – unprecedented is the right word here – and the dedicated efforts of the agricultural workers, including farm equipment operators, researchers and other professionals. In addition, the weather was quite cooperative this year.

I should say that we need not be alarmed by the figures. According to global practice, the grain balance in wealthier countries is one tonne per person. For us that would be about 150 million tonnes. We will harvest about 115–116 million tonnes this year, and so there is still room for improvement.

If we continue to improve our performance, there are grounds to believe that the yield will grow, because we used amelioration and other faming technologies to develop new land and to reclaim the areas that were overgrown with trees or have become deserts – we will be able to gather in 150 million tonnes in 10 or 15 years at the most. We will be able to feed the country and export the larger part of the harvest.



Vladimir Putin:

Is our export potential growing?



Alexander Tkachev:

Yes, Mr President. We increased grain exports by 30 to 40 percent over the past 5–7 years. We are gaining a foothold in new markets, not only in the Gulf area but also in North Africa and Asia Pacific. We have a presence there, and we will continue to strengthen our positions.



Vladimir Putin:

Mr Tkachev, we should take several factors into account here; you are well aware of them.

First, when planning exports we must not forget about our national interests and the domestic market of fodder and food grains. Despite growing exports, our priority task is to satisfy the domestic demand.

The second factor is the market situation. You know about the situation in global markets, where grain prices have decreased. We should take note of this, and we probably should not hurry to market more grain but instead keep up the grain prices in the interests of our farmers.

As far as I know and can see from documents, we are increasing not only grain exports but also the export of livestock produce, such as pork and poultry. Do you see any positive change in this area?



Alexander Tkachev:

I will start with the first point, if I may. Of course, the Agriculture Ministry must maintain the balance. We are monitoring this, and I can assure you that meeting the demand for fodder and food grain is our top priority.

Only surplus grain – I stress, only surplus grain is exported. There can be no other way. Exports are a source of revenue, of foreign currency, which is making our farmers richer and giving them an income.

As for other products, you are absolutely right that our livestock exports are growing. Over the past five months, we increased pork exports threefold to some $10 million, and this is only the beginning.

Actually, we have barely entered this market. You know better than I do that we used to import huge amounts of livestock produce, starting with US chicken quarters, pork and beef, as well as dairy products. We have increased poultry exports 3.5 times to some $25 million.

I am sure that our exports will reach hundreds of millions of dollars. We must certainly increase that. The exportable grain should be used to produce fodder that will be supplied to our livestock breeders, so that we ultimately export finished products, earning much more.



Vladimir Putin:

Good.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52974






Meeting with Roscosmos Head Igor Komarov



Vladimir Putin had a meeting with Igor Komarov, Head of the State Corporation for Space Activities Roscosmos.



September 30, 2016 - 14:40 - The Kremlin, Moscow





President of Russia Vladimir Putin:

Mr Komarov, not so long ago we debated the organisation and reorganisation of the space industry and eventually decided to establish a state corporation. Many formalities have been overcome by now. What can you tell me about the progress? At what stage are we now?



State Corporation for Space Activities Roscosmos Head Igor Komarov:

In the past year, since the Corporation’s establishment, we have built the organisation structure and hired staff. Over the same period, we began a transition to a new level of planning which required re-approval of all the existing space programmes. We re-approved three programmes out of four, including the Federal Space Programme. In summer, the GLONASS programme was updated. In the past few weeks, we finished updating the Russian State Space Programme. The pending programme concerns space launch centres. There is an issue with limits but we expect to have the programme approved shortly.

We arranged the transfer of all rights from the Federal Space Agency, which is almost finished. It should be noted that we did not suspend any current operations and continued organising the first launch from the Vostochny Space Launch Centre and designing satellite constellations. Since 2015, the constellation has added eight more spacecraft. One of the completely new projects is the development of the Luch satellite data relay network that tracks the trajectory and directs flights of over 70 spacecraft. This network was used at Vostochny to monitor and transmit telemetry as well as control signals to the space launch vehicle.

It is also very important that we have deployed a cluster of high-definition remote sensing satellites, and we have expanded this entire cluster to eight spacecraft. Three Resurs-P satellites now provide us with a new quality of data and make it possible to obtain high-definition data (with a resolution of up to 0.7 metres) from any point in the Russian Federation and elsewhere.

We are still the leaders in the number of launches, accounting for over one-third of all launches worldwide. This figure surpasses 40 percent of all launches, if we include rockets with Russian engines. At the same time, we signed a record-breaking number of contracts last year: 31 contracts, including 21 for Soyuz launch vehicles with OneWeb Co. We have also made major headway on Proton launch vehicles. We have signed a contract for ten launches for the first time in the past three or four years. The rockets will lift off in 2018–2019, but they will provide the company with work in the future, and this is very important.

Other landmark events include the March launch of ExoMars. For the first time in over ten years, we have successfully launched an expedition to Mars. In the near future, on 19 October, the spacecraft will start orbiting Mars and studying its surface (we are waiting, together with the European Space Agency, and everything is proceeding smoothly and according to plan). Its descent module will later land on Mars.



Vladimir Putin:

And what then?



Igor Komarov:

We will streamline the landing sequence and the equipment that will study the Martian surface. Orbital systems will study the planet’s atmosphere and provide scientists with important information. In 2020, there are plans to launch a module that would land on the planet and lift off from its surface during the next stage of the Mars exploration programme. It will scoop up materials, and streamline lift-off sequences and technologies for returning the payload and soil samples from Mars. These are important stages for scientific research.

It should also be said that we are also addressing many overdue problems with enterprises. As of early 2016, the deficit of corporate budgets was about 100 billion rubles. I have reported on the situation at the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre, the Korolev Rocket & Space Corporation Energia and the Centre for Operating Facilities of Ground-Based Space Research Infrastructure, which are seen as the main problem areas.

As for project Sea Launch, we have signed a contract for purchasing Sea Launch with a Russian investor, S7, after several years of talks. This will compensate for a substantial share of current Energia losses, which total 19 billion rubles, incurred during work on the Sea Launch project over the past few years.

There were some problems such as the $330 million (about 20 billion rubles) lawsuit, which Boeing initiated against us in 2013, the risk of termination of the Sea Launch contract and a lawsuit that concerned our assets.

Last summer we signed an agreement with the Rocket and Space Corporation Energia to regulate these issues, according to which investments will be paid back from the revenues of a future joint venture. We also signed an agreement on cooperation in manned space flights, commercial flights, deep space studies, docking systems and other areas such as solar batteries, as well as the creation of a joint venture.

We believe that we will resolve this problem this year without additional investment, but by signing new contracts and strengthening our business, including by developing new technology.

As for the Khrunichev Centre, our problems with it were estimated at some 50 billion rubles at the beginning of the year. A year ago, we took out a loan from VEB Bank and redistributed the funds to repay some 25 billion rubles. Part of the funds – 10 billion – was taken at Fundservicebank, where we had an account. We also mobilised 10 billion rubles of our own funds.

I spoke with Mayor Sergei Sobyanin. We will get support from the Moscow Government, which has agreed to take over control of some of our non-core assets and the area where the Khrunichev Centre is located; we decided to talk with city hall directly, without any intermediaries or developers. We pledged to provide at least 20 billion rubles to pay Khrunichev’s debts by the end of the year. In short, this 50-bilion-ruble hole…



Vladimir Putin:

So, you still owe 10 billion rubles?



Igor Komarov:

No, about 5 billion rubles. We have repaid 25 billion and will pay 20 billion rubles back. We still need to find some 5 billion rubles. We will consider solutions that involve Moscow city hall or some other of our assets.

Overall, the situation is improving. I think we will settle the bulk of our companies’ problems this year and the rest of them next year.

Our companies have reported a profit of 6.5 billion rubles in the first six months of the year and are on schedule under the Federal Space Programme. We are addressing and settling our problems gradually.



Vladimir Putin:

Good.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/52996
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #73
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Let us return to the past:



Interview with German TV Channels ARD and ZDF



June 9, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

Mr President, among the many Kremlin secrets there is one that especially intrigues the German viewers. Is it true that Mr President speaks German?



Vladimir Putin (Answers in German):

There is no secret there. I have lived in Germany for five years and, of course, I speak a little German. Naturally, I exerted some effort to study it. But my children are much more fluent than I am. At home, they sometimes speak German almost as if it were their native tongue.



Question:

Amazing. Mr President, you are going to our country, which you know and where you have worked for five years. Could you say a few words about your visit?



Vladimir Putin:

I would very much like this visit, this business trip, and the talks with my colleagues in Berlin to promote relations between the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany. We have all it takes, we have everything to be able to develop our future relations positively. I very much hope that it will be a truly working visit aimed at creating better conditions for cooperation between our countries as a whole and among individual citizens, among the people who want to develop relations in the field of culture, science and education, who want to do business both in Germany and in Russia.



Question:

Mr President, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, in the eyes of many Germans, Russian-German relations were mainly associated with the personal friendship between Boris Yeltsin and Helmut Kohl. How will things be now?



Vladimir Putin:

First, I must say that we in Russia still regard Mr Kohl with respect. We believe he has done a great deal to develop German-Russian relations. As you know, we also give credit to the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin. We believe that both the first President of Russia and the former Chancellor have made a substantial contribution to promoting relations between our countries.

I think personal relations between the countries’ leaders can create a certain background. But interstate relations must be based on the pragmatic interests of the peoples and the desire to develop bilateral relations. I think healthy pragmatism is just what we need today, it would help us. In general, I think that in my present position the main task is not to get in the way. As the doctors say, “do no harm”. And the people, both in Germany and in Russia, who want to cooperate in the field of education, culture or business will do it better than the presidents, chancellors or kings. They are more keenly aware of the need for such cooperation. To be sure, if we, myself and my colleagues in other countries, could help and remove the barriers in the way of such cooperation, I would consider my mission fulfilled.



Question:

Do you agree that relations between Berlin and Moscow have worsened?



Vladimir Putin:

No, I don’t think so. I don’t think our relations have grown worse in any way. There are no signs to show that they have worsened. I think we in Russia have still a lot to do to make our foreign partners, including those in Germany, feel sure in the Russian economic environment, feel secure. It is not surprising that there has been a certain decline in our relations, above all in the economy, following the crisis that broke out in Russia in August of 1998.

The financial crisis in Russia, as we know, is just a fraction of the global crisis. But being aware of some objective aspects of this process and this crisis does not make things any easier for our partners. Of course, we have a lot to do to make our partners feel confident in Russia. But it has to be said that certain steps are being taken in that direction. As you know, a package of laws aimed at providing absolute guarantees of property interests, at making the economy less bureaucratic and minimizing government interference in the economy is pending approval by our parliament, the State Duma. At any rate, we will try to avoid unjustified interference of the state in the solution of economic problems. We will strengthen the court system, improve our finances and the banking sector and, of course, we are planning some serious changes in the tax system. Suffice it to say that beginning with next year the tax burden will be reduced by 2% of the GDP. That is a major step forward in terms of creating a more favourable and attractive environment in Russia for future investors. I think all this will help raise our relations to a fairly high level, not only matching the former level, but in many ways exceeding that level of relations.



Question:

Mr President, economic problems… (audio break).



Vladimir Putin:

I think promises, talk and general statements are no longer enough. We have passed that stage. Initially, I think, it was true that the rest of the world was listening avidly to what Russia thought and how it saw its future and what it was going to do. I think those who wanted to listen, those who were interested, have already heard enough and know what has been said here in recent years. The time has come to move on from words to deeds. If we speak about improving taxation we must take real steps. I have said that such steps are already being planned. If we succeed in cutting the tax burden by 2% of the GDP we will have left about 136 billion rubles in the economy. That is something tangible.

Another area of effort should be to fight bureaucracy in the customs taxation. We may have to take some tough and unpopular measures. If all this is done the people who work here – and our German partners have been working here for quite some time and, unlike many other partners, they are working in the so-called real sector of the economy, in finance, and I must give them their due, they are not after quick money, they have come here to stay – they will immediately feel the difference. What is needed is not words but practical actions.

We would like everything that we are undertaking in the sphere of the economy to be of practical benefit for our businessmen, both Russian businessmen and their foreign partners whom we also treat as Russian entrepreneurs because, after all, they work here obeying our laws. And as soon as they feel the difference we will see their reaction.



Question:

It would set a good example to foreign investors if Russians themselves invested in the Russian economy. Then foreign investors would feel less worried about the fate of the money they have invested.



Vladimir Putin:

That is true. I know that the first wave of foreign investments is usually national capital flowing back disguised as foreign investments. This has always been the case in all countries. As soon as business feels that the economy is becoming more liberal, that the state does not just lay down general rules of the game, but can guarantee compliance with these rules, the business returns to the country. The second wave is foreign investors proper. Naturally, they behave more cautiously because they don’t have such a keen sense of what is going on in the country. Of course, they need greater protection on the part of the local governments, that is true. We hope this will be the case.



Question:

When you speak about the need for a strong foreign and domestic policy, especially the domestic policy, your critics say that you are infringing upon democracy and moving towards an authoritarian state.



Vladimir Putin:

Don’t listen to these people. They are giving you bad advice. There is absolute harmony between what I say and what I do. Not a single action of the Government or the President is aimed at dismantling democratic institutions. On the contrary, everything we do and everything we say to strengthen the rule of law is strictly within the Constitution. When I speak about the supremacy of the law, the dictatorship of the law, I mean only one thing: that the law should be interpreted in a uniform way by everyone everywhere in the Russian Federation.

We have touched upon economic problems. One problem that is constantly raised by our foreign partners is the lack of a solid common legal space in Russia. Unfortunately, many of the laws passed in the regions, and often at the federal level, do not comply with the Russian Constitution, with the federal legislation. All our efforts in this sphere are aimed at creating uniform legal environment in the country, at ensuring that any citizen in any part of Russia enjoys the same rights and the same protection. This applies both to our citizens and foreigners who live and work in the Russian Federation. Perhaps this process of making everyone equal before the law and exacting strict compliance with the law is not to everyone’s liking. But it is a must if you want to build a rule-of-law state.



Question:

For a German “the dictatorship of the law” sounds a bit ambiguous, to say the least…



Vladimir Putin:

I agree. It may not be a very apt word combination, just like the word combination “strong state” may sound unusual to a Western ear. I have seen it several times: when I speak about a strong state the Western audience is a bit scared because a strong state is instantly associated with a dictatorship. Actually, the two have nothing in common. By a strong state we mean something quite different. We mean deregulation, non-interference of the state in civil affairs or in the economy, and the creation of common rules in the sphere of social relations, in the economic sphere. But having laid down the rules, the state should guarantee that they are respected. It should guarantee that they are complied with uniformly by everyone. That is what we read into the terms “strong state” and “supremacy of the law”. We might as well call it not a “strong state”, but an “effective state”.



Question:

Isn’t the creation of seven federal districts with the President’s envoys indicative of a trend toward centralization of power?



Vladimir Putin:

Not really. It would have been so if, for example, we had abolished the election of governors by direct secret ballot, as some governors have suggested. Indeed, in that respect Russia is far ahead of some European countries. It is not everywhere that the heads of regions are elected by direct secret ballot of the local population. But it is the case here. And we have not renounced that principle. Our problem lies elsewhere. Our problem is that, in my opinion, there is no balance between the interests of the federal government and the regional governments. This is the problem addressed by the proposals I have made in the shape of draft laws introduced at the State Duma.

We have not given up the principle of elections. There is no centralization here. But there is one principle that I think should be respected in a normal democratic society. I mean the principle of the delimitation of the terms of reference. A governor is, if anything, a body of executive power. Sitting in the upper house of parliament and engaging in law-making under our Constitution, he is effectively writing laws for himself. He writes the laws, passes them, and then enforces them. That is a gross violation of the principle of the delimitation of powers. Again, it is not surprising that it happened in our country, because Russia is in the process of creating civil institutions. Russia is just building a civil society, but these obvious mistakes must be corrected.



Question:

Mr President, I understand the problem. But one cannot help being struck by the fact that five out of the seven presidential envoys are generals. Why have political accents been placed in this way?



Vladimir Putin:

Nothing surprising about that either. Let me tell you that out of the seven regional heads only two are acting generals. So, if we go on saying that all the seven are generals, Mr Kiriyenko, the former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and a leader of the right-wing democratic opposition would also turn out to be a general, and he doesn’t want to be one. So, let us not make decisions on his behalf.

As for the fact that many of them have a military background, this is not surprising. It would have been surprising if their duties included economic regulation. But this is manifestly not the case. Their prime duty is to coordinate the actions of military and law enforcement bodies. It is hard to imagine a person who has engaged in art all his life being appointed to this job. Everyone should work in the sphere he is well versed in. And those who have ample experience and connections, an understanding of how the army, the security bodies, the police and the tax service should act, must be professionals in their sphere. This was the principle used in selecting them.



Question:

But there is yet another group of people, I mean are financial tycoons, including those who have made fortunes during privatization and have gained an opportunity to influence politics and bypass the law. Is there a place for them in today’s Russia?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, of course. You know, several notions often tend to be confused. There is a lot of talk about huge amounts of criminal Russian money abroad, about Russian money laundering and so on. You have to distinguish between two processes: the process of legal export of capital, which is not a crime. We don’t like it, but it is happening within the law. And there is the process of money laundering, laundering of really dirty money. This is not happening on a huge scale, something we often read about with interest in our own or Western press. However, there is large-scale legal export of capital.

The same applies to the people you have just mentioned. Yes, there are some people who, because of the lack of strict regulations in the political sphere, insufficiently developed civil society and poorly formulated rules of the market economy have not only grown rich but at certain periods acquired great political clout, greater than is possible and necessary for a country. I think it is not only a Russian phenomenon. Let us face it, many countries, including in Europe, have the same problem.

Speaking about the representatives of big business in Russia who work strictly within the law, we will welcome their activities and will support them. I think some of their competitors abroad, in the process of rivalry, often tend to blemish them as semi-criminals or oligarchs engaged in illegal business. That is not so.

There are, of course, people who take advantage of the loopholes in the political or economic regulations and try to exert pressure on the political leadership. Such people will naturally be cut down to size. They will have no additional influence other than what they are entitled to under the law and under the Constitution, other than can be done through the levers offered to them by the mass media to influence the passage of laws through parliament. They will have no other levers of influence, that is absolutely clear.



Question:

Do you think you have won the landslide victory in the presidential elections because the media has built up your image as the man who won the Chechen war? Could you comment on this?



Vladimir Putin:

That is not true. But come to think of it, our election campaign and events in the North Caucasus coincided in time. Even so, I am absolutely convinced that it was not the war in Chechnya or the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya that brought me to the Kremlin. Having lived in Russia for a long time, I think you may agree with me, deep down, though I don’t know what your public comments will be. Our people are weary of the muddled way in which the state institutions are run. What is happening in the Caucasus generally and what is happening in Chechnya is just one element of the weakening of the state. The weakness of state institutions has come to worry our citizens who see this weakness in their daily lives. They feel unprotected, they feel insecure, they are not sure about tomorrow in economic terms.

And all this has led to the evident result: the voter wanted to see and feel that the state is turning into an institution that will guarantee the rights of every citizen in any part of Russia. If you look at the problem from that angle, Chechnya, the fight against terror and banditry in that particular republic and all the subsequent actions aimed at strengthening government institutions and enforcing the law – all that has exerted a substantial influence on the economic sphere.


<…>


The combination of all these factors contributed to the outcome of the election for me.



Question:

Mr President, perhaps not all people in the West understand the implications of this situation. Of course, they get a different kind of information about that war, in the first place from us journalists, and we do not think of ourselves as mouthpieces for the Chechen separatists, we show objectively what we see, including Khattab and Basayev, who took up arms because they want to be free.



Vladimir Putin:

Of course neither you nor your colleagues are the mouthpieces of terrorists, we understand that. You have said that you “cover what you see” but one can cover what one sees in various ways. For example, a close associate of the man who calls himself the President of Chechnya recently appeared on television and openly called for total extermination of Jews. Did you show this? No. But you should have. Such things should be shown. People should know about them. The people in Western Europe should know who we are fighting in the Chechen Republic. We are not fighting against the Chechen people there. It has never been our aim to suppress or enslave Chechnya. It is simply impossible and it does not accord with our tasks and plans. If coverage were truly objective I think the Western public opinion would have a different attitude to what is happening in the Caucasus as a whole, in Central Asia and in Chechnya.

Chechnya is just one episode in the common threat that is creeping up on Europe. But Europe is not realizing it yet. That threat is called the “terrorist international” which is emerging in that region. If the coverage were really objective, they might have spared a thought for how the Chechen events began. They might have recalled that they began with a totally unprovoked attack by thousands of gunmen on the peaceful villages of Dagestan. When the bandits came to these villages – by the way, it is also a Muslim republic – they murdered people, destroyed houses, stole property, they took things out of homes by the truckload. You know that people in Dagestan are poor. I watched in amazement trucks carrying away whatever property people had: tables, television sets, fridges, and fairly primitive at that. How could they have done it? And when our armed forces drove the bandits out of Dagestan, they blew up houses in Moscow and other cities, blew up market places – all in revenge. A total of 1500 innocent civilians died as a result. Just think of it. 1500 innocent people!

Of course, we have no choice but to prevent the use of Chechnya as a bridgehead for attacking Russia. Russia can no longer afford such an experiment. No other country in the world would have reacted differently. What were we supposed to do? Exhort them not to kill and shoot their own fellow citizens in city squares? And such things did happen in Chechnya – massacres, mass kidnappings. And the blame for this was put on Russia which had no control over the situation. I repeat, Chechnya had become a bridgehead for attacking Russia. Russia is not fighting Muslims there. It is fighting terrorists who use religious slogans. In fact, Russia is protecting Muslims there. It is protecting the local people and the neighbouring Muslim republics, including Dagestan.

Where do we go from here? It is, of course, a serious question that needs very attentive and thorough study. On the strength of what I have said, it is clear that Russia has not sought and will not seek to solve political issues there by military means. Of course, we will move on to political procedures to decide the future of Chechnya.

We might have negotiated with Maskhadov if he had not offered as negotiating partners people who, among other things, call for the extermination of Jews. Would you talk with such a man? Not me, spare me that.

But we understand that the problem cannot be solved without the Chechen people. You have noted quite rightly that the Chechen people are not great admirers of the bandits whom you have just mentioned. By the way, I never call bandits and terrorists by their names, I think that amounts to giving terrorism publicity.

We will continue to fight terrorists and bandits, we will seek to arrest them and put them on trial. But we will build a peaceful life, we will continue to restore the social infrastructure: hospitals, schools and other social institutions, we will rebuild the economy. As you know, I have submitted to the State Duma a draft law on temporary rule in the Chechen Republic. The head of the Chechen Administration is to be appointed soon, and once the social sphere is restored, we will pass on to normal democratic procedures, to elections. The future of Chechnya as a constituent entity of the Russian Federation lies in the building of a normal democratic society and a normal economy.



Question:

And the final question. You have lived in Germany for several years. Who were your best friends there and what did you like about Germany most? And could you say something to our German audience in German?



Vladimir Putin:

You know, I have spent several years in Germany. I began studying German at school, and then continued at University. And I studied the language later, when I worked at the security bodies, and then I lived and worked in Germany for five years. I had many friends. If I didn’t have a special warm feeling towards your country I wouldn’t have done all this. And besides, my children often speak German at home, practically as a native tongue. We are very fond of German culture. You have lived in Russia for many years and you too, surely, have both positive and negative impressions of our country. But I assure you a hundred percent that when you go back home only good things will remain in your heart. You will always have warm memories of this. It is the same with me and with my family. We are very fond of Germany and we are proud that we have been exposed to the German culture, that we can read some great books in the original, to talk with you in the same language. I repeat, we are pleased to do it. So, of course, I have the kindest of feelings.

As for saying something, well, I can only wish you all the best – alles Gute!





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24205






Interview with the Newspaper Welt am Sonntag (Germany)



June 11, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

What do you expect from your visit to Germany?



Vladimir Putin:

The relations with Germany are Russia’s foreign policy priority. We have amassed great positive experience of partnership. Both our countries and peoples are interested in intensive development of Russian-German ties. I hope that the upcoming meetings in Berlin will give them a new impetus. I would like to say that Moscow is prepared to back up with concrete deeds its commitment to the strategy of equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with Germany.



Question:

Your predecessor Boris Yeltsin and former Chancellor Helmut Kohl had built up a cordial friendship; on the whole the relations between them were very affectionate. Both belonged to the wartime generation. The same cannot be said about your relations with Gerhard Schroeder. How do you see the present relations with Germany? Have they become more pragmatic and somewhat cooler?



Vladimir Putin:

The styles of communication between leaders may vary. The main thing is that something real should emerge from meetings and negotiations. Something that contributes to security, political stability and mutually beneficial cooperation for the benefit of all people. I don’t think that a pragmatic character of relations necessarily means cooler relations. What matters is that the fruits of Russian-German partnership become very real for our citizens. And that, in turn, would have a favourable impact on the overall state of our relations.



Question:

In recent years Germany has taken a more guarded stance on economic cooperation with Russia. It applies both to trade and to direct investments. This is often put down to the lack of legal security (tax legislation, customs, etc). Do you believe, Mr President, that some steps need to be taken in these areas?



Vladimir Putin:

You are right. Our economic relations have recently shown signs of stagnation. I agree that Russia has yet a lot to do to improve the investment climate. Our task is to minimise the risk factors for Russian and foreign investors, to make our economic policy transparent and clear for years ahead. To this end we are improving our economic legislation. Amendments and additions are being prepared to laws and regulations in line with the federal law “On Foreign Investments”. Work continues on the model agreement on state concession concluded with Russian and foreign investors. Enabling legislation is being drafted for the implementation of the federal law “On Production Sharing Agreements”. Work is drawing to a close on the draft of the second part of the Russian Tax Code, which is called upon to ensure a stable and predictable tax regime in the country. We are planning to phase in a profit tax, gradually solve the problem of deduction of operating costs from the taxable base and the creation of an effective system of tax appeals.

Measures are being planned to streamline custom clearing of goods and grant preferential treatment to foreign investors. On the whole, serious work is underway to improve the protection of investors’ rights, insurance of foreign investments in the Russian Federation with the participation of the state, Russian and foreign financial and credit organisations, and international institutions.

Yet, even now about 2,000 German companies are active in the Russian market. A recent German study conducted in Moscow has revealed that the majority of German businessmen who have worked here for a long period of time challenge the widespread claim that it is difficult to do business in Russia. Contrary to widespread fears many of them are investing in our country and opening new production facilities: BMW, Knauf, Henkel, Erman and others. In short, those who are active and forward-looking are gaining footholds in our markets and are undoubtedly doing very well.



Question:

Your country has lived through a very wrenching experience. How will the market economy develop? What is Mr Putin’s economic strategy?



Vladimir Putin:

It looks as if the worst phase of the economic crisis is behind us. Last year, economic buoyancy in Russia increased and the GDP grew by 3.2%. Economic growth continues this year: in the first four months the economy has grown by almost 8%, industrial output by more than 10%, exports are up by 1.5 times and wages by almost 25%.

Today it is critically important for us to maintain and strengthen the positive trends, to support economic growth in order to make it sustainable.

This is the aim of the Government’s economic programme, which is currently being finalised. Only a free economy can ensure prosperity for the country. That is why the programme envisages resolute measures to make the economy less bureaucratic, to relieve it from excessive and meddlesome state regulation, to cut the tax burden and create a favourable investment climate.

The main tasks of the Government are not to interfere in business affairs, not to manage the real sector or trade, but to protect property rights, ensure an equal competitive environment and pass simple and effective laws. That will make both the state and the economy more effective. This is the gist of my approach to economic policy.



Question:

Before you were elected President you said that you would curb the power of the oligarchs. Many in the West think this is no longer possible. You have also spoken about “the dictatorship of the law” in Russia. Isn’t there an inherent contradiction? What exactly do you mean by that?



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think there are any contradictions.

First, our key task is to guarantee equal rights and equal obligations of all citizens. We want to ensure strict compliance with Russian laws throughout the country. We want the rights of citizens to be respected equally in Moscow and in any other region. In the economic field it means tough measures to provide an equal playing field in terms of taxes, access to loans, the absence of preferential treatment of some businessmen. This is what I mean by dictatorship of the law.

Second, about the relations between the Government and the so-called oligarchs. We should give a clear definition of the term “oligarch”. If it means big Russian business which is doing spectacularly well through its own efforts – by introducing new goods, new technologies and breaking into new markets, we are all in favour of such business. We are proud of these fellow Russians. They are helping not only themselves but also their colleagues and the country.

But there is a different kind of “businessmen” who sponge on state budget money, enjoy easy-term credits and various exemptions from Russian legislation, in short, they grab the state resources. Some of them are trying to use the resources they thus obtain to influence the Government and society. We will wage an uncompromising war on such “oligarchs”.

There must be and will be the Rule of Law in Russia. We will not allow government power to be “privatised” and to be harnessed to serve personal or corporate interests, be it the interests of regional politicians or financial and industrial groups.



Question:

In this connection, does Vladimir Putin favour greater centralisation? Early signs of it are already in evidence.



Vladimir Putin:

We want an orderly government. The aim of the current administrative reform is not to limit the rights of the regions. Our historical experience shows that over-centralisation and an attempt to manage “all and sundry” from Moscow do not work. We will not depart from the principles of Russian state structure set down in the Constitution. I am sure that true independence of the regions is a major achievement of the past decade.

What we aim at is strengthening the state as the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of citizens. The main thrust of our actions is to ensure effective work of the state structure from top to bottom. To have all its component parts work as a single whole without malfunctions.



Question:

You have proclaimed a fight against organised crime. Organised crime can only be conquered by putting an end to it throughout the world. Are you going to broaden cooperation in this field with the EU and especially Germany?



Vladimir Putin:

You are right. Organised crime can only be conquered by uniting forces of all civilised states. We favour broad cooperation in the fight against that international evil. A legal framework for this already exists. For example, on April 28 this year the Council of Europe approved a plan of joint actions with Russia against organised crime that contains a whole range of measures.

Russia has also signed the Council of Europe conventions on legal assistance on criminal cases and the fight against corruption and terrorism. Cooperation in this sphere was the subject of a lively discussion at the recent Russia-EU summit, as reflected in its joint statement.

Last year, we signed an inter-governmental agreement with Germany on cooperation in fighting very dangerous crimes. That substantially broadens the framework and potential for cooperation between special services of the two countries in counteracting drug trafficking, terrorism, trade in people, smuggling of arms, radioactive materials, crimes against property, counterfeiting and laundering of money. These agreements have made investigations much more effective. Our law enforcement bodies are cooperating closely within Interpol.



Question:

An unpleasant topic for all the parties: in spite of all military efforts fighting in Chechnya continues. With all due respect for Russia’s position on this issue some people think that you do not have a clear game plan for a political settlement of the problem.



Vladimir Putin:

A qualitative change has occurred in the situation in Chechnya. The phase of the counter-terrorist operation involving large-scale use of troops is over. Now the main efforts are concentrated on preventing acts of sabotage, identifying and eliminating the leaders of the bands. These measures will continue until all the pockets of terrorism are neutralised.

The Russian authorities are increasingly redirecting their efforts to the reconstruction of peaceful life and the search for a model of long-term political settlement in the republic. Infrastructure is being restored and the work of local government is being organised. The meeting with the Chechen representatives, the heads of regional administrations, which took place at the Kremlin in March, gave a major impetus to the political process. The dialogue will constantly expand.

There will have to be a transitional period before the situation in Chechnya is fully back to normal. During that period the Government bodies in the republic will proceed on the basis of a draft law, which was submitted to the State Duma on June 8. Pending the adoption of that law the executive bodies in Chechnya will operate under a presidential decree.

The future Government of Chechnya will include those Chechen representatives who are ready for cooperation. The adoption of a final decision on the political system in the Chechen Republic and the holding of elections will mark the end of the transitional period. An arduous road lies ahead, but there is no alternative to it.



Question:

The US may take the decision to deploy a space anti-missile system, a kind of mini-SDI, as early as this year. What does it mean for Russia?



Vladimir Putin:

A US decision to deploy the NMD would undermine strategic stability in the relations between the nuclear powers and wreck its foundation, the 1972 ABM Treaty, which expressly forbids the creation of such a system. It should be clear that mutual strategic offensive weapons reductions, nuclear weapons reductions, could only take place if the ABM Treaty remains valid. Its destruction would make it impossible to further reduce strategic offensive weapons under the START-1 treaty. This is an objective inter-connection, and it is reflected in the Russian legislation. The START-2 would not be able to come into force and it would be impossible to conclude a START-З treaty on drastic cuts of nuclear arsenals, which are to be discussed. It would deal a blow at other agreements of fundamental and global significance, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. I put this bluntly to President Clinton during his recent visit to Moscow.



Question:

A conflict on the issue is brewing between the US and Europe. Foreign Minister Fischer criticised the American plans in Washington and offered Germany’s services as an honest broker. What do you think about that?



Vladimir Putin:

The position of Europe with regard to the US plans to deploy the NMD is becoming very important for Russia. We believe that the German point of view on this problem is constructive and reasonable. It is important that the European states come out for the preservation of the Russian-American ABM Treaty of 1972 and thus in favour of strategic stability in the world. Washington is unable to implement its plans single-handedly without the help of its European allies, notably, Britain, Denmark and Norway. By hosting elements of the US national missile defence system, these countries risk being dragged into a process that would upset strategic stability in unpredictable ways. The price may be very high: after an official American notification of withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Russia would have to consider options not only of withdrawing from START, but from the Medium and Shorter Range Treaty, whose conclusion was conditional on the legal and military framework of the START-2 – ABM process.

But I still hope that eventually favourable trends will prevail. During my visit to Berlin I would like to discuss with German colleagues our initiative on creating a common anti-missile security system in Europe. That approach, in our opinion, would help to preserve the balance of forces and safeguard the security of all European countries.



Question:

Today the US argues that such a system is necessary to counter the threat from certain countries, especially in the Middle East. By the same token, Washington has invited you to cooperate on this issue. It sounds reasonable, Mr President.



Vladimir Putin:

After our experts studied the true state of affairs, we have come to the conclusion that, contrary to what the US claims, no missile threat emanates from the so-called “rogue states” in the Middle East or in Asia, there is no threat today or in the foreseeable future.

I think that the slight changes to the ABM Treaty proposed by America do not adapt the treaty but actually “water it down” and liquidate it. I repeat that the American position on the NMD is a major strategic miscalculation, which dramatically increases the strategic threat to the US, Russia and other states. In fact, the American initiatives amount to “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face”.

I think that a truly sound and responsible approach is different. There is a positive alternative to the NMD plan.

The powerful arsenal of political and diplomatic cooperation should be pressed into service to solve the problem of new missile threats. We have laid out before the Americans a constructive programme of cooperation in promoting the disarmament process, including further deep cuts of strategic offensive weapons under the future START-3 Treaty, with the preservation of the ABM Treaty, the strengthening of non-proliferation regimes, notably, a joint effort to set up a global system to monitor non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies.



Question:

There is some concern in the West about renewed Russian claims to the status of a great power. One sign of it is a 50% increase of the military budget and a lowering of the threshold of the use of nuclear weapons under your new military doctrine. Mr President, how would Russia look then in this new world?



Vladimir Putin:

Russia is not claiming a great power status. It is a great power by virtue of its huge potential, its history and culture.

Russia’s actual military spending is pretty low. If, by tradition, one compares it with the US military budget, it is 100 times less than America’s.

Our new military doctrine does not say a word about lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. If you take a close look at the relevant provisions of the doctrine, it stipulates the use of nuclear weapons as the last resort after all other means have failed. Let me also note that our approach to the problem of the use of nuclear weapons is essentially no different from that of the US and its nuclear allies.



Question:

As before, the Baltic states are seeking NATO membership. Does Russia recognise their right to do so? If not, what will be your reaction?



Vladimir Putin:

I am sure no state in the world would feel particularly happy about the growth of a military bloc of which it is not a member. Especially if it increases the zone of our immediate contact with the alliance. Naturally, Russia views the plans of further NATO expansion as unfriendly and prejudicial to its security. The consequences of the admission of new members bear out our conclusion: the eastward expansion of the alliance is not conducive to European stability. Look at the growing aggressiveness of some “new-comers” with regard to Russia.

As for the talk about admitting Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia into NATO, let me stress again: if NATO approached the borders of the former USSR, a qualitatively new situation would be created for Russia and Europe. It would have dire consequences for the whole security system on the continent. By the way, the references by some Baltic leaders to a “threat of Russian aggression” reveal the sort of luggage they are carrying as they knock on NATO’s doors.

Sometimes this provokes criticism of Russia for “not recognising the right of the Baltic countries to freedom”. I see a hint of such a reproach in your question. You should not simplify matters and interpret the Russian position so loosely. We believe that every state has the right to choose how to ensure its own security. But, as the European Security Charter adopted in Istanbul stresses that one cannot strengthen one’s own security by reducing the security of other countries.

We propose a different approach. Russia has submitted a broad range of proposals to turn the Baltic states into a zone of stability, security and confidence. Our proposals remain standing. We have also taken some drastic unilateral measures: we cut our troops in the north-west of the continent by 40%. We have yet to see a reciprocal move of our partners.



Question:

Another delicate topic is the so-called art trophies. In spite of Russian laws some priceless art works, notably the Bremen collection, have been returned to Germany and fragments of the Amber Room stolen by the Germans have been returned to Russia. Is it a one-off gesture or perhaps the start of the repatriation of treasures?



Vladimir Putin:

Don’t hasten to criticise the laws of the Russian Federation. The fragments of the Amber Room have been returned to Russia and the objects of the Bremen collection have been returned to Germany not in spite of but thanks to the Russian laws. Our legal regulations have made it possible to return what had been brought into Russia illegally and was therefore not covered by the definition of displaced values.

We are ready for constructive cooperation with Germany on the problem of displaced cultural values. The relevant Russian law is based on international law and it does not preclude the return of displaced works of art as part of mutually beneficial exchanges or as friendly gestures. Our country has repeatedly demonstrated its good will. The Dresden Picture Gallery, the “Green Vault” collection of the Saxon kings and the Pergamum Altar were returned to Germany after restoration. That policy has continued in recent years. For example, Russia has handed over to Germany part of the Walther Rathenau archive. The German side reciprocated by returning to us fragments of the Amber Room that were discovered in Germany. I am sure movement in that direction will continue.



Question:

Mr President, in conclusion I would like to ask you how you see the future of Europe. What will be the future roles of Germany and Russia? And what should be the role of Europe?



Vladimir Putin:

The role of Europe has been and remains unique. It is the cradle of democracy and civilisation, and a natural pole in the emerging multi-polar world. Without it not a single serious problem in the Euro-Atlantic space and in the world can be solved. So Europe must be strong, stable and democratic. There should be no dividing lines, “double standards”, and relapses into fascism, extremism, nationalism and terrorism. The latter threat, to my deep regret, is becoming more acute.

Russia sees Europe in the 21st century as a single space of democracy, prosperity and equal security for all its states. This idea of the future of our continent is in line with the multi-lateral agreements under the OSCE, including the European Security Charter.

Russia is an inalienable part of Europe. We want to and must develop not in confrontation with Europe, as was the case during the Cold War, but together with it. This is the only way to ensure long-term and sustained development of the continent.

A new Europe is emerging at different levels, and multi-lateral aspects are acquiring greater importance. We are keeping a close eye on the evolution of the European Union, the OSCE, NATO, the Council of Europe and regional organisations. Integration processes are sometimes controversial. For instance, we cannot but be worried about the attempts to put NATO at the centre of the emerging European security system. That objectively weakens the role of the OSCE, which has the greatest potential for balancing the interests of all European countries.

Peace and prosperity in Europe are only possible in the context of equal and constructive interaction. Russia and Germany can and must play a major role in it. Cooperation between our two countries would go a long way to determine the face of Europe in the 21st century.



Question:

Mr President, you are thought to have a special feeling towards Germany. The destinies of our peoples appear to be intertwined in history in both positive and negative ways. What do you feel when you think about Germany and what do you expect from the German Government?



Vladimir Putin:

Throughout history, Russia and Germany have been closely tied together. They were alternately adversaries and allies. Today we are partners. That is a major achievement, especially after the bloody Second World War. Responsible leaders in Moscow and Berlin must heed the lessons of the past and promote the positive traditions of Russian-German ties. It is important to support and strengthen the spirit of partnership and mutual understanding. We should look not only at today but also to our joint future. By concrete deeds in the sphere of politics, economics, technology, science and culture we should provide the Russians and the Germans with a new perspective, contribute to the well-being of our peoples, and the unity of Europe on the basis of common values of progress, democracy and freedom.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24202
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #74
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with Japan’s Fuji Terebi Television Network



July 4, 2000 - 00:00





Host:

As this is your first televised interview in Japan, could you say a few words about bilateral relations and prospects for their development?



Vladimir Putin:

We in Russia have an extremely high opinion of relations between our two countries. We are convinced that Japan is one of Russia’s main partners in the Asia-Pacific region and the entire world. It is our opinion that bilateral relations should develop in line with the specific agreements that have been reached to date. Japan can become one of our economic and political partners. The development of international relations, Japan’s growing political might and Russia’s interests are closely interwoven. Given the global and regional situation, Russia has an unbiased interest in Japan’s growing economic and political might. Russia would like Japan to be a powerful and influential factor in international politics. A powerful Japan is a highly important factor in achieving a global balance in those areas where problems still exist. In this connection, Russia will, of course, be interested in expanded relations with Japan. I believe my good and trustful relations with Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori that were established during our April 2000 meeting in St Petersburg can help this process move forward. Although Mr Mori is a tough and straight-to-the-point negotiator, he is a very pleasant man to deal with; and I hope we will get to see each other in Japan, at the Millennium Summit in New York and at regional events. Right now, we are preparing for the main event, the Japanese President’s visit to Russia in early September 2000.



Host:

Thank you. And now I would like to ask you a personal question. I have heard that you practice judo, and would like to know what, in your opinion, is the most important aspect of this martial art. I have practiced judo myself, and I know that the second character “do” of the word “judo” implies the existence of some philosophical concept. So, do you perceive judo as a sport or as a philosophy?



Putin:

First of all, I want to say that judo has become quite popular all over the world. The International Judo Federation now has representatives in 150 countries. The Japanese people have therefore made a substantial contribution to world culture. I know that many people in the world are grateful to the Japanese for that, and one of those grateful people is sitting in front of you.

Judo is primarily a sport that requires exceptional fitness, will power and determination.

You have also mentioned the philosophical aspect of this sport. You have said the character “do” hints at its philosophical essence. As I see it, both parts of the word “judo” have a philosophical meaning. If I understand it correctly, the character “ju” means “soft”, and the word “judo” means “soft way”. One can therefore say that judo is an entire system of beliefs. But any philosophy indicates one’s world outlook and system of beliefs concerning man and his place in the world. In this sense, judo is a philosophy that accurately and clearly reflects its priorities. If judo is the soft way, then this philosophy prefers evolution to revolution. It teaches us to use and cherish what we have. This concept can also be used in international relations. If we value the potential which we have accumulated and use everything that is available in dealing with both our country and our partners, we shall be able to jointly and gradually ensure the result we all would like to achieve.



Host:

What are your favourite judo techniques?



Putin:

The back throw (Tsuri-Komi-Goshi) and body drop (Tai-Otoshi).



Host:

The people of Okinawa are looking forward to your visit to the island. Thank you very much for this interview.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24181
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #75
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with the French weekly Paris-Match



President Putin was interviewed by Marek Halter, a prominent French author and journalist



July 6, 2000 - 00:00





Marek Halter:

Everyone in the West today is interested in two things: Chechnya and your personality. You were saying that as a young man you wanted to be a secret agent, an intelligence agent. Is that true?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, my ambition was to be an intelligence agent.



Halter:

And you worked in the intelligence for 16 years. What sort of time was it for you: interesting or not very?



Putin:

First, in the Soviet times work in foreign intelligence was considered to be prestigious and elitist.



Halter:

And you never felt disappointed?



Putin:

No, never. There was an element of surprise rather, especially when I came to East Germany. At home, the processes of perestroika and reappraisal of many tenets of the communist ideology had begun. And coming there was like going 20 years back in time.



Halter:

Do you have time to do any reading?



Putin:

I recently read Nabokov. I enjoy reading Russian classics, especially Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy. I am fond of Hemingway. I used to really love Saint-Exupery. I memorised “The Little Prince” by heart.



Halter:

And Alexandre Dumas?



Putin:

I used to be completely wrapped up in Dumas. At one point I thought I had gone mad (laughs). In fact, when I finished reading all the novels I felt a kind of void, I felt drained. I was at a loss what to take up next because nothing seemed interesting to me after reading these books.



Halter:

That is true. He visited Russia several times and he wrote about Russia. He was fond of Russia. It was he who said that a person who sits here in the Kremlin, after spending several months here, can no longer see how ordinary people live in Russia. He put it something like this: “Here is a president or a tsar sitting in the Kremlin. What does he see from his window? Nothing.”



Putin:

I think he is absolutely right. And it applies not only to the people in the Kremlin but to all those who occupy government posts, because the biggest scourge (personally and professionally) of holding a high government post is a high degree of isolation. The degree of responsibility is so high that it is possible to get stuck with just reading papers and dealing with one’s assistants.



Halter:

How will you go about ending the war in Chechnya?



Putin:

We have already ended it. There is no war.



Halter:

But people still die in Chechnya.



Putin:

I can’t challenge that, but it is not a war.



Halter:

What is it then?



Putin:

It is a counterterrorist operation, to be precise, a special operation. I might agree that at the initial stage of the conflict it could be described as a war because there were large-scale hostilities.



Halter:

Yes, yes…



Putin:

However, I must tell you that if it were not for the attack on Dagestan last summer, nothing would have happened because Russia was absolutely unprepared and, most importantly, it did not want to fight or to see any bloodshed. Russia had resigned, as it were, to the disgrace it had experienced over the past three years. And Russia did experience the disgrace and lived through years of shame because, first, it had left its people to shift for themselves. In fact, what we have seen in Chechnya in recent years was a genocide of the Russian people, the ethnic Russian population. Unfortunately, nobody reacted to this. Nobody reacted even to the incursions into the Russian territory that were staged throughout these years. The authorities did not react to numerous kidnappings. You know that the number of kidnapped people in Chechnya runs to about 2,000. The interests of the extremists had nothing in common with the interests of the Chechen people. Chechens began abducting Chechens, something that had never happened in Chechen history before.



Marek Halter:

I remember my good friend Yitzhak Rabin, whose death was a great loss to me. He often told me that he would never talk to Arafat, and yet they had a meeting at my place.



Putin:

I would like to remind you that the Chechen people have been used, their quest for independence has been used. So, when you ask me what to do about the Chechens I will tell you that we will talk with the Chechens.



Halter:

Mr Putin, which Chechens do you have in mind?



Putin:

You know that Mufti Kadyrov has been appointed the head of the Chechen Administration. He fought against Russia in the first Chechen war. He fought on the side of the first President of Chechnya, Dudayev. Let me be frank with you, the decision to put him in charge of the republic did not come easily to me. And the appointment met with a mixed reaction in Russia. I had to draw on my personal political resources. I made the decision because I had a reserve of good will among the Russian population.



Halter:

You have said that in addition to the Mufti there are other Chechen leaders who are ready to have dialogue with Moscow. Who are they?



Putin:

You may have heard that three field commands have declared that they and their men are laying down arms and are calling on all the others to follow suit. We are ready for peaceful dialogue. We are not driving people into a corner. We have offered a way out even for those who fought arms in hand. As a matter of fact, I initiated the law on amnesty.



Halter:

How do you see the political future of Chechnya? Will it be an autonomy which will eventually gain independence or are we talking only about autonomy?



Putin:

Before 1996 Russia did not legally recognise the independence of Chechnya, but de facto Chechnya was absolutely independent. You know that. They elected their own president and passed their own Constitution, all our troops had left, police units, law courts and the prosecutor’s office had been dismantled, everything. But a free Chechnya became a bridgehead for attacks on Russia, something we could not tolerate. So today we can say that Chechnya has been and will remain a constituent part of the Russian Federation, a subject of the Russian Federation, but it would be a gross error to quash the aspirations of some Chechen people for autonomy. Humanity today has worked out an array of forms of autonomy within a single state.



Halter:

An ideological void is filled by religion: people cannot live without faith and hope.



Putin:

But religion is also an ideology.



Halter:

True, but formerly there were non-religious ideologies, which of course were in themselves religions, but they were religions without God. Man was God. But today there is God. I have discussed it with the Pope.



Vladimir Putin:

I also had a meeting with him recently.



Halter:

In the Pope’s opinion, there is a danger that the Christians who dominate the world will be swept away by Muslims extremists. Today Christianity, which is integrated into a democratic system, is separated from the state.



Putin:

I know, I have discussed it with the Pope, and he told me what Islamic extremists did to the representatives of the Holy See in Algeria, very much the same as what extremists did to ethnic Russians in Chechnya.



Halter:

To listen to you, Russia is an outpost in the way of expansion of Muslim extremism. I am referring not only to Chechnya but also to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan.



Putin:

I am glad you think that Russian soldiers are on the forward line of the fight against Islamic extremism. That is true. Unfortunately, few people realise that. Today we are witnessing the creation of an extremist international along the so-called arc of instability stretching from the Philippines to Kosovo. That is very dangerous, especially for Europe, because it has a large Muslim population. People who use Islam as a religion to cover up their terrorist goals are compromising Islam. But Islam is a religion of peaceful and decent people. Where is the problem? You know that one extremist organisation, headed by Osama bin Laden, the number one terrorist in the world, I think it is called the International Islamic Front, has as its goal to create an Islamic Caliphate, an Islamic United States, to include several countries and some former Soviet republics in Central Asia which you have mentioned and parts of the modern territory of the Russian Federation. Such are their fascist plans. I describe them as fascists because they call for a united front against Jews and “Crusaders”, as they call people like you and me. It is truly a terrorist international. In that sense Russia is on the frontline in the fight against international terrorism. When the chips are down, Europe should be grateful to us and it should bow to us in recognition of our fight against international terrorism, which we have been conducting, unfortunately, single-handedly so far.



Halter:

What do you propose as a means of fighting religious extremism?



Putin:

There is only one way: to enhance the prosperity of the Muslim population or Muslim countries generally and to introduce universal human values. All the rest would be built on these two components. In principle, the religious extremism with which we were confronted in the North Caucasus, for example, is based on quasi-communist ideas about redistributing wealth and fighting for a better and more fair future. When a person is poor it is easy to drum the idea of universal equality into his head, which, as I have just said, is what religious extremists are doing. So, we should use the methods and means I have mentioned.



Halter:

You have a chance to be the president of a wonderful country and a wonderful people which has never seen democracy, has never known freedom. But the people expect something from you. What programmes do you have to offer them? Do you have a programme to fight corruption and redistribute wealth?



Putin:

You have answered the question by putting it. There are two main areas of our work: the fight against poverty and corruption. All the actions of the President and the Government should be geared to these goals. If we are to defeat corruption we must be able to develop democratic institutions of civil society. I mean the free press, freedom of religion, stable political movements and parties. It also includes the principle of separation of power and a well developed and effective court system. When I speak about a strong state I mean a state that is functioning effectively. To be sure, it should be accompanied by a strengthening of the institutions of market economy. And what you have mentioned – taking wealth from the rich and giving it to the poor – is the most dreadful thing that can be done. We must do the opposite – to strengthen the institution of property and give every owner – small or large – a sense of absolute confidence that he will be able not only to keep his property, but increase it and use it and dispose of it in the Russian Federation.



Halter:

I remember you once said that every Russian has love of centralised power in his genes. Isn’t that true? I would like to ask you whether our Russian friends also have love of democracy in their genes?



Putin:

I never said that, but I think that centralised power and democracy do not contradict each other.



Halter:

How can you prove your point about the lack of a contradiction?



Putin:

Let us take any country, for example, France. France is a centralised state, isn’t it? Indeed, unlike Russia, France is not a federated but a unitary state. It is more centralised than Russia. But can one deny that France is a democratic state? You have rightly said that Russia has lived first under tsarism and then under communism. Naturally, it takes time to introduce all these democratic institutions. And they meet with understanding and support in Russian society. Most Russian citizens cherish their democratic institutions. I am sure they have struck root on Russian soil and will develop.



Halter:

Have you invited the Pope to come to Moscow?



Putin:

If the Pope comes to Russia and does not meet with the Patriarch, that would cause a scandal. We don’t need a visit with a scandal. It won’t contribute to bringing our positions closer. The Pope is a wise man. He understands this very well.



Halter:

What do you think about the French who write about you?



Putin:

Whether or not I am pleased with what the French write about me is beside the point. What interests me much more is what they think about me because what they write is not always the same as what they think, especially the general population.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24166
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #76
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

An Interview to Public Russian Television, Reuters International News Agency and Japanese NHK Television Company



July 11, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

Mr Putin, the Group of Eight (G8) has been a subject increasingly present on the international agenda, particularly recently. The general perception is favourable. And still, how does membership in this club benefit Russia?



Vladimir Putin:

You have rightly called it a club. It is not a forum for making decisions or signing formal and legal documents. It is a club of leaders from the industrialised countries of the world. When Russia joined this club a few years ago, it was called the Group of Seven and now it is called the Group of Eight.

The aim then was to restore and build up Russia’s relations with leading financial international institutions, to obtain credits for the Russian economy, etc. Today we are dropping this format of relationship with leaders of the industrialised countries. Our intention is to discuss global issues, just like other club members do: international security, disarmament, and some issues vital for humankind today. These are environmental problems and some of humankind’s achievements in science. A lot has been said lately, for example, about the human genome and its decoding. All this raises the need for legal formalisation of procedures among countries in using these achievements.

Although these meetings do not end in signing formal legal documents, they are very important, because they give country leaders an opportunity not only to meet informally, but also agree on some essential issues, thus giving an impulse to executive authorities. And this is very instrumental.

Naturally, Russia does not want to miss these opportunities. It wants to grasp them. Our intention is to continue our membership in this club.



Question:

Can it be said that your recent State of the Nation Address - http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1954341&postcount=2 - set out the main points of an economic programme that includes all restructuring measures, or the main body of reforms will follow later? In what respects do you expect to receive G8 support at Okinawa?



Vladimir Putin:

The Address set out only a general outlook of the country’s development and the main guidelines. It cannot contain all restructuring steps concerned with every sector of the economy. It merely points out the directions. The concepts advanced in the address must be fleshed out by the government in restructuring measures.

And still certain measures are being taken. I am sure you know about them. The Cabinet and the Presidential Executive Office are preparing a raft of economic bills in Parliament, including taxation bills.

I believe that the Cabinet could have acted more energetically. Although Parliament made certain decisions, they could have been more sweeping if the Cabinet had worked with State Duma deputies more persistently and intensely. I am sure they could have persuaded the deputies to make more radical decisions, although what has been done deserves encouragement and raises hope that the ideas in the Address will be translated into reality.

As regards our expectations for help from the industrialised countries on the ideas set forth in the address, we do not hope or strive to get preferential treatment or benefits. We do not ask for, or expect, anything. I would describe my attitude to contacts with my colleagues from other countries as follows. It would be ideal if we could practice most favoured treatment, if all the other developed countries treated Russia as they do their other partners. That would be an ideal situation for Russia.



Question:

One of the most frequently debated issues in the world is whether there can be a compromise with the United States on missile defences, and if so, how would it look? Could you say in more detail whether you see the latest Russian proposals as an addition to or a replacement of the American initiative?

Following your meeting with President Clinton the impression is that you have acknowledged the existence of a missile threat from rogue nations. However, some officials, including the Foreign Minister, later said that no such threat existed. Could you please state Russia’s position more precisely? Especially after Mr Ivanov said yesterday that he did not rule out new initiatives from you.



Vladimir Putin:

Concerning possible threats and whether we will accept their reality or not, there is no conflict between my remarks and what the Foreign Minister has said. I believed and continue to believe that the position of the US president has some grounds to it. And the grounds are that we should assume that such threats can theoretically emerge one day. But we do not believe that there are such threats now, nor that they are coming from any specific states.

We must, of course, make a clear assessment in every particular case to make it understandable to all. We must assess any threat, its type, size, and source.

The difference in our approaches is that we offer to move further, preserving the level of mutual trust and the balance of strategic arms created by the 1972 ABM treaty, to work together to limit potential threats which in theory may emerge in the world.

This is what our approaches and those of our American partners have in common. On the other hand, we have proposed joint efforts. And these proposals have been formulated in a series of my statements and some statements by the Foreign Ministry. We believe they can also help build a global security system and lower the confrontation levels between the principal nuclear powers. We are ready to open talks on further cuts in our arms down to 1,500 warheads on both sides. What can be better for humankind than a lower threshold of nuclear danger? We invite others to travel along the same road, it is clear to anyone, even non-specialists.



Question:

You are going to visit North Korea immediately before the G8 meeting. What do you expect to achieve during your visit?



Vladimir Putin:

North Korea is our neighbour. We have had traditionally friendly relations with it. Unfortunately, none of the leaders of the former Soviet Union, or of Russia, has ever been on an official visit there. Some time ago, in the 1950s or so, if my memory serves me right, Leonid Brezhnev, then not yet the general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, made a visit to North Korea. There have been no official visits by government leaders.

There are many questions that concern both sides.

We want to discuss some international issues, including security, with the North Korean leader. I have recently had a telephone conversation with the President of the Republic of Korea, the country which you call South Korea. We agreed that my visit would also include the Republic of Korea.

In 1999, we had the pleasure of hosting its President. My visit will be a return one. We have maintained dialogue both with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea. We support normalization of relations on the Korean peninsula. And we are prepared to work hard to achieve this goal. For Russia, these are not empty promises.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is our neighbour; we share a common border with it. And we are vitally interested in restoring peace and consent to that region, because this has a direct bearing on Russia. That is another group of questions we are going to discuss with the North Korean leader. We do not doubt that it will be a good impulse for the development of our bilateral relations.



Question:

You have been practicing judo since you were a child. Has this fact affected your attitude to Japan? The year 2000 has a special significance for Russia and Japan, heralding a new century. People are seeking to leave old problems in the old century. What is your perspective on Russian-Japanese relations at the turn of the new century?



Vladimir Putin:

Of course, it has affected my attitude; I have recently replied to the same question from your colleague. Judo is currently practiced in 150 or more countries. The International Judo Federation alone has 150 member nations. I believe that the Japanese people have made a considerable contribution to the world’s culture, in this case physical culture. It is undoubtedly a martial art which reflects the spirit of the Japanese people. Naturally, having practiced this art since childhood, I could not but show an interest in the everyday life and culture of the Japanese people. Of course, I have a special feeling for Japan.

You need not be told that judo cultivates, on the one hand, a sense of dignity and, on the other, respect for the partner. That is very important, in my view. It is also important in the historical context, because there have been both dramatic pages and pages of rapid development of relations in the history of our peoples.

It seems to me that if we follow the judo traditions and respect each other and each other’s legitimate interests, then in the next century relations between the two countries will no doubt greatly benefit both the people of Japan and the peoples of Russia, as well as humankind as a whole.

Japan and Russia are natural partners, because we are neighbours, just as we are neighbours with North Korea. Japan and Russia need each other. They both have a vital stake in the development of good relations.

It is my firm belief that Japan and Russia also need each other for geopolitical reasons as suggested by the situation in the Far East and in the whole world. Japan and Russia complement each other as far as material and mineral resources are concerned. We are natural partners.

And I am also absolutely convinced that if we stick to the principle I mentioned above, i.e., respect each other’s legitimate interests and understand each other, we will doubtless have a good outlook for bilateral relations.



Question:

What is the situation with a peace treaty with Japan?



Vladimir Putin:

I think the Japanese leadership and we should work hard, basing on the agreements reached earlier. My colleague, the Japanese Prime Minister, and I have a very good personal relationship. I think it counts, too.

It seems to me the most important thing here is to be open-minded and not to rush developments, but to proceed from each other’s legitimate interests.

I firmly believe that if we work in this direction, if we develop cooperation in all areas, then the problems standing in the way of a peace treaty will stop being the main irritant in our relations. We will quickly see that it is in the interests of Japan and Russia to develop economic, cultural and educational ties, to enjoy what Japan has to offer Russia and what Russia has to offer Japan.

It is only when we travel together along this path that the problems which seem so involved and difficult today will stop playing the determining part in our relations. They will retreat to the background and will naturally be solved.



Question:

You said reforms are important in every area of life. What reforms must there be in the political field? How much should political reforms echo the steps to deregulate the economy? What is your view of the changes in Russia?



Vladimir Putin:

Your question seems to have a hidden implication often debated in our society: Is there a danger that the measures to strengthen the Russian state will bring totalitarian rule back?

It is my deep belief that a deregulated economy is impossible without democratic government, democratic freedoms or civilian institutions. But do not confuse democracy with anarchy.

Following the crash of the Soviet Union, many in the world still view Russia as a chip off the old block. That is not so. Russia is a completely new state, because entirely new political institutions are springing up in it. They start practically from scratch. Naturally, their birth is painful and difficult. And it is not surprising that many civil society institutions, which are something taken for granted in Japan, Western Europe or North America, are still to appear in our country.

There are, of course, people who feel comfortable in a murky environment. We have a saying in Russia, “Fishing in troubled waters”. There are fishermen who have already bagged a big fish but want the process to last over a longer period of time. I do not think this would benefit the Russian people or our partners abroad, because if we want to develop a liberal economy, the state can do nothing but only guarantee some institutions of this liberal economy. I am referring to property rights, crackdown on corruption, etc.

For example, I have talked about creating a strong and effective state. But there cannot be any strong and effective state unless we have an effective legal and judiciary system. There is one established rule: it is unnecessary and quite unimportant if punishment is hard, severe, or even cruel, but it is important that it should be unavoidable.

This is impossible to achieve without an effective judiciary. Nothing can be done without effectively operating state institutions. But such a state is impossible to set up by suppressing civilian freedoms. So there must be no doubt that by reinforcing these state institutions we will continue to pay attention to civil society and its institutions, such as political parties, media, public organisations, etc. No one should have doubts about this. But we will allow no one to foster anarchy instead of the state, or create a quasi-state. This will never happen. Russia will follow the road covered by Japan and Germany after World War II. Just remember how it all started. Things were not simple or done at first try. Thank God, in our country these changes did not involve such grand tragedies as the Second World War. But they require patience, persistence, and will.

I want to reassure you that Russia will move towards democratic institutions and democratic government.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21488
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #77
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with the Izvestia Newspaper



July 14, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

One of the most widely debated topics today is your initiatives to strengthen the power structure. Many see it as another attempt to “tighten the screws”. What kind of power structure would you like to see in Russia?



Vladimir Putin:

A government that delivers results, which means that it is strong. Otherwise it is not a government, but an insult to its people. It is another matter what kind of strength it should have and what ends it serves. If the government is committed to “building” society only by imposing restrictions and bans while ordinary people try to keep out of its way – such a government is worthless. If the government is open and predictable and uses its power to uphold the dignity of its citizens, their freedoms, security, right of choice, if it enables people to securely and honestly earn a living – then it is a truly effective and strong government.

In general it is very much a Russian tradition to vilify the government, to fear it and not to expect anything good from it. Our historical memory is full of fears. But it would be simplistic to say that the fear of a throw-back to the old order is based solely on past experience. A good many young people who have just stood up on their feet are worried about rumours of another redistribution of property or a revision of privatization results. I can understand their fears. Endless changes of government, unstable property relations and contradictory laws – all this is not conducive to normal business development in the country. On the other hand, while the state was “loosening the reins” in the economy, tax evasion and other forms of abuse have become widespread. As a result, many entrepreneurs today find themselves in the “risk zone”, facing potential trouble with the law. No wonder they are nervous.

The question arises, what can be done about it? It would hardly be fair to put all the blame on the citizens and to pretend that the government is not responsible for this state of affairs. That is why we began by introducing measures designed to dramatically improve the business climate in the country. I am referring above all to the bills on taxes and deductions into off-budget funds that we have introduced. Their adoption would usher in a fundamentally new stage in the relations between government and business, marked by conscious mutual responsibility and mutual obligations. The state is introducing a flat 13% income tax, which makes business extremely lucrative and creates maximum transparency. In return, it is entitled to expect that entrepreneurs play by the rules.



Question:

How do the presidential bills on the administrative reform fit into that pattern?



Vladimir Putin:

You should not confuse administrative reforms and the reforms aimed at strengthening the Federation. The former are just a small part of the latter. As for the so-called “federation package,” it is fully in keeping with the logic of setting rules because each body of federal or municipal government must have not only rights, but clear responsibilities. I can cite any number of facts to prove that the state we live in is still a long way away from an ideal federation. Indeed, how do you account for the fact that some regions have been passing legislation to introduce special rules for the entry and stay of citizens or to ban the export of certain products to other regions? In some cases indigenous population was granted a special status compared with all the other Russian citizens living in the same region. And all this is taking place not in the Middle Ages or in the era of serfdom. We must urgently restore the balance and normal interaction between different levels of government.

Besides, there should be no more “politicking” within the government system, when some branches of power try to gain advantages over other branches. It is not right when the interests of the state take second place while corporate or personal ambitions come to the fore. It looks particularly odd when something like that happens within one branch, as is presently the case between the Federation Council and the State Duma.

I see nothing wrong with the heads of regions behaving like big-time politicians. But truly responsible politicians would not resort to every trick in the book to dodge compliance with Article 77 of the Constitution. The article speaks about a “single system of executive power”. And the heads of regional administrations in turn have problems with the mayors of cities who have also been popularly elected and would not yield an inch of their ground and freedom in exchange for effective mutual cooperation in the regions.



Question:

Today the governor is the king in his region. Moscow is far away and everyone – from ordinary people to big businessmen – has to go cap in hand to the local administration to have their problems solved. You want to change this setup. How far are you prepared to go? And anyway, you cannot control everything that is happening in the regions, even though you have the plenipotentiary envoy and his deputies there. You have made everyone fall in line, you have scared everyone. What comes next? That’s my first question. And the second question. Are you sure that the plenipotentiary envoys will fulfil their function as intended after a few months in office?



Vladimir Putin:

Quite a handful of questions there. And it looks as if you already have the answers to them. Well, let us take them one by one. First, it would not be correct to describe the heads of regions as kings. One should not forget that they bear a heavy burden on their shoulders: a huge responsibility and a daunting amount of day-to-day work. It is normal for people to turn to them to have their problems sorted out. But I do want to change the situation when Russians living on the territory of a constituent part of the Federation today are more “regional subjects” than citizens of a single country.

We have been confronted with this situation all along: from problems with obtaining passports in certain republics to delayed payment of wages to public sector employees. Moreover, there have been a lot of instances, even in the recent period, when economic freedom in the regions has been strangled. Regional business has been divided among “the old boys” and the press and “free” non-governmental organizations are hounded and are constantly being watched by the local leadership.

You should entertain no illusions: in all such cases the local governments are “tweaking” or limiting the constitutional rights of citizens while cleverly putting the blame on the higher levels of government. So, as soon as we really set about putting the relations between levels of government in order we heard voices screaming: Are you going to run everything from the center again? The answer is no. But nor do we want to see arbitrary and uncontrolled local bureaucracies. I recently asked the Chairman of the Constitutional Court why rulings on violations of federal laws in the regions meet with such heavy going. And he replied that implementation mechanisms are lacking. There is some logic to his approach: why try to take any measures if you know in advance that they will sink in the sand anyway. But we must take action, immediate action. We want to rectify this intolerable situation and ensure that decisions are strictly complied with. It is an undeniable fact that there is a deficit of effective government in Russia.

Now about the President’s plenipotentiary envoys. You are right that a lot depends on their personal qualities, on how they build their relations with the governors and how firm they are in upholding the interests of the state. There are sure to be a lot of hidden snags and open conflicts down the road. As for your doubts that the envoys would continue to fulfil their function, I see no grounds for such pessimism. If you feel that they may bridle up and turn surly and officious – that is just not acceptable. The heads of regions are vested with broad powers under the law and the President’s envoys have no right to encroach on them. Their spheres of activities are legally delimited. The main thing is that the creation of federal districts has brought the federal government closer to the regions and their problems, rather than the other way around. And of course federal powers are to be restored to the federal government. The heads of regions are experienced battle-tried people who have lived through a lot of conflicts, including with federal officials. So, in their dialogue with them the plenipotentiary envoys will need great skill and will have to produce convincing arguments, which is actually what they are already doing. But I would like to stress again that we will tackle all the problems together. Neither the President, nor the governor, nor the plenipotentiary envoy can improve the situation single-handed.



Question:

In beefing up the bureaucracy and superimposing it on the bureaucracy of the governors are you not supplanting the institutions of civil society with bureaucratic entities that will crush whatever elements of a free civilized state we have? What makes you so sure that these state bodies will not exceed their remit?



Vladimir Putin:

Why should they “crush” everything or “exceed their remit”? Do you seriously believe that a bureaucrat vintage 1990 and a bureaucrat vintage 2000 are so much alike? I am aware of the fears that overzealous activities to restore order would lead to a “tightening of the screws”. Well, a strong and effective state cannot and must not infringe on civil freedoms. It is not right when the policy of restoring order is seen as a chance to increase the arbitrary rule of the bureaucrats, when customs and tax officials and border guards treat citizens with contempt, insult them and make people’s lives miserable by ungrounded fault-finding and suspicions. Russia must not and will not be a police state.

But there is another problem. Because the government has been paralysed due to internal contradictions we have perhaps the freest society in the world. Unfortunately it is also free from law, order and morality. Many were quite happy with this state of affairs because they stood to gain from it. Now that the “sweet life” has ended and we have passed on from talk to actually restoring order we hear screams about a threat to freedom and a threat to democracy. But are there any grounds to be alarmed? I am sure there are none. However until recently there were serious grounds for a different kind of fear, namely, that “boundless freedom” would eventually crush the state and its citizens and will reduce to zero the very free and democratic society which has been advocated by just about everyone. Let us be realistic. Democracy in Russia was handed down from the top. That is one point. Within a historically very short space of time we have dramatically changed the whole political and social-economic system. That is the second point. The reason we did it quickly was that freedom and democracy were introduced by laws and even decrees. Sometimes they were far ahead of society’s ability to adapt to these freedoms: historical imperatives simply gave us no chance of an evolutionary development. We had neither time nor resources to spread out reforms over decades and wait for cardinal changes to take place in society and in people’s minds. Nobody gave us such a chance and nobody ever will. We have the people, the economy and the civil servants that we have, and we have no other. But there is an obvious potential for the state to become more effective and more workable.



Question:

In the Address to the Federal Assembly - http://vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1954341&postcount=2 - you reiterated the thesis about a strong and effective state which has the right to demand compliance with the new rules it has established. To whom will these demands be addressed: to ordinary citizens, bureaucrats, or oligarchs? And are you sure that the state already has the moral right to do it?



Vladimir Putin:

These processes can only develop in parallel. The state must improve itself, the mechanisms of its own work and, if you like, it should educate the civil servants by providing them with certain opportunities while imposing certain limits. But by the same token, it should itself behave in such a way as to earn the right to exact compliance with the rules that the state casts in the shape of laws. I am absolutely convinced that these processes should proceed in parallel and should complement each other. Yes, I feel that the state already has the moral right to present higher demands to itself and to all the citizens. The state is already meeting some of its obligations, though I would not yet describe them as achievements. For example, the state has always declared the need to comply with the macroeconomic budget targets, which form the backbone of the economy, and it has been meeting these targets. For the first time since the start of the reforms, we have a balanced budget and our incomes exceed expenditure. The state has promised to take more energetic measures in the spheres that have to do with business: taxation, putting the economy in order – and it is keeping its promise. Whether you like it or not, the state sticks to its decisions… All this entitles us to expect that all the other parties involved in the strengthening of the Russian state will act in the same way.



Question:

But you have admitted in your Address that the rosy economic picture is due mainly to external factors: high oil prices and a favourable world market. So, it is still too soon to attribute these achievements to the new effective state.



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, external factors are favourable and we are taking advantage of it, as I have said openly. On the other hand, the state has been implementing consistent, steadfast and conscious measures, in particular to meet its social obligations. We have been fulfilling them scrupulously. However, we are careful not to take on more and more obligations without weighing them up carefully. Yet we could perhaps afford it because the government has some revenues. We are not after cheap and short-lived popularity. We are trying to put in place favourable conditions for economic activities in order to create opportunities for the development of industry and the economy as a whole.



Question:

The trouble is that there is a huge gap between awareness of the need to build an effective state, which the President has declared in his Address, and the real state in which ordinary people have to contend on a daily basis with traffic police, sanitary inspectors or bureaucrats issuing licenses.



Vladimir Putin:

I absolutely agree with you. The Address does set goals that we should seek to achieve. The alternative is to do nothing. One could earn popularity by steering clear of confrontations and being all things to all men. But I think that is not an option. If I adopted that stance I shouldn’t have come to the Kremlin and should have done something else. To do nothing while remaining a political innocent? For whose benefit and why? If I have some doubts I am prepared to exercise the greatest of care before I leap. But if I am confident that my measures are justified I will act energetically. Talk to economics experts. For years they have been saying that on the whole they know what needs to be done. What has been lacking is the will to do it. In my Address I spoke about promoting economic freedom. What is wrong with that? Economic freedom must be protected in real life instead of paying lip service to certain ideas. If we speak about reducing the tax burden we must argue our case before the deputies of the State Duma and members of the Federation Council.


<…>


Let me reaffirm that today we know what needs to be done. All that remains is to act. And as you see, we are proceeding carefully, but still we are moving forward.



Question:

How much resistance do you encounter?



Vladimir Putin:

Tremendous resistance. We do not use unconstitutional methods. If something is within the authority of the executive branch we issue a presidential decree or a government decree, but many issues can only be settled in the framework of existing laws. So we have to go to the Duma.



Question:

Are you sure that you will overcome all these problems?



Vladimir Putin:

I am sure that we will successfully tackle a large part of the challenges facing the country.



Question:

What are the social forces that support you?



Vladimir Putin:

The multinational people of Russia. And those who resist will use every opportunity to discredit our actions. Moreover, sometimes businesses are trying to settle accounts among themselves by enlisting government bodies and law enforcement bodies on their side. That must be stopped. Otherwise these actions will continue to exert their pernicious effect. Certainly no one is guaranteed against making mistakes and they too will have the effect of reducing the base of support. But I never forget what I promised at my inauguration: to work openly and honestly. The best defense is to explain all your actions, so that every citizen understands them. I doubt that people are unable to put two and two together. In fact I am sure they will understand everything. They do not live on Mars, they live in Russia. And that is why I expect that the support will remain.



Question:

The most traumatic and controversial problem for society today is, perhaps, Chechnya. How quickly will that problem be solved?



Vladimir Putin:

You need haste only when catching fleas. In addressing such large-scale problems as we have in the North Caucasus one must be patient and proceed in a careful and weighed manner. The price of a mistake may be too high. To me, and to many people with whom I have talked in Chechnya one thing is clear: Chechnya cannot become independent outside Russia. In this case it will become a target of expansion by extremist forces. This is unacceptable for Russia because by becoming a target of expansion Chechnya instantly turns into a bridgehead for an attack on Russia. As soon as we slacken our efforts and our actions we will see this effect multiplied. We have been there before. So I am absolutely convinced that the problem must be solved where it arose. If we allow it to grow we will not only destroy our state, but will cause direct and irreparable harm to all the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation. So, hard though it may be, the problem must be tackled on the ground. It will take some time. Let us face it, in the last ten years almost a whole generation has grown up in Chechnya in a violent environment. The solution of that problem calls not only for military action, but for a large-scale social rehabilitation programme, an effective political process, for resources and certain sacrifices. It is necessary to bring home to everyone: either we solve the problem today or we hesitate again, withdraw and before long will again face the same problems, only there will be many times more casualties.



Question:

To go back to the question of the social forces that support you. In addition to poor roads Russia has another eternal problem. The problem is broad and serious and it is that of human resources. Are there enough people to implement decisions, to properly understand the new tasks that you are setting as the national leader?



Vladimir Putin:

I think Russia has never been short of talent, of gifted, energetic people with broad horizons. There is a problem with government officials adapting to the fast-changing conditions of the civil service. We need programmes to upgrade officials’ competence. Such programmes have been proposed and some are already underway.



Question:

However, many prosecutors and law enforcers still contemptuously refer to businessmen as members of cooperatives. The habits, skills and attitudes of “advanced socialism” are deeply ingrained. This gives rise to fears, especially in the light of the recent events involving business – confiscation of documents, searches, criminal cases, “rewriting” – that the state might cross the invisible line. These fears cause people to appeal to you as the highest arbiter. Are you sure you know where the line needs to be drawn?



Vladimir Putin:

We all want to live in a rule-of-law state. Every official, including the President, has functional duties and rights. Why do you think that I intend to move outside the legal framework and tell the prosecutor’s office, which is independent, what it should do? I have no right to issue such directives under the law.



Question:

You appoint the heads of law enforcement bodies and recommend the candidate for Prosecutor General. So you are responsible for the actions of these agencies.



Vladimir Putin:

I appoint members of the government. As for the Prosecutor General, I submit the candidacy to the Federation Council, which in turn appoints him. From that moment on, unlike other officials, the Prosecutor General is not subordinate to me. I can issue directives to the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Justice, or the Director of the Federal Tax Police Service. But not to the Prosecutor General. In fact, the Prosecutor General’s Office is in a unique position. But the President as the guarantor of the Constitution must watch the overall situation in this sphere. And if I see that law enforcement bodies, motivated by their professional or caste or other interests, are strenuously seeking to achieve what they consider to be positive results but what actually impedes the solution of the tasks the state pursues in the economy and in developing democratic institutions, I will use all the means at my disposal to change the situation. But I repeat, I believe that I only have the right to act within the limits set by the Constitution. As for business, I am prepared to repeat that those businessmen who try to usurp the functions of the state or gain privileges due to a “special” relationship with the authorities will have to forget about it. The law is the same for everyone. It is not right when the scope of rights is proportional to the size of the capital and property.



Question:

You have spoken about the first three branches of power. But in democratic countries the mass media is the fourth branch. Does this principle fit into your idea of an effective state? Do you see the mass media as “the fourth estate”?



Vladimir Putin:

Not as a power branch in the classical sense. But as a key element of democratic society – yes.



Question:

What is the media to you: a channel to transmit information from the state to society or an opportunity for society to express and get across its opinion?



Vladimir Putin:

It provides an opportunity for citizens to freely express their thoughts, promote ideas and seek to implement them. This is the key function of the mass media. The conflict between the government and the media is imagined. Attempts are being made to attribute this conflict to us and to divert our attention from the legal side. I think it has much to do with the subconscious fears of the owners of media empires as representatives of the Russian oligarchy: They are more concerned about preserving their influence on the government than about freedom of speech or the press. There are some talented and original people in the media. I would say, they have been endowed by God. It is the fault of the state that it has not created mechanisms to make this business self-sufficient. Now it should make it possible for people to work independently. I think if the state really wants to see an independent media, a democratic instrument of social development, it should offer certain preferences to that market segment. Today we see that it is not a very lucrative business: The costs of paper and printing services are quite high. Many still have to print their publications outside Russia, for example, in Finland or Germany. That must change, we should make the media truly independent. Then the media will come to reflect real life and not the life as seen by those who commission the articles.



Question:

In your Address you said that we have “shared values that unite us.” Will you try to implant a new national idea in society?



Vladimir Putin:

Only inventors and intelligence agents do any “implanting.” But seriously, many lances have been broken over the issue of the national idea. There are objective reasons for this: the country has lived amid fierce political battles for ten years and many have felt that a national idea was a panacea that would end interminable quarrels and arguments. The government failed to explain to the people convincingly the implications of the ongoing changes for the country and for each individual. All the words were uttered: freedom, democracy, a free market. But what stands behind the words? Copies of advertising spots from Western media or perhaps shining shop windows? Or something else? For a long time the popular mind has been exposed to this “advertising-package” propaganda. I believe that inventing or, as you put it, implanting a national idea is a futile and meaningless thing. It cannot be invented. The morality and ethics of a people are shaped over centuries. Russia, like any self-respecting state, has the basis on which we can build our moral edifice, so to speak. But to this end we must strengthen the state, the economy and democratic institutions, including the free press. Our society has greatly matured. People change and their views change. I am convinced that the outlines of a new national ideology are emerging. If society, the people themselves are prepared to follow basic common goals – that would mean that the ongoing reforms will have succeeded.



Question:

How do you see yourself? Perhaps as “the father of the nation” responsible for close on 150 million people?



Vladimir Putin:

I feel like the father of two children – I have two daughters. At the Kremlin I am a top-ranking official whose decisions make a difference to the life of the state today and in the longer term. I have an immense feeling of responsibility for these decisions and I would like to see the fulfillment of the tasks I set myself when I decided to run for President. I love our country very much. That feeling became even more poignant after I have traveled to the regions. Our people deserve a better deal than they have had up until now.


* * *


Vladimir Putin:

I have prepared some figures for this meeting. Economic growth in the first quarter has exceeded 7%. We see growth in practically all the sectors and regions, with the exception of seven regions. The federal budget surplus in the first six months of the year is 1.6% of the GDP. Export is up 43.5%. Russia’s foreign currency reserves have reached the 21.7 billion mark. All this has made the economy more oriented toward social issues.

As regards federal debts, we have repaid our debts in the public sector and reduced them nationwide from 15 billion to 6 billion. Pensions have been raised 4 times since August of last year, which adds up to a total of 77% We have been paying off debts and getting practically no support from the IMF. This year we received nothing and paid off 4.3 billion dollars. Unemployment has dropped substantially from 1.5 million to 1,069,000 people.



Question:

How big a share of the credit for all this do you claim as Prime Minister and then the President?



Vladimir Putin:

This is the result of teamwork.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24171
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #78
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview with the Chinese Newspaper Renmin Ribao, the Chinese News Agency Xinhua and the RTR TV Company



July 16, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

Mr President, thank you for granting this interview.

My first question: What is the main aim of your visit to China and which problems is this visit intended to solve? And in general, how do you assess the current state of the Russian-Chinese partnership, the strategic cooperation and what is the outlook for this partnership in the new century?



Vladimir Putin:

First, I would like to say that it is a big event for me personally: to come to the People’s Republic of China on an official visit and have an opportunity to see the life of the Chinese people, and to continue the dialogue with the Chinese leadership.

China is indeed our strategic partner. And I am absolutely sure that this state of relations, these characteristics of relations between our countries will remain in the new century.

This will not be our first meeting with the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China, Comrade Jiang Zemin. During the course of this visit I hope to meet personally with other Chinese leaders.

As you know, China and the Russian Federation share positions on a wide range of international issues and adhere to similar principles. I am referring, above all, to our goal of maintaining and strengthening the multi-polar world, our joint efforts to preserve strategic equilibrium and balance in the world and to promote peaceful, progressive and effective development of both our states.

Russian-Chinese relations in the economy and culture have been developing intensively. A visit to your country, meetings with top government officials will help advance our relations with China in all these areas.

We have discussed some problems, including economic ones, with the Chinese leadership before. I think a great deal still remains to be done. We have real plans and real perspectives of improved relations in this sphere where, I repeat, we have a large untapped potential.

All this will form the basis of the talks with our partners, colleagues and friends in your country.



Question:

President Putin, Russia plays an important role in the present-day multi-polar world. This brings me to my next question: what are Russia’s main goals and foreign policy priorities on the threshold of the 21st century? Is China a priority in Russian foreign policy?



Putin:

Russia’s main goal in international politics is to preserve the balance of forces and interests in the international arena. As you know, from time to time we are confronted with new threats, with what we believe are dangerous new concepts, such as alleged humanitarian interventions in the internal affairs of other states. We face such threats as international terrorism and such problems as religious extremism and separatism.

All this should be the subject of serious international discussion, a subject on which we, together with the leading states of the world, should work out common approaches and a shared concept of responding to all the threats we encounter. In this context, China is one of Russia’s key partners in dealing with these problems and eliminating their possible negative consequences.

We intend to continue actively promoting cooperation with our great neighbour, as I said, not only in the areas I have mentioned – the economy and culture – but also in resolving the problems I have just named.

And there is just one more thing I can add in answering your question. We know that Russia is both a European and an Asian country. We respect both European pragmatism and Oriental wisdom. So, Russia will pursue a balanced foreign policy. In that sense the relations with the People’s Republic of China will certainly be one of our main priorities.



Question:

Mr Putin, your national revival programme has an element called the primacy of domestic policy over foreign policy.

You have even launched a slogan: “Give Russian people a life of dignity”. In this connection, what measures are you going take to revive the Russian economy? And do you believe that improving the investment climate, including for the Chinese who want to invest there, will contribute to reaching this goal?



Putin:

You have quite rightly singled out what I consider to be the most important parts of my remarks. And I think the priority of addressing domestic tasks is the most important one. Without solving these tasks a state cannot pursue an active foreign policy.

Of course, creating a good investment climate is a key challenge. But I think you would agree with me that it is impossible to create such a climate without an effectively functioning state. The state should not just proclaim certain rules of economic behaviour, but it should guarantee compliance with these rules.

So, the first thing to be done and what we are doing today is to strengthen the foundations of the Russian state, to improve federal relations, strengthen the state apparatus. That remains a major concern of your country. I think that is absolutely right.

Another range of problems includes purely economic problems, economic policy priorities. And in this area we will address the task you have mentioned: creating a favourable investment climate both for domestic investors and for our foreign partners. And that of course includes Chinese businessmen.

We think that we in Russia could use some elements of the Chinese experience. I am referring to the steadfast policy our Chinese friends pursue in reducing the tax burden on the economy. We are also making vigorous efforts in this area. If we succeed in implementing the plans we have made, the load on the Russian economy will be significantly eased next year. Arguably, we could pursue these plans with even more energy and persistence.

Unfortunately, we cannot always win over Parliament, but I think there is every chance and opportunity that the Government will fulfil the tasks it has set in this area. For example, we can draw on China’s experience in fighting bureaucracy in the economic sphere. For example, company registration could follow your “one stop” model, as I think it is called. This is a registration procedure that does the most to make business less bureaucratic.

We will move in this direction. If the tasks set in the recent State of the Nation Address are fulfilled, we will succeed in tackling a large part of the challenges facing Russia.



Question:

It is rumoured that you have a portrait of Peter the Great in your office. Russia, as we know, has lived through different eras when it played a major role in the world, for example, during the reign of Peter the Great, of Catherine II, of Emperor Alexander I, and of course, the Soviet period. Which of these eras appeals to you most?



Putin:

There are no portraits in my office today, but it is true that I had a portrait of Peter the Great in my office when I worked in St Petersburg. But basically, I proceed from the maxim that you should not make an idol of anyone. I think we should keep our attachments and sympathies to ourselves and not parade them. Having said that, I have immense respect for Peter the Great as a reformer who did a great deal for the emergence of modern Russia. I think his times are very consonant with the period we are living in today.

I think we should take some measures that appear to be complicated but that are absolutely necessary, and we should be persistent, energetic and resolute. If this is what you wanted to hear from me in reply, then I think you have achieved your aim.



Question:

People say different things about you. Some media, for example, describe you as an enigmatic man with a cold face and they call you a “black box”, and some point out that you are a strong-willed, resolute man with “an iron hand”. How much truth is there in these assessments?



Putin:

You mentioned an impenetrable face and then “a black box”. Let me point out to you that a box has no face. These descriptions are to some extent contradictory. Everyone says and sees what he wants to see. I think it is natural and it does not raise any further questions, it is to be expected.

As for my personal qualities and the way I think I should act, I would put it this way. Some time ago the Russian people bestowed immense trust on me by electing me the President of the country. When I decided to run for this high office, it was my own decision. I felt that I was able to and knew how to change life in the country for the better, that I could make Russia a more stable state, a strong state that is respected in the world.

In the course of my work I will have to make important decisions and assume huge responsibility. I think it would be absolutely wrong to try to be all things to all men. I think such behaviour would harm the very people who have conferred such a great honour on me because an attempt to save a political image and to be liked by everyone leads to a paralysis of power, when decisions that are key to the destinies and function of the state fail to be made.

And conversely, if a politician or statesman is absolutely convinced that he is right, he should act resolutely whether or not some people may like it. I repeat, this only holds true for cases when a decision is well thought out, weighed and well grounded.



Question:

If I could ask you a less formal question. You have been travelling a good deal recently. You have been making many trips abroad and they are all marked by great dynamism. Are you planning to visit foreign countries in a different format? For example, the upcoming trip to China will also be short. Do you have an opportunity to make more prolonged visits?



Putin:

On the one hand, I must visit the countries that we consider to be Russia’s main partners, receive the leaders of other states and take part in various international forums. Russia should not be isolated, it should not isolate itself, but as I said at the beginning, I consider dealing with domestic problems and problems of state development and the economy to be my priorities. So, I prefer to spend more time in my own country.

As for the short duration of my visits, I think the quality of work depends not only on the length of time one spends in a country. It depends on how well the issues have been studied, on the quality of preliminary work done by experts, my aides and the Foreign Ministry.

Besides, it is important to maintain dialogue with the leaders with whom we are able and need to solve certain problems. For example, with the Chairman of the People’s Republic of China we do not only have regular meetings, but we regularly talk by telephone. The last time we met, as you know, was quite recently in Dushanbe. We discussed a number of issues and raised some problems that need to be addressed.

I very much hope that in the meetings scheduled in Beijing we will move forward on the issues we discussed with Comrade Jiang Zemin in Dushanbe. You don’t have to spend a week in China to do that, much as I would like to spend a week there.

I think that even a week would not be enough to get a real insight into the life of the Chinese people and to understand and get a feeling for it.



Question:

We’ve heard that you like Chinese food. Have you had any Chinese food recently?



Putin:

I have Chinese food regularly, but I realise that there is great variety. There is the southern version of the Chinese cuisine, the northern version and there are many other nuances.

You know, it is also part of a people’s culture. Customs, spiritual life, moral values, language and cuisine – all these are formed over millennia.

Our peoples have lived side by side for ages. So, cross-pollination of cultures is natural, understandable and evident. The Japanese and Chinese cuisines have dumplings, though I don’t know the local names for them, and they look very much like Siberian pelmeni. We also have them. But with the Chinese, there is a distinct flavour and taste. To be honest, I like it very much. It is delicious.



Question:

We know you like dumplings and we know that you are into judo. All these are foreign-sounding words. And you of course have a European streak to you.

My next question is: to what extent does the European idea have an impact on Russian foreign policy? And how can it influence the development of relations with Asian countries? Also in this connection, what place does China occupy in Russia’s foreign policy?



Putin:

We have just been speaking about culture. I am told that the unity of the Chinese language, for all its different variants, is in many ways secured by written characters, the hieroglyphs. They provide a common basis. I think scholars could tell us something about common elements in world culture which make it a single system in spite of all the national diversity.

Russia is a large and complex country located both in Asia and Europe. And of course interpenetration of cultures is extremely valuable, especially for Russia. But mutual interests are also extremely important. As I mentioned at the start of our interview, Russia has stood and will continue to stand on two pillars, as it were, the European and the Asian. This is especially true when we think about such a powerful country as the People’s Republic of China, a country which has been developing so rapidly and successfully.

I must say that this is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of our foreign policy experts. We hope very much that mutual interest in the development of relations between China and the Russian Federation will be a key element in achieving and preserving global security and peace.

In that sense Russian-Chinese relations are, as we used to say, of intransient significance, of intransient value not only for our two states but I think for the whole world. So when we identify foreign policy priorities in Russia today we always say that in shaping its foreign policy Russia is sure to rely on positive cooperation and positive dynamics in relations with our eastern neighbours. And, of course, China is in their front ranks.



Question:

Mr Putin, we know that every minute of your time is precious. But because this is going to be your first official visit to China, to which we in China look forward, and we have travelled all the way from Beijing to take this interview, could we ask you one final question?



Putin:

You can ask as many questions as you like. Only, I don’t think we should follow the principle of one question from every Chinese citizen, that way we would never finish.



Question:

Hundreds of millions of Chinese will be watching you on television. And we are very grateful to you for this.

I have a personal question. Your presidential campaign was widely covered in China. And one episode sticks in my mind. Many people have heard that when your wife found out that you had become President she cried because that meant, in a way, the end of family life. How is your personal life shaping up? Do you devote much time to your family, relatives and friends?



Putin:

She was crying for joy, I should say.

As for the amount of time that I devote to my family, it has of course shrunk. During the week it is not always that I can see my daughters, because when I leave home they are still asleep and when I come back they are already asleep. That, of course, is a minus. But, important as it is, it is not the biggest minus. There is another drawback that affects all the members of my family and that is a considerable degree of isolation.

The work load is heavy, plus certain rules connected with protocol and security issues. All this narrows the circle of people with whom I communicate. It is not only bad for my personal life, it is also bad in terms of awareness of how ordinary Russian citizens perceive what I do.

I think perhaps the only compensation for this drawback can be meetings with ordinary people and travelling around the country, my country, and above all meeting people. Often the most casual and unexpected meetings turn out to be the most productive and useful because you hear and see how people live, what makes them tick, what their thoughts and aspirations are.



Question:

People in China will follow your upcoming visit to our country with great attention. From our data hundreds of millions of Chinese will be glued to their television sets watching our special programme. Could you say a few words of greeting to our Chinese viewers in conclusion?

I think they will see on their screens the brilliant future of a widely respected President.



Putin:

First of all, I would like to thank you for this interview, for the opportunity to speak out on the problems that cause us real concern and that we consider to be important for inter-state relations.

As I said, the Russian and Chinese peoples have lived side by side for centuries. We have a huge common border. The periods in our history when we were together and tackled common challenges together have always been highly productive for both our countries.

China is a state that has been developing dynamically, and Russia is a huge power which has its own advantages, some of which few other countries share. A combination of vast natural resources, a high level of education and culture produces a brilliant effect if only we make proper use of all that we have. In that sense the Chinese and Russian peoples are natural partners. We have great respect for the Chinese people.

For a long period of time, indeed always, we not just felt sympathy, but a special warmth for the Chinese. And I always think about it when I hear the Chairman of the PRC speak Russian and sing Russian songs. I am sorry that I cannot respond to him in kind.

So, in conclusion, I will say only the little that I know: “syosyo”.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24168
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #79
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Interview to the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri and the Japanese news agency Kyodo Tsushin



July 17, 2000 - 00:00





Question:

In July, for the first time after your inauguration as President of Russia, you will visit Japan to attend a meeting of G8 heads of state, and your official visit to Japan is scheduled for early September. What, in your opinion, should our countries do to develop Russian-Japanese relations? What issues on the agenda of the Okinawa summit do you consider to be the most important?



Vladimir Putin:

A good basis for our bilateral relations is provided by the 1998 Moscow Declaration, which outlines the main areas of cooperation and defines the character of relations between Russia and Japan as creative partnership. During the St Petersburg summit, Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori and I confirmed the strategic importance of promoting relations between our countries.

That process is making good headway. It is important to move forward and not to slow down.

We regard Japan as a strategically important partner in the APR and in the world. We believe that Japan’s growing global economic and political influence will make a contribution to a more stable peace and the solution of many problems, including stabilisation of the situation in the APR.

As for the G8 summit, we expect that there will be a general discussion of ways to address the most pressing world problems. These include the strengthening of strategic stability, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, prevention and settlement of conflicts, the fight against international terrorism and the development of information technologies. The Russian party intends to take a very active part in the discussion.



Question:

Among the challenges facing Russia today, the strengthening of state power as well as the preservation and development of democratic transformations are obviously very important. Do you believe that these are mutually complementary or mutually exclusive tasks and which of the two do you regard as a bigger priority?



Vladimir Putin:

Building a democratic society is an absolute priority in the development of the Russian state. During the last decade we accomplished a real democratic breakthrough. We have installed the basic values of a civilised state. People have learned to live in a democracy. They choose their government themselves. And they do it at all levels: from the President to the mayors of cities and small communities. Freedom of the mass media and freedom of speech have been and remain an immutable value of Russian democracy. These are our main achievements and I am sure nobody can deny that.

But we are well aware that it is impossible to move further along the chosen path without a strong government that is well organised and works as a team at all levels. Only a strong state can uphold the national interests and guarantee the rights and freedoms of every citizen, and if necessary, effectively protect their rights all over Russia, in whatever region they live.

The character and possible consequences of the current reforms, already dubbed the “federal package,” have been widely discussed in Russia and abroad. And it has often been suggested that they may turn our country back to the old system of government or even lead to a “dictatorship of the federal Government”. I think these fears are totally groundless. The old methods of running the country from Moscow have proved to be untenable. We will not return to them. The reforms do not pose any threat to federalism. This is the state structure sealed in the Constitution of Russia and we will promote federative relations.

Today we have an opportunity to consolidate power, to break the vicious circle of dead-end conflicts that prevent society and the state from developing. It is our duty to use this opportunity. The current transformations constitute an administrative reform aimed at strengthening the government, and at a better balance between the powers of the center and the regions so that these powers could be more effectively used.



Question:

For the first time in history a Russian head of state is going on a visit to North Korea. What does Russia propose to do to achieve stability on the Korean Peninsula?



Vladimir Putin:

Relations with North Korea is an important area of Russian policy in the Asia-Pacific Region. This is prompted by the need to strengthen peace and stability on our Far Eastern borders. Russia is, of course, watching the situation in North Korea; after all, it is our closest neighbour. We have seen some positive shifts there, especially the changed approaches of the North and South to the inter-Korean political dialogue.

Moscow welcomes the understandings achieved at the inter-Korean summit in June. The summit can turn out to be a milestone in the development of a constructive inter-Korean dialogue and movement towards the ultimate unification of the nation.

We believe it is important to seek to relieve tensions and confrontation on the Korean Peninsula and normalise relations between the Republic of Korea and the DPRK. We assume that by maintaining balanced and good-neighbourly relations with the two Korean states Russia will exert a positive impact on the situation on the peninsula and the Korean settlement as a whole. The relations between Russia and North Korea are assuming a new quality. The new interstate Treaty on Friendship, Good-Neighbourly Relations and Cooperation opens up good opportunities for that. Simultaneously we seek to implement the concept of mutually complementary, constructive partnership with the Republic of Korea in the 21st century.



Question:

The Krasnoyarsk agreement between the former leaders of Russia and Japan states that the countries will use their best efforts to conclude a peace treaty before the end of this year. Is that realistic, in your opinion?



Vladimir Putin:

We believe that the strategic character of relations between Russia and Japan, which we discussed with Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori in St Petersburg, implies a long-term commitment, an invigoration of the whole range of bilateral ties, including trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural spheres, more active cooperation in the international arena and continued negotiations on the peace treaty.

It is through such an understanding, backed up by tangible results, that a mutually acceptable solution of the peace treaty problem, including the border delimitation issue, can be achieved. We believe that the chosen approach has already proved that it has a future: the negotiations on the peace treaty have assumed the shape of a direct dialogue at a top level. This made it possible to broaden the dialogue and conduct it with responsibility for the choice that the two major powers, Russia and Japan, are facing. I would in particular like to point out the significant progress in the development of ties in the key area of the Southern Kurils, which is important in terms of creating a favourable atmosphere for the search of mutually acceptable solutions.

This year the Japanese Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori and I plan to hold several meetings and talks, starting with my official visit to Tokyo. We will continue to discuss the whole range of Russian-Japanese relations, including the problem of the peace treaty. I doubt that it would make sense to predict the results of these discussions now. But in any case we will proceed in a way that would ensure that the results meet with a positive reaction on the part of the peoples of our two countries.



Question:

There are signs of an easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula. In this connection what do you think about the plans to create a Japanese-American theatre anti-missile defence system, and also about the presence of American troops in the Republic of Korea? Are you going to launch any initiatives on the problem of inter-Korean settlement? Will Russia attempt to persuade the North Korean leader to abandon the development of missile technologies in the light of the positive changes taking place on the Korean Peninsula?



Vladimir Putin:

It has to be noted that Pyongyang reacts in a very guarded way to appeals to show restraint in the missile field because it sees it as an attempt to bring about a unilateral disarmament of the DPRK and deprive it of its only deterrent.

Our fundamental position is that any country that is pursuing missile programmes should do so strictly in accordance with international laws without threatening anyone’s security. Naturally, every state that feels concerned about it has the right to voice it. In this context, the US-DPRK talks on missile non-proliferation are very useful.

We welcome the fact that in the context of these talks North Korea has imposed a moratorium on the tests of ballistic missiles. We believe that the settlement of the North Korean missile problem could be achieved through implementing our idea of a global system to monitor non-proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. We believe that the opportunities it provides for finding a solution at the negotiating table render unjustified references to the North Korean missile threat made by the advocates of the creation of a theatre anti-missile defence in North-Eastern Asia and a national missile defence in the US. The missile non-proliferation regime in North Korea can be strengthened if the DPRK is offered real security guarantees. In that case its missile programme will cease to be the main means of ensuring the country’s national security.

Now a few words about the Russian position on the presence of American troops in South Korea.

Russia believes that the presence and the status of US troops on the Korean Peninsula are essential for ensuring security in North-Eastern Asia, a region that is vitally important for Russia’s national interests. Holding this issue under constant review, we have been closely following the course of its discussion and the approaches of the DPRK, the Republic of Korea and the United States.

While recognising the legitimate rights of the North-Eastern Asian states to individual and collective self-defence under the UN Charter, we believe that the exercise of these rights should fully meet the common interests of easing military and political confrontation, strengthening the climate of trust and dialogue in the region while not posing threats to anyone’s security. It is from that angle that we will assess the role of the American presence in Korea.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24182
 
Old October 2nd, 2016 #80
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Extracts from the Transcript of a Meeting with Russian Journalists at the End of the Official Part of the Visit to the People’s Republic of China



July 18, 2000 - 00:02 - Beijing





Question:

Today you and Jiang Zemin signed a joint declaration on cooperation in the field of anti-missile defence. That is a political move. How realistic is cooperation in the military and military-technical spheres, and in the sphere of anti-missile defence? Is an Asian anti-missile defence similar to the European anti-missile system possible?



Putin:

On the whole the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty settled the relations between the former Soviet Union and the United States. Likewise, today it regulates the relations between the United States and Russia. The meaning and value of the Treaty has consisted and still consists in that it has created a certain balance of forces in the world, a certain equilibrium. We believe that if the Treaty is terminated and if one of the parties to the accord withdraws from it unilaterally, that balance will be upset. It will of course provoke a reaction. I think neither Russia nor such a big and strong power as China will stand idly by and will seek to restore the balance.

We are already working with the People’s Republic of China in the field of military-technical cooperation. How far this cooperation may go would depend on circumstances. So, it is simply premature to speak about it now. Clearly, there will be a reaction, that is understood.



Question:

Let us imagine a situation in which China has built up a big lead on you economically. Can it pose a threat to the unity of Russia, considering that China is close to the Russian Far East?



Putin:

You know, if you want to live well yourself you should want your neighbours to live well. China is our long-time partner, and we are absolutely sure that not only because of geographical proximity, but also due to the many years of ties between the two states the development of one side would bring nothing but benefit to the other side.

To give you an example: Today we witness a dramatic leap in the trade between Russia and China. Chinese exports to the Russian Federation increased by almost 70% recently. How can we account for it? The purchasing power of the Russian population has grown. And so we can see that as soon as things improve a bit in one of the countries, the other country immediately benefits. We will see a similar effect if China takes a step forward. As China’s partners we certainly expect that it will have a positive impact on us. In fact we are sure of this.

To answer your first question, I would like to add that our current state of relations with the American partners gives us grounds to believe that we will solve these acute issues together. This is the conclusion prompted to me, among other things, by my personal meetings with the US President when we discussed anti-missile defence. Today I recalled my conversation with the President of the Untied States during my talks with the Chinese leaders. I recalled President Clinton saying that our discussions on this topic should not take place without the People’s Republic of China and should not arouse its suspicions. This gives us confidence that such complicated issues of critical importance for the future of humankind will be solved by all the parties to the process in the interests of all the people of the globe. We very much count on this and I think we have every chance of reaching an understanding and solutions of this kind.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/24170






News Conference Following a Meeting of Heads of State During the G8 Summit



July 23, 2000 - 00:00 - International Media Centre, Okinawa, Japan





Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,

Before discussing the substance of the problems that have brought us here, I would like to congratulate my colleague, Prime Minister Yoshiro Mori of Japan, on the brilliant results of the work. I would like to thank him also for the excellent organisation of our meeting. Because not only the quality of organisation and of the documents passed, and the spirit that has prevailed here, but also the active participation of Japan in organising all these events, have undoubtedly contributed to further strengthening its positions. It makes Japan a more influential country in tackling the enormous challenges facing humankind.

And I would like to say special words of thanks for the people of Okinawa, because the friendliness, the sincerity and warmth of our reception here created a unique atmosphere and contributed to the good results of our meeting. So, I offer my sincere gratitude to the people of Okinawa.

The discussions of key international issues over these past few days have confirmed that we can only find an answer to the global problems that we are facing today and will face tomorrow if we join forces. Only together can we come to decisions which, though not always ideal, will unite us. I think the final document of the meeting is an example of just such a result.

It is a kind of common denominator of the positions of the G8 member countries. We are sure that the results of our joint efforts will have a real positive impact on international affairs. It is particularly important in the spheres of maintaining strategic stability, the fight against terror, organised crime, drug trafficking and in preventing regional conflicts.

We have confirmed the position of the Russian Federation on the problem of preserving the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And I would like to repeat that today non-strategic anti-missile defence systems are enough to effectively meet the missile threats today and in the near historical future. We are ready to cooperate with all countries. And that is very important. In my opinion, the fundamental thing is that these issues should be tackled together.

I note with satisfaction the bilateral contacts which began with a meeting with the President of the Untied States. As you know, we have signed a joint statement in which we have reaffirmed our interest in an early ratification of START II by the United States and expressed our joint commitment to broadening our contacts on preparing START III. That amounts to an indirect approval of our proposals aimed at ensuring international security and lowering the threshold of nuclear confrontation while intensifying joint actions to neutralise possible threats.

The new global challenges facing mankind loomed large on the summit agenda. They include international terrorism, organised crime, drug trafficking, aggressive ethnic separatism, nationalism and religious extremism. Today these common problems call for a united and consolidated approach. We are ready to work on possible joint steps in these areas.

We note with satisfaction that as a result of a dialogue at various levels we have achieved progress in developing a coordinated strategy of averting conflicts. It is an important sphere of our cooperation. Today we should work out a culture of preventing conflicts and – I would like to emphasise this – with mandatory intellectual and legal analysis of all the components of these complicated problems.

It is a matter of fundamental importance that the G8 has unequivocally reaffirmed the leading role of the United Nations and its Security Council in peacemaking, as well as its prerogatives as regards the sanctioning of the use of military force. I want to stress this point.

International terrorism is a special topic. It still poses a challenge to peace and stability of all states, threatens the security and well-being of citizens and the safety of individuals. During the course of the discussion we drew the attention of our colleagues to the emergence, as we have repeatedly pointed out, of an arc of instability, which, in our opinion, stretches from the Philippines to Kosovo. This is highlighted by the current hostage-taking tragedy in the Philippines.

In my opinion, the centre of that arc is gradually shifting towards Afghanistan, which is felt not only by Russia and Central Asian countries, but by other countries as well. The only solution is to broaden the international system of combating terrorism and to make it more effective. It is important not to bury our heads in the sand, ostrich-like, and not to pretend that the threat does not exist. The worst thing we can do is to pretend that it does not exist and keep paying money to terrorists, paying them a ransom. No amount of money will be enough because their aggressive appetites will continue to grow.

As before, we attach great importance to economic issues. As you know, Russia has managed to overcome the most acute consequences of the 1998 financial crisis. A programme of actions has been approved for 2001. Policy guidelines up to the year 2010 have been approved. We set the target of the growth of the Gross Domestic Product by at least 5% a year, which should double Russia’s GDP over 10 years.

The important thing is the extent to which Russia manages to fit into the world trade, economic and financial system. The important question is just how much of an equal partner to industrialised countries can Russia be. Russian entrepreneurs and industrialists should be mindful of the globalisation of the world economy, and Russia as a whole should not be left out of this process.

We had detailed discussions of what I believe to be equally important topics, such as the development of democracy, sustainable development, the environment, information security and the creation of an information community.

We had a fruitful discussion of the problems of health (as you are aware, they are reflected in the final documents), education, cultural diversity and a whole range of regional topics. Our goal is socially responsible globalisation. It means active contribution to the bridging of the economic and social development gaps among all the members of the international community, narrowing the widening gulf between rich and poor countries, and preventing the emergence of new barriers. I am not referring to ideological barriers – thank God, we have left those behind in the 20th century – but to economic barriers.

The same can be said about the need to use the results of the information and scientific and technological revolution for the good of everyone and exclusively for peaceful, creative purposes. The development of the market economy in the 21st century, free movement of capital and ideas should neither lead to a speculative free-for-all nor to excessive supranational regulation.

All countries and nations must have access to the fruits of regional and global integration. As you know, much of that discussion focused on the problem of the human genome.

Reasonable and effective government, democratic development of the diverse social forms of human civilisation in the 21st century should increase and not diminish individual security.

The latest fruits of the collective human reason, be it the human genome, which I have mentioned, the International Space Station or the Internet, will serve all, and not selected members of the international community. That should be our goal.

As we have seen, all our G8 partners agree with Russia’s main thesis: strengthening strategic stability and broader international cooperation as a means to achieve a high standard of living for all in the context of a socially oriented globalisation. This is particularly heartening on the eve of the international milestone event, the Millennium Summit the United Nations will hold this autumn. Russia is preparing for this event and will of course take a very active part in it.

Thank you for your attention. I am ready to answer your questions.



Question:

Mr Putin, on the eve of the meeting many suggested that the topic of the national anti-missile defence might become an irritant for G8 members. Now that the event is over, was this topic a subject of discussion or not?



Putin:

I can confirm that it was discussed in bilateral meetings, both in official bilateral meetings and in the many talks on the fringes of the official meetings. I’ll tell you what my approach is. I think that if we want to achieve a positive result in discussing and solving global problems we must not follow blind alleys, we must invariably choose a route that leads to some common positions. I think we are succeeding in following such a route with our American partners, above all with President Clinton, despite some differences between us on issues of principle.

Our joint statement confirms what I have just said. Yes, we have disagreements and different views on the problems at hand. But there are some issues we agree on. We have agreed on the need to have more intensive contacts regarding START III. And this is in fact one of our proposals. As I’ve said, it is necessary to bring down the level of nuclear confrontation and build up multi-national efforts in the field of arms control, to create a global control system. We should create a missile launch control centre, on which we have agreed. That centre should involve not only us, as America’s partners, but other interested parties, for example, Europe. We should think together about other options to enable us to jointly oppose the possible threats that our partners have mentioned while preserving the overall balance of forces.

I think we will always be able to find a solution if we do not paint ourselves into a corner every time, but look for a common route.



Question:

You have become the star of the forum. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that Russia must become a full-fledged member of the G8. How do you see Russia’s role in the G8 in the future?



Putin:

Thank you for your characteristic. Developing a star syndrome is the last thing I would like to see happen to me. I don’t think I am in any danger of that. As for the role of the G8 as a whole, and Russia’s place in the G8, I would like to say the following. We have a high opinion of the efforts of this forum. We believe it has found a niche in the system of international ties. This forum does not supplant any of the permanent international organisations, it deals with global issues, preparing solutions, as it were, at the international legal level. It can also give impulses to their solution and promote cooperation.

That is extremely important for everyone, including Russia. Russia does not want and cannot afford to be excluded from the process of making these decisions. We should be integrated in all the structures that work out decisions affecting Russia. In that sense Russia is of course interested and will work in the framework of the G8. Indeed, we are ready to expand our participation.

As you know, Russia is considering the possibility and will seek to become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organisation. We hope to be able to join the WTO on standard terms. The whole package of documents has already been submitted. As Russia becomes more and more integrated in the international economic community it will play a growing role in the G8. We do not want to run ahead of the events, everything should run its course. We are not interested in rushing progress in our relations.

Russia wants and is ready for cooperation with the G8. But I think that all the G8 countries are also interested in having Russia by their side and taking part in hammering out these decisions. The quality of decisions and their effective implementation depend on it.



Question:

The political leaders with whom you had talks have approved the results of your visit to North Korea. Do you feel that the leaders of developed countries are really ready to share the full risk and responsibility, for example, involved in the process of integration of North Korea in the world community? Or will it remain a Russian “speciality”?



Putin:

I don’t feel that this is some kind of burden for Russia. We all know that North Korea is a neighbour of the Russian Federation, we have a common border. We are aware that the situation on the Korean Peninsula is still explosive. And Russia does not want to have any explosive situations close to its borders. This is in our national interests. My visit to Korea was connected with this problem and with our immediate national interests.

The G8 leaders have welcomed my trip to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I had preliminary telephone conversations with some parties to the settlement process, including with the President of the Republic of Korea, that is, with the southern part of the peninsula. And earlier still, we had discussions with several G8 leaders. And of course, I briefed them in a general way on the results of my talks with the leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

I have to say that the trip itself and its results have met with a positive reaction. I for one believe that the fewer “blank spots” there are the better. In order to understand what is happening one must have contacts, links and information. If we hear of certain fears about the missile programmes pursued by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we should know exactly what these programmes are, their scale and the extent of the threat they pose.

Strategic stability issues are mainly discussed between the United States and Russia, but the destinies of other countries also depend on our accurate perception of the situation and how thoroughly we can prepare. In order to solve problems effectively we must first have accurate information. Such information cannot be obtained without working with the subjects under international law involved in this process. North Korea, the DPRK, has become involved in this process.

I repeat, the information I provided met with a positive reaction. In fact, it seemed to me that the arguments I advanced have led some of our colleagues to consider the possibility of revising the level and quality of their relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I think that is only right.



Question:

Mr Putin, what impact will your participation in this meeting have on life in Russia? All this, including your meetings with the leaders who are here, is the external side. But what implications does it have for the social and political life in Russia, for your image as the head of state inside Russia?



Putin:

If I said that I am not particularly concerned about my image, you would probably not believe me. But under the circumstances, that is true. I have not come here to improve my image, but to perform my official duties. I was elected President in order to deal with the problems of domestic and foreign policy. Here we are dealing with foreign policy issues.

That undoubtedly has an impact on the internal political and economic situation in the country. I would just like to repeat what I said a little earlier. The meetings of the G8 leaders adopt or prepare decisions that go a long way to determine the overall international security architecture, the economic and financial architecture. These meetings deal with global issues.

Today we said that the work of the G8 should be more forward-looking. We should foresee the processes developing in the world and be proactive. Of course it is highly important for Russia to take part in making these decisions.

What is the alternative? To leave global problems unattended to and then either resist or fit into the process which we may or may not like. That, of course, would hinder the international community as a whole and Russia. If decisions are worked out jointly with Russia, they take our interests into account. This is extremely important.

But in addition to these broad, general things there are applied topics that cannot but be of interest. Take one of the topics we discussed, the problem of the human genome. You know that Russia has been working on this for more than 10 years. The Soviet Union used to allocate considerable resources for research into this subject. At the time scientists agreed that all the information in this sphere would be accessible to everyone who wished to use it. That openness was instrumental in achieving results that are exceedingly important for the destinies of humankind. Today everyone has access to these results.

But approaches to using them differ. Some say that from this moment on part of the information should be closed, other leaders say that the open regime should be preserved. The life and health of millions of Russians, without exaggeration, hinge on how this issue is resolved. Because it determines the quality and amount of medicines, their prices and effectiveness.

Or take another problem that we have discussed, the problem of the quality of food connected with bio-technologies, genetic engineering and so on. The handling of that problem also affects practically every Russian citizen. We buy huge quantities of food abroad. And the quality of that food is important for us. These issues have practical relevance even today.

We have agreed that it would be practicable to set up an international organisation or an international panel of experts to, first, study these problems and, second, some leaders have expressed thoughts about the procedure of informing the population on these issues, the procedure of bringing to the consumer everything we know about these products, including the opinions of experts.

Such issues are of direct practical relevance for every Russian citizen. It cannot but be a matter of interest to us. So, I think our work here has been extremely important from that point of view too. This forum has done a lot of important work.



Question:

Mr Putin, where will you be heading after Okinawa and what are you going to do there?



Putin:

You know the saying, “There is no place like home”. So, I am going home. Because since I became the country’s President, my home is not a city or a street, but the whole of the Russian Federation, I am going to the Russian Federation, to Kamchatka, to be precise. The area is very far from Moscow and visiting it takes extra time, and one is always short of time. And now that I am here, next door, I think it is my duty to devote some attention to the problems of the Russian Far East.

I flew here from another region in the Far East, from the city of Blagoveshchensk. On my way back I want to make a stop-over in Kamchatka to meet with the local leaders, with the governor of the region, as we have already agreed, and discuss with him the problems of the region’s development.



Question:

What was your impression from your meeting with Mr Jacques Chirac?



Putin:

Jacques Chirac is a recognised leader in world politics, he is a very experienced man, I would even say an expert on some matters. Frankly, I was amazed at his encyclopaedic knowledge in some areas, especially in the field of oriental martial arts. He is very keen on sumo wrestling, he was telling me about it with enthusiasm and with profound knowledge of the subject. We had a very good discussion. He presented me with a book and I too gave him a book – about the Kremlin. France must never forget where the Kremlin is. There is such a place in the world.

We talked a lot about the influence of Russian culture on French and, vice versa, the impact of French culture on Russia. You know that the Russian people have always had a special feeling for France precisely because of powerful reciprocal cultural influence.

I expect to visit France in October because France is the current president of the European Community. I hope that the dialogue will continue and that it will be to the benefit both of France and of Russia.



Question:

Mr Putin, not only Russia, but also many US allies, including France and Germany, are critical of the US plans to deploy an anti-missile defence system. Do you think that after your visit to North Korea and after the meetings that you held there, that attitude will change further? Will US allies become even more vigorously opposed to the plans of an anti-missile defence?



Putin:

You know, when we gather at such forums (at least I can speak for myself) we do not try to outwit each other and put all the rest in an impasse, a difficult position. We have our position, we promote it and advance additional arguments. I had a feeling that the arguments voiced this time made a positive impression on all the participants in our meeting. And I certainly hope that they will be heeded in the course of our further negotiations on a topic that is vital for all of humankind.



Question:

Your opinion of Kim Jong Il is widely known. Can it be said that your visit to the DPRK indicates a dramatic change of policy? Is it really a change of course? What are the motives behind it?



Putin:

As for motives, I have already said and I can repeat that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is our neighbour. A peace dialogue is underway on the Korean Peninsula. Russia has a vital stake in this dialogue being settled by peaceful means and it will do everything to contribute to that dialogue on the understanding that it is ultimately up to the Korean nation itself to decide.

Secondly, during the discussion of global security issues we were presented with an argument about various military and missile threats, with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea being mentioned more and more often in this context. Naturally, I wanted to take a closer look at this problem on the spot.

These were the arguments behind my decision to go to the People’s Republic of Korea. I am satisfied with the results. Needless to say, two days of negotiations and meetings are not enough to draw sweeping and final conclusions. But without getting in touch, without getting additional information it is impossible to draw any conclusions at all. And still less is it possible to make any decisions, especially of a global character.

As for my impressions of the leadership of North Korea, I have already made them known and I can merely repeat them. The Juche idea is well known to you. But leaving aside the adherence to certain ideas on the basis of which the edifice of the North Korean state is built, I got a strong impression that the Korean leader can listen and hear what he is told. He responds to arguments in the course of discussion. He can be a partner in communication and negotiations. One can talk with him.

But of course we should heed the national interests of North Korea itself, they should not be discounted. Otherwise we won’t achieve any positive results in anything, including the solution of such a complicated problem as the settlement of the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

We very much hope that the result of my trip will be used by all the interested parties. We do not want to monopolise these results. We offer them to all the participants in this process.

Thank you very much. I wish you all the best.





The source of information - http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21497
 
Reply

Tags
putin, putin speech, vladimir putin

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.
Page generated in 1.64898 seconds.