{"id":136492,"date":"2019-07-01T12:01:03","date_gmt":"2019-07-01T11:01:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=136492"},"modified":"2019-06-29T08:44:29","modified_gmt":"2019-06-29T07:44:29","slug":"vladimir-putin-interview-with-the-financial-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/07\/vladimir-putin-interview-with-the-financial-times\/","title":{"rendered":"Vladimir Putin Interview with The Financial Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

27 Jun 2019 – On the eve of the G20 summit in Osaka, Vladimir Putin spoke with <\/em>The Financial Times editor Lionel Barber and Moscow bureau chief Henry Foy. <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Vladimir Putin\u2019s interview with The\u00a0Financial Times.<\/p><\/div>\n

Lionel Barber:<\/strong> Mr President, you head for\u00a0Osaka shortly as\u00a0the\u00a0senior statesman at\u00a0the\u00a0G20. Nobody has been to\u00a0so many international meetings of\u00a0this grouping and\u00a0the\u00a0G7 over the\u00a0last 20 years while you have been in\u00a0charge of\u00a0Russia. Before we talk about the\u00a0G20 agenda and\u00a0what you hope to\u00a0achieve, we know that there are rising tensions between America and\u00a0China in\u00a0trade, the\u00a0risk of\u00a0conflict in\u00a0the\u00a0Gulf. I\u00a0would be very grateful if you could talk a\u00a0bit about how you have seen the\u00a0world change over the\u00a0last 20 years while you have been in\u00a0power.<\/p>\n

President of\u00a0Russia Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> First, I\u00a0have not been in\u00a0power for\u00a0all these 20 years. As\u00a0you may know, I\u00a0was Prime Minister for\u00a0four years, and\u00a0that is not the\u00a0highest authority in\u00a0the\u00a0Russian Federation. But nevertheless, I\u00a0have been around for\u00a0a\u00a0long time in\u00a0government and\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0upper echelons, so I\u00a0can judge what is changing and\u00a0how. In\u00a0fact, you just said it yourself, asking what has changed and\u00a0how. You mentioned the\u00a0trade wars and\u00a0the\u00a0Persian Gulf developments. I\u00a0would cautiously say the\u00a0situation has not changed for\u00a0the\u00a0better, but I\u00a0remain optimistic to\u00a0a\u00a0certain extent. But, to\u00a0put it bluntly, the\u00a0situation has definitely become more dramatic and\u00a0explosive.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber:<\/strong> Do you believe that the\u00a0world now has become more fragmented?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Of\u00a0course, because during the\u00a0Cold War, the\u00a0bad thing was the\u00a0Cold War. It is true. But there were at\u00a0least some rules that all participants in\u00a0international communication more or\u00a0less adhered to\u00a0or\u00a0tried to\u00a0follow. Now, it seems that there are no rules at\u00a0all. In\u00a0this sense, the\u00a0world has become more fragmented and\u00a0less predictable, which is the\u00a0most important and\u00a0regrettable thing.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber:<\/strong> We will return to\u00a0this theme of\u00a0the\u00a0world without rules, fragmentation, more transactional. But first, Mr President, tell us what you want to\u00a0achieve in\u00a0Osaka, in\u00a0terms of\u00a0your relationships with these other parties? What are your main goals for\u00a0the\u00a0summit?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I\u00a0would very much like all the\u00a0participants in\u00a0this event, and\u00a0the\u00a0G20, in\u00a0my\u00a0opinion, is a\u00a0key international economic development forum today, so I\u00a0would like all the\u00a0G20 members to\u00a0reaffirm their intention\u00a0\u2013 at\u00a0least an\u00a0intention\u00a0\u2013 to\u00a0work out some general rules that everyone would follow, and\u00a0show their commitment and\u00a0dedication to\u00a0strengthening international financial and\u00a0trade institutions.<\/p>\n

Everything else is details that complement the\u00a0main topics one way or\u00a0another. We certainly support Japan\u2019s Presidency. As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0development of\u00a0modern technology, the\u00a0information world, the\u00a0information economy, as\u00a0well as\u00a0our Japanese colleagues\u2019 attention to\u00a0matters such as\u00a0longevity and\u00a0the\u00a0environment\u00a0\u2013 all this is extremely important, and\u00a0we will certainly support it and\u00a0will take part in\u00a0all these discussions. Even though it is hard to\u00a0expect any breakthroughs or\u00a0landmark decisions in\u00a0the\u00a0current conditions; we can hardly count on\u00a0it today. But in\u00a0any case, there is hope at\u00a0least that during these general discussions and\u00a0bilateral meetings we will be able to\u00a0smooth out the\u00a0existing disagreements and\u00a0lay a\u00a0foundation, a\u00a0basis for\u00a0positive movement forward.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber:<\/strong> You will have a\u00a0meeting with Mohammad bin Salman in\u00a0Osaka. Can we expect an\u00a0extension of\u00a0the\u00a0current agreement on\u00a0oil production? Limitations?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> As\u00a0you know, Russia is not an\u00a0OPEC member, even though it is among the\u00a0world\u2019s largest producers. Our daily production is estimated at\u00a011.3 million barrels, I\u00a0believe. The\u00a0United States has surged ahead of\u00a0us, though. However, we believe that our production stabilisation agreements with Saudi Arabia and\u00a0OPEC in\u00a0general have had a\u00a0positive effect on\u00a0market stabilisation and\u00a0forecasting.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0believe both energy producers, in\u00a0this case, oil producing countries, and\u00a0consumers are interested in\u00a0this, because stability is definitely in\u00a0short supply at\u00a0present. And\u00a0our agreements with Saudi Arabia and\u00a0other OPEC members undoubtedly strengthen stability.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0for\u00a0whether we will extend the\u00a0agreement, you will find out in\u00a0the\u00a0next few days. I\u00a0had a\u00a0meeting on\u00a0this issue with the\u00a0top executives of\u00a0our largest oil companies and\u00a0Government members right before this interview.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>They are a\u00a0little bit frustrated. They would like to\u00a0produce more. Is that correct?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> They have a\u00a0smart policy. It is not about increasing production, although that is a\u00a0major component in\u00a0the\u00a0work of\u00a0large oil companies. It is about the\u00a0market situation. They take a\u00a0comprehensive view of\u00a0the\u00a0situation, as\u00a0well as\u00a0of\u00a0their revenues and\u00a0expenses. Of\u00a0course, they are also thinking about boosting the\u00a0industry, timely investments, ways to\u00a0attract and\u00a0use modern technology, as\u00a0well as\u00a0about making this vital industry more attractive for\u00a0investors.<\/p>\n

However, dramatic price hikes or\u00a0slumps will not contribute to\u00a0market stability and\u00a0will not encourage investment. This is why we discussed all these issues in\u00a0their totality today.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, you have observed four American presidents at\u00a0close quarters and\u00a0will maybe five, you have had direct experience. So, how is Mr Trump different?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> We are all different. No two people are the\u00a0same, just like there are no identical sets of\u00a0fingerprints. Anyone has his or\u00a0her own advantages, and\u00a0let the\u00a0voters judge their shortcomings. On\u00a0the\u00a0whole, I\u00a0maintained sufficiently good-natured and\u00a0stable relations with all the\u00a0leaders of\u00a0the\u00a0United States. I\u00a0had an\u00a0opportunity to\u00a0communicate more actively with some of\u00a0them.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0first US President I\u00a0came into contact with was Bill Clinton. Generally, I\u00a0viewed this as\u00a0a\u00a0positive experience. We established sufficiently stable and\u00a0business-like ties for\u00a0a\u00a0short period of\u00a0time because his tenure was already coming to\u00a0an\u00a0end. I\u00a0was only a\u00a0very young president then who had just started working. I\u00a0continue to\u00a0recall how he established partner-like relations with me. I\u00a0remain very grateful to\u00a0him for\u00a0this.<\/p>\n

There have been different times, and\u00a0we had to\u00a0address various problems with all other colleagues. Unfortunately, this often involved debates, and\u00a0our opinions did not coincide on\u00a0some matters that, in\u00a0my\u00a0opinion, can be called key aspects for\u00a0Russia, the\u00a0United States and\u00a0the\u00a0entire world. For\u00a0example, this includes the\u00a0unilateral US withdrawal from the\u00a0Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that, as\u00a0we have always believed, and\u00a0as\u00a0I\u00a0am still convinced, was the\u00a0cornerstone of\u00a0the\u00a0entire international security system.<\/p>\n

We debated this matter for\u00a0a\u00a0long time, argued and\u00a0suggested various solutions. In\u00a0any event, I\u00a0made very energetic attempts to\u00a0convince our US partners not to\u00a0withdraw from the\u00a0Treaty. And, if the\u00a0US side still wanted to\u00a0withdraw from the\u00a0Treaty, it should have done so in\u00a0such a\u00a0way as\u00a0to\u00a0guarantee international security for\u00a0a\u00a0long historical period. I\u00a0suggested this, I\u00a0have already discussed this in\u00a0public, and\u00a0I\u00a0repeat that I\u00a0did this because I\u00a0consider this matter to\u00a0be very important. I\u00a0suggested working jointly on\u00a0missile-defence projects that should have involved the\u00a0United States, Russia and\u00a0Europe. They stipulated specific parameters of\u00a0this cooperation, determined dangerous missile approaches and\u00a0envisioned technology exchanges, the\u00a0elaboration of\u00a0decision-making mechanisms, etc. Those were absolutely specific proposals.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0am convinced that the\u00a0world would be a\u00a0different place today, had our US partners accepted this proposal. Unfortunately, this did not happen. We can see that the\u00a0situation is developing in\u00a0another direction; new weapons and\u00a0cutting-edge military technology are coming to\u00a0the\u00a0fore. Well, this is not our choice. But, today, we should at\u00a0least do everything so as\u00a0to\u00a0not aggravate the\u00a0situation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, you are a\u00a0student of\u00a0history. You have had many hours of\u00a0conversation with Henry Kissinger. You almost certainly read his book, World Order. With Mr Trump, we have seen something new, something much more transactional. He is very critical of\u00a0alliances and\u00a0allies in\u00a0Europe. Is this something that is to\u00a0Russia\u2019s advantage?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> It would be better to\u00a0ask what would be to\u00a0America\u2019s advantage in\u00a0this case. Mr Trump is not a\u00a0career politician. He has a\u00a0distinct world outlook and\u00a0vision of\u00a0US national interests. I\u00a0do not accept many of\u00a0his methods when it comes to\u00a0addressing problems. But do you know what I\u00a0think? I\u00a0think that he is a\u00a0talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him.<\/p>\n

Russia has been accused, and, strange as\u00a0it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the\u00a0Mueller report, of\u00a0mythical interference in\u00a0the\u00a0US election. What happened in\u00a0reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents\u2019 attitude to\u00a0him and\u00a0saw changes in\u00a0American society, and\u00a0he took advantage of\u00a0this.<\/p>\n

You and\u00a0I\u00a0are talking ahead of\u00a0the\u00a0G20 meeting. It is an\u00a0economic forum, and\u00a0it will undoubtedly have discussions on\u00a0globalisation, global trade and\u00a0international finance.<\/p>\n

Has anyone ever given a\u00a0thought to\u00a0who actually benefited and\u00a0what benefits were gained from globalisation, the\u00a0development of\u00a0which we have been observing and\u00a0participating in\u00a0over the\u00a0past 25 years, since the\u00a01990s?<\/p>\n

China has made use of\u00a0globalisation, in\u00a0particular, to\u00a0pull millions of\u00a0Chinese out of\u00a0poverty.<\/p>\n

What happened in\u00a0the\u00a0United States, and\u00a0how did it happen? In\u00a0the\u00a0United States, the\u00a0leading US companies\u00a0\u2013the\u00a0companies, their managers, shareholders and\u00a0partners\u00a0\u2013 made use of\u00a0these benefits. The\u00a0middle class hardly benefitted from globalisation. The\u00a0take-home pay in\u00a0the\u00a0US (we are likely to\u00a0talk later about real incomes in\u00a0Russia, which need special attention from the\u00a0Government). The\u00a0middle class in\u00a0the\u00a0United States has not benefited from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Trump team sensed this very keenly and\u00a0clearly, and\u00a0they used this in\u00a0the\u00a0election campaign. It is where you should look for\u00a0reasons behind Trump\u2019s victory, rather than in\u00a0any alleged foreign interference. This is what we should be talking about here, including when it comes to\u00a0the\u00a0global economy.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0believe this may explain his seemingly extravagant economic decisions and\u00a0even his relations with his partners and\u00a0allies. He believes that the\u00a0distribution of\u00a0resources and\u00a0benefits of\u00a0globalisation in\u00a0the\u00a0past decade was unfair to\u00a0the\u00a0United States.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0am not going to\u00a0discuss whether it was fair or\u00a0not, and\u00a0I\u00a0will not say if what he is doing is right or\u00a0wrong. I\u00a0would like to\u00a0understand his motives, which is what you asked me about. Maybe this could explain his unusual behaviour.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>I\u00a0definitely want to\u00a0come back to\u00a0the\u00a0Russian economy. But what you said is absolutely fascinating. Here you are, the\u00a0President of\u00a0Russia, defending globalisation along with President Xi whereas Mr Trump is attacking globalisation and\u00a0talking about America First. How do you explain this paradox?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>I\u00a0don\u2019t think that his desire to\u00a0make America first is a\u00a0paradox. I\u00a0want Russia to\u00a0be first, and\u00a0that is not perceived as\u00a0a\u00a0paradox; there is nothing unusual there. As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0fact that he is attacking some manifestations of\u00a0globalisation, I\u00a0made that point earlier. He seems to\u00a0believe that the\u00a0results of\u00a0globalisation could have been much better for\u00a0the\u00a0United States than they are. These globalisation results are not producing the\u00a0desired effect for\u00a0the\u00a0United States, and\u00a0he is beginning this campaign against certain elements of\u00a0globalisation. This concerns everyone, primarily major participants in\u00a0the\u00a0system of\u00a0international economic collaboration, including allies.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, you have had many meetings with President Xi, and\u00a0Russia and\u00a0China have definitely come closer. Are you putting too many eggs in\u00a0the\u00a0China basket? Because Russian foreign policy, including under your leadership, has always made a\u00a0virtue of\u00a0talking to\u00a0everybody.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>First of\u00a0all, we have enough eggs, but there are not that many baskets where these eggs can be placed. This is the\u00a0first point.<\/p>\n

Secondly, we always assess risks.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, our relations with China are not motivated by\u00a0timeserving political any other considerations. Let me point out that the\u00a0Friendship Treaty with China was signed in\u00a02001, if memory serves, long before the\u00a0current situation and\u00a0long before the\u00a0current economic disagreements, to\u00a0put it mildly, between the\u00a0United States and\u00a0China.<\/p>\n

We do not have to\u00a0join anything, and\u00a0we do not have to\u00a0direct our policy against anyone. In\u00a0fact, Russia and\u00a0China are not directing their policy against anyone. We are just consistently implementing our plans for\u00a0expanding cooperation. We have been doing this since 2001, and\u00a0we are just consistently implementing these plans.<\/p>\n

Take a\u00a0look at\u00a0what is written there. We have not done anything that transcends the\u00a0framework of\u00a0these accords. So there is nothing unusual here, and\u00a0you should not search for\u00a0any implications of\u00a0the\u00a0Chinese-Russian rapprochement. Of\u00a0course, we assess the\u00a0current global developments; our positions coincide on\u00a0a\u00a0number of\u00a0matters on\u00a0the\u00a0current global agenda, including our attitude towards compliance with generally accepted rules in\u00a0trade, the\u00a0international financial system, payments and\u00a0settlements.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0G20 has played a\u00a0very tangible role. Since its inception in\u00a02008, when the\u00a0financial crisis flared up, the\u00a0G20 has accomplished many useful things for\u00a0stabilising the\u00a0global financial system, for\u00a0developing global trade and\u00a0ensuring its stabilisation. I\u00a0am talking about the\u00a0tax aspect of\u00a0the\u00a0global agenda, the\u00a0fight against corruption, and\u00a0so on. Both China and\u00a0Russia adhere to\u00a0this concept.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0G20 has accomplished a\u00a0lot by\u00a0advocating quota changes at\u00a0the\u00a0International Monetary Fund and\u00a0the\u00a0World Bank. Both Russia and\u00a0China share this approach. Considering the\u00a0major increase in\u00a0the\u00a0global economic share of\u00a0emerging markets, this is fair and\u00a0right, and\u00a0we have been voicing this position from the\u00a0very beginning. And\u00a0we are glad that this continues to\u00a0develop and\u00a0to\u00a0proceed in\u00a0line with changes in\u00a0global trade.<\/p>\n

Over the\u00a0past 25 years or\u00a0so (25, I\u00a0believe), the\u00a0share of\u00a0G7 countries in\u00a0the\u00a0global GDP has declined from 58 percent to\u00a040 percent. This should also be reflected in\u00a0international institutions in\u00a0some way. That is the\u00a0common position of\u00a0Russia and\u00a0China. This is fair, and\u00a0there is nothing special about this.<\/p>\n

Yes, Russia and\u00a0China have many coinciding interests, this is true. This is what motivates our frequent contacts with President Xi Jinping. Of\u00a0course, we have also established very warm personal relations, and\u00a0this is natural.<\/p>\n

Therefore, we are moving in\u00a0line with our mainstream bilateral agenda that was formulated as\u00a0far back as\u00a02001, but we quickly respond to\u00a0global developments. We never direct our bilateral relations against anyone. We are not against anyone, we are for\u00a0ourselves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>I\u00a0am relieved that this egg supply is strong. But the\u00a0serious point, Mr President, is, you are familiar with Graham Allison\u2018s book, The\u00a0Thucydides\u2019s\u00a0Trap<\/em>. The\u00a0danger of\u00a0tensions or\u00a0a\u00a0military conflict risk between a\u00a0dominant power and\u00a0a\u00a0rising power, America and\u00a0China. Do you think that there is a\u00a0risk of\u00a0a\u00a0military conflict in\u00a0your time between you, America and\u00a0China?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>You know, the\u00a0entire history of\u00a0mankind has always been full of\u00a0military conflicts, but since the\u00a0appearance of\u00a0nuclear weapons the\u00a0risk of\u00a0global conflicts has decreased due to\u00a0the\u00a0potential global tragic consequences for\u00a0the\u00a0entire population of\u00a0the\u00a0planet in\u00a0case such a\u00a0conflict happens between two nuclear states. I\u00a0hope it will not come to\u00a0this.<\/p>\n

However, of\u00a0course, we have to\u00a0admit that it is not only about China\u2019s industrial subsidies on\u00a0the\u00a0one hand or\u00a0the\u00a0tariff policy of\u00a0the\u00a0United States on\u00a0the\u00a0other. First of\u00a0all, we are talking about different development platforms, so to\u00a0speak, in\u00a0China and\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0United States. They are different and\u00a0you, being a\u00a0historian, probably will agree with me. They have different philosophies in\u00a0both foreign and\u00a0domestic policies, probably.<\/p>\n

But I\u00a0would like to\u00a0share some personal observations with you. They are not about allied relations with one country or\u00a0a\u00a0confrontation with the\u00a0other; I\u00a0am just observing what is going on\u00a0at\u00a0the\u00a0moment. China is showing loyalty and\u00a0flexibility to\u00a0both its partners and\u00a0opponents. Maybe this is related to\u00a0the\u00a0historical features of\u00a0Chinese philosophy, their approach to\u00a0building relations.<\/p>\n

Therefore I\u00a0do not think that there would be some such threats from China. I\u00a0cannot imagine that, really. But it is hard to\u00a0say whether the\u00a0United States would have enough patience not to\u00a0make any rash decisions, but to\u00a0respect its partners even if there are disagreements. But I\u00a0hope, I\u00a0would like to\u00a0repeat this again, I\u00a0hope that there would not be any military confrontation.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber:<\/strong> Arms control. We know that the\u00a0INF agreement is in\u00a0grave jeopardy. Is there any place, from Russia\u2019s point of\u00a0view, for\u00a0future arms control agreements or\u00a0are we in\u00a0a\u00a0new phase when we are likely to\u00a0see a\u00a0new nuclear arms race?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>I\u00a0believe there is such a\u00a0risk.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0I\u00a0said already, the\u00a0United States unilaterally withdrew from the\u00a0ABM Treaty, and\u00a0has recently quit the\u00a0Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty as\u00a0well. But this time, it did not just quit but found a\u00a0reason to\u00a0quit, and\u00a0this reason was Russia. I\u00a0do not think Russia means anything to\u00a0them in\u00a0this case, because this war theatre, the\u00a0war theatre in\u00a0Europe is unlikely to\u00a0be interesting to\u00a0the\u00a0US, despite the\u00a0expansion of\u00a0NATO and\u00a0NATO\u2019s contingent near our borders. The\u00a0fact remains, the\u00a0US has withdrawn from the\u00a0treaty. Now the\u00a0agenda is focused on\u00a0theStrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). I\u00a0hope that I\u00a0will be able to\u00a0talk about it with Donald if we happen to\u00a0meet in\u00a0Osaka.<\/p>\n

We said that we are ready to\u00a0hold talks and\u00a0to\u00a0extend this treaty between the\u00a0United States and\u00a0Russia, but we have not seen any relevant initiative from our American partners. They keep silent, while the\u00a0treaty expires in\u00a02021. If we do not begin talks now, it would be over because there would be no time even for\u00a0formalities.<\/p>\n

Our previous conversation with Donald showed that the\u00a0Americans seem to\u00a0be interested in\u00a0this, but still they are not making any practical steps. So if this treaty ceases to\u00a0exist, then there would be no instrument in\u00a0the\u00a0world to\u00a0curtail the\u00a0arms race. And\u00a0this is bad.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Exactly, the\u00a0gloves are off. Is there any chance of\u00a0a\u00a0triangular agreement between China, Russia and\u00a0America on\u00a0intermediate nuclear forces or\u00a0is that a\u00a0dream, pie in\u00a0the\u00a0sky? Would you support such an\u00a0end?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> As\u00a0I\u00a0said at\u00a0the\u00a0very beginning, we will support any agreement that can advance our cause, that is, help us contain the\u00a0arms race.<\/p>\n

It should be said that so far, the\u00a0level and\u00a0the\u00a0development scale of\u00a0China\u2019s nuclear forces are much lower than in\u00a0the\u00a0United States and\u00a0Russia. China is a\u00a0huge power that has the\u00a0capability to\u00a0build up its nuclear potential. This will likely happen in\u00a0the\u00a0future, but so far our capabilities are hardly comparable. Russia and\u00a0the\u00a0United States are the\u00a0leading nuclear powers, which is why the\u00a0agreement was signed between them. As\u00a0for\u00a0whether China will join these efforts, you can ask our Chinese friends.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Russia is a\u00a0Pacific power as\u00a0well as\u00a0a\u00a0European and\u00a0Asian power. It is a\u00a0Pacific power. You have seen what the\u00a0Chinese are doing in\u00a0terms of\u00a0their buildup of\u00a0their Navy and\u00a0their maritime strength. How do you deal with those potential security problems, territorial disputes in\u00a0the\u00a0Pacific? Does Russia have a\u00a0role to\u00a0play in\u00a0a\u00a0new security arrangement?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You mentioned the\u00a0build-up of\u00a0naval forces in\u00a0China. China\u2019s total defence spending is $117 billion, if memory serves. The\u00a0US defence spending is over $700 billion. And\u00a0you are trying to\u00a0scare the\u00a0world with the\u00a0build-up of\u00a0China\u2019s military might? It does not work with this scale of\u00a0military spending. No, it does not.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0for\u00a0Russia, we will continue to\u00a0develop our Pacific Fleet as\u00a0planned. Of\u00a0course, we also respond to\u00a0global developments and\u00a0to\u00a0what happens in\u00a0relations between other countries. We can see all of\u00a0this, but it does not affect our defence development plans, including those in\u00a0the\u00a0Russian Far East.<\/p>\n

We are self-sufficient, and\u00a0we are confident. Russia is the\u00a0largest continental power. But we have a\u00a0nuclear submarine base in\u00a0the\u00a0Far East, where we are developing our defence potential in\u00a0accordance with our plans, including so that we can ensure safety on\u00a0the\u00a0Northern Sea Route, which we are planning to\u00a0develop.<\/p>\n

We intend to\u00a0attract many partners to\u00a0this effort, including our Chinese partners. We may even reach an\u00a0agreement with American shippers and\u00a0with India, which has also indicated its interest in\u00a0the\u00a0Northern Sea Route.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0would say that we are also primed for\u00a0cooperation in\u00a0the\u00a0Asia Pacific region, and\u00a0I\u00a0have grounds to\u00a0believe that Russia can make a\u00a0considerable, tangible and\u00a0positive contribution to\u00a0stabilising the\u00a0situation.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Can we just turn to\u00a0North Korea? How do you assess the\u00a0current situation and\u00a0do you believe that in\u00a0the\u00a0end, any deal or\u00a0agreement will have to\u00a0accept the\u00a0fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons and\u00a0that total dismantling is just not possible? If I\u00a0could just add, Mr President, I\u00a0ask you this because Russia has a\u00a0fairly small but still a\u00a0land border with North Korea.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You know, whether we recognise North Korea as\u00a0a\u00a0nuclear power or\u00a0not, the\u00a0number of\u00a0nuclear charges it has will not decrease. We must proceed from modern realities, which are that nuclear weapons pose a\u00a0threat to\u00a0international peace and\u00a0security.<\/p>\n

Another pertinent question is where this problem stems from. The\u00a0tragedies of\u00a0Libya and\u00a0Iraq have inspired many countries to\u00a0ensure their security at\u00a0all costs.<\/p>\n

What we should be talking about is not how to\u00a0make North Korea disarm, but how to\u00a0ensure the\u00a0unconditional security of\u00a0North Korea and\u00a0how to\u00a0make any country, including North Korea feel safe and\u00a0protected by\u00a0international law that is strictly honoured by\u00a0all members of\u00a0the\u00a0international community. This is what we should be thinking about.<\/p>\n

We should think about guarantees, which we should use as\u00a0the\u00a0basis for\u00a0talks with North Korea. We must be patient, respect it and, at\u00a0the\u00a0same time, take into account the\u00a0dangers arising from this, the\u00a0dangers of\u00a0the\u00a0nuclear status and\u00a0the\u00a0presence of\u00a0nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n

Of\u00a0course, the\u00a0current situation is fraught with unpredictable scenarios, which we must avoid.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>You have obviously thought of\u00a0this as\u00a0an\u00a0experienced foreign policy and\u00a0security analyst and\u00a0a\u00a0strategist. How do you see the\u00a0North Asia security situation over the\u00a0next five to\u00a0ten years, given you have Russia, you have China, you have Korea and\u00a0Japan?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You have said correctly that we have a\u00a0common border, even if a\u00a0short one, with North Korea, therefore, this problem has a\u00a0direct bearing on\u00a0us. The\u00a0United States is located across the\u00a0ocean, and\u00a0the\u00a0UK is located far away, while we are right here, in\u00a0this region, and\u00a0the\u00a0North Korean nuclear range is not far away from our border. This why this concerns us directly, and\u00a0we never stop thinking about it.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0would like to\u00a0return to\u00a0my\u00a0answer to\u00a0your previous question. We must respect North Korea\u2019s legitimate security concerns. We must show it respect, and\u00a0we must find a\u00a0way of\u00a0ensuring its security that will satisfy North Korea. If we do this, the\u00a0situation may take a\u00a0turn nobody can imagine today.<\/p>\n

Do you remember what turn the\u00a0situation took after the\u00a0Soviet Union adopted the\u00a0policy of\u00a0d\u00e9tente? Do I\u00a0need to\u00a0say anything else?<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, you have been in\u00a0power or\u00a0very close to\u00a0power. I\u00a0think in\u00a0Davos I\u00a0said to\u00a0you when we met\u00a0\u2013 you were not in\u00a0power but still calling all the\u00a0shots. After 20 years at\u00a0the\u00a0top or\u00a0near the\u00a0top, has your appetite for\u00a0risk increased?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>It did not increase or\u00a0decrease.Risk must always be well-justified. But this is not the\u00a0case when one can use the\u00a0popular Russian phrase: \u201cHe who doesn\u2019t take risks, never drinks champagne.\u201d This is not the\u00a0case. Quite possibly, risks are inevitable when one has to\u00a0make certain decisions. Depending on\u00a0the\u00a0scale of\u00a0any decision, risks can be small or\u00a0serious.<\/p>\n

Any decision-making process is accompanied by\u00a0risk. Before taking one\u2019s chances, one has to\u00a0meticulously assess everything. Therefore, risk based on\u00a0an\u00a0assessment of\u00a0the\u00a0situation and\u00a0the\u00a0possible consequences of\u00a0the\u00a0decisions is possible and\u00a0even inevitable. Foolish risks overlooking the\u00a0real situation and\u00a0failing to\u00a0clearly comprehend the\u00a0consequences are unacceptable because they can jeopardise the\u00a0interests of\u00a0a\u00a0great number of\u00a0people.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>How big was this Syria risk in\u00a0terms of\u00a0your decision to\u00a0intervene?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> It was sufficiently high. However, of\u00a0course, I\u00a0thought carefully about this well in\u00a0advance, and\u00a0I\u00a0considered all the\u00a0circumstances and\u00a0all the\u00a0pros and\u00a0cons. I\u00a0considered how the\u00a0situation around Russia would develop and\u00a0the\u00a0possible consequences. I\u00a0discussed this matter with my\u00a0aides and\u00a0ministers, including those in\u00a0charge of\u00a0law enforcement agencies and\u00a0other senior officials. In\u00a0the\u00a0long run, I\u00a0decided that the\u00a0positive effect from our active involvement in\u00a0Syrian affairs for\u00a0Russia and\u00a0the\u00a0interests of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian Federation would far outweigh non-interference and\u00a0passive observation of\u00a0how an\u00a0international terrorist organisation grows ever stronger near our borders.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>What has the\u00a0return been like on\u00a0the\u00a0risk taken in\u00a0Syria?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>I\u00a0believe that it has been a\u00a0good and\u00a0positive return. We have accomplished even more than I\u00a0had expected. First of\u00a0all, many militants planning to\u00a0return to\u00a0Russia were eliminated. This implies several thousand people. They were planning to\u00a0return to\u00a0Russia or\u00a0neighbouring countries with which we do not maintain any visa regime. Both aspects are equally dangerous for\u00a0us. This is the\u00a0first thing.<\/p>\n

Secondly, we have managed to\u00a0stabilise the\u00a0situation in\u00a0a\u00a0nearby region, one way or\u00a0another. This is also highly important. Therefore, we have directly strengthened Russia\u2019s domestic security. This is the\u00a0third thing.<\/p>\n

Fourthly, we have established sufficiently good business-like relations with all regional countries, and\u00a0our positions in\u00a0the\u00a0Middle East region have become more stable. Indeed, we have established very good, business-like, partner-like and\u00a0largely allied relations with many regional countries, including Iran, Turkey and\u00a0other countries.<\/p>\n

Primarily, this concerns Syria, we have managed to\u00a0preserve Syrian statehood, no matter what, and\u00a0we have prevented Libya-style chaos there. And\u00a0a\u00a0worst-case scenario would spell out negative consequences for\u00a0Russia.<\/p>\n

Besides, I\u00a0would like to\u00a0openly speak of\u00a0the\u00a0mobilisation of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian Armed Forces. Our Armed Forces have received such practical experience that they could not have obtained during any peace-time exercises.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Are you committed to\u00a0Mr al-Assad remaining in\u00a0power or\u00a0can we see, at\u00a0some point, the\u00a0transition in\u00a0Syria that Russia would support, which would not be Libya?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I\u00a0believe that the\u00a0Syrian people should be free to\u00a0choose their own future. At\u00a0the\u00a0same time, I\u00a0would like the\u00a0actions of\u00a0external players to\u00a0be substantiated and, just as\u00a0in\u00a0the\u00a0case of\u00a0the\u00a0risks you have mentioned, predictable and\u00a0understandable, so that we can consider at\u00a0least our next moves.<\/p>\n

When we discussed this matter only recently with the\u00a0previous US administration, we said, suppose Assad steps down today, what will happen tomorrow?<\/p>\n

Your colleague did well to\u00a0laugh, because the\u00a0answer we got was very amusing. You cannot even imagine how funny it was. They said, \u201cWe don\u2019t know.\u201d But when you do not know what happens tomorrow, why shoot from the\u00a0hip today? This may sound primitive, but this is how it is.<\/p>\n

Therefore, we prefer to\u00a0look at\u00a0problems thoroughly from all possible angles and\u00a0not to\u00a0be in\u00a0any hurry. Of\u00a0course, we are perfectly aware of\u00a0what is happening in\u00a0Syria. There are internal reasons for\u00a0the\u00a0conflict, and\u00a0they should be dealt with. But both sides should do their bit. I\u00a0am referring to\u00a0the\u00a0conflicting parties.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, does that same argument apply to\u00a0Venezuela? In\u00a0other words, you are not prepared to\u00a0see a\u00a0transition in\u00a0Venezuela and\u00a0you are absolutely committed to\u00a0President Maduro.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Oh, and\u00a0it seemed we had started so well. Please do not take offence to\u00a0what I\u00a0am going to\u00a0say next. You won\u2019t, will you? We were off to\u00a0such a\u00a0terrific start, talking seriously, and\u00a0now you have moved back to\u00a0the\u00a0stereotype views on\u00a0Russia.<\/p>\n

We have no nothing to\u00a0do with what is happening in\u00a0Venezuela, if you know what I\u00a0mean.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>What are those advisors doing then in\u00a0Caracas?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> I\u00a0will say this now, if you just let me finish. There is no problem with that.<\/p>\n

Back under [President] Chavez we sold weapons to\u00a0Venezuela, without any limits and\u00a0problems. We did this absolutely legally just as\u00a0it is done all around the\u00a0world and\u00a0as\u00a0every country does, including the\u00a0United States, the\u00a0UK, China and\u00a0France. We did this too\u00a0\u2013 we sold weapons to\u00a0Venezuela.<\/p>\n

We signed contracts, which say what we have to\u00a0do when it comes to\u00a0servicing this military equipment, that we must train local specialists, ensure that this equipment is maintained in\u00a0combat readiness, and\u00a0so on. We provide maintenance services for\u00a0this equipment. I\u00a0have already said this many times, including to\u00a0our American partners: there are no Russian troops there. Do you understand? Yes, there are Russian specialists and\u00a0instructors there. Yes, they are working there. Only recently, I\u00a0believe it was a\u00a0week ago, a\u00a0group of\u00a0our advisers and\u00a0specialists left the\u00a0country. But they can return.<\/p>\n

We have an\u00a0agreement that our aircraft fly there from time to\u00a0time to\u00a0take part in\u00a0exercises. And\u00a0this is it. Are we regulating the\u00a0rebels\u2019 actions as\u00a0some of\u00a0our partners are doing, or\u00a0the\u00a0actions of\u00a0President Maduro? He is the\u00a0president, why should we control his actions? He is in\u00a0control. Whether he is doing well or\u00a0not, this is another matter altogether. We do not make any judgments.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0believe that many things could have been done differently there when it comes to\u00a0the\u00a0economy. But we do not meddle in\u00a0things; it is none of\u00a0our business. We have invested billions of\u00a0dollars there, mostly in\u00a0the\u00a0oil sector. So what? Other countries are doing the\u00a0same as\u00a0well.<\/p>\n

It looks like everything is preserved only by\u00a0Russian weapons. This is not true. It has nothing in\u00a0common with reality. Where are the\u00a0self-proclaimed presidents and\u00a0opposition leaders? Some of\u00a0them have taken refuge in\u00a0foreign embassies and\u00a0others are in\u00a0hiding. What do we have to\u00a0do with this? This problem should be sorted out by\u00a0the\u00a0Venezuelan people themselves. This is all.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>I\u00a0was just applying your theory and\u00a0your experience of\u00a0seeing what happened in\u00a0Libya and\u00a0Iraq to\u00a0Venezuela. And\u00a0therefore, logically, you would say, \u201cWe are committed to\u00a0Mr Maduro because we do not want to\u00a0see regime change from outside.\u201d Is that the\u00a0Russian position? Or\u00a0might you be willing to\u00a0say, \u201cWe will support Guaido because we have important oil interests in\u00a0Venezuela\u201d?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>We are prepared for\u00a0any developments in\u00a0any country, including Venezuela, if they are taking place in\u00a0accordance with internal rules and\u00a0the\u00a0country\u2019s legislation, its Constitution, and\u00a0in\u00a0line with the\u00a0people\u2019s will.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0do not think that Libyan or\u00a0Iraqi statehood would have been wrecked if there had been no intervention there. It would not have happened in\u00a0Libya, the\u00a0situation was absolutely different there. Indeed, Gaddafi wrote his books there, set forth his theories, and\u00a0so on, which did not meet specific standards, and\u00a0his practical work did not meet European or\u00a0American perceptions of\u00a0democracy.<\/p>\n

Incidentally, the\u00a0President of\u00a0France said recently that the\u00a0American democratic model differs greatly from the\u00a0European model. So there are no common democratic standards. And\u00a0do you, well, not you, but our Western partners want a\u00a0region such as\u00a0Libya to\u00a0have the\u00a0same democratic standards as\u00a0Europe and\u00a0the\u00a0United States? The\u00a0region has only monarchies or\u00a0countries with a\u00a0system similar to\u00a0the\u00a0one that existed in\u00a0Libya.<\/p>\n

But I\u00a0am sure that, as\u00a0a\u00a0historian, you will agree with me at\u00a0heart. I\u00a0do not know whether you will publicly agree with this or\u00a0not, but it is impossible to\u00a0impose current and\u00a0viable French or\u00a0Swiss democratic standards on\u00a0North African residents who have never lived in\u00a0conditions of\u00a0French or\u00a0Swiss democratic institutions. Impossible, isn\u2019t it? And\u00a0they tried to\u00a0impose something like that on\u00a0them. Or\u00a0they tried to\u00a0impose something that they had never known or\u00a0even heard of. All this led to\u00a0conflict and\u00a0inter-tribal discord. In\u00a0fact, a\u00a0war continues in\u00a0Libya.<\/p>\n

So why should we do the\u00a0same in\u00a0Venezuela? Do we want to\u00a0revert to\u00a0gunboat diplomacy? What do we need it for? Is it necessary to\u00a0humiliate Latin American nations so much in\u00a0the\u00a0modern world and\u00a0impose forms of\u00a0government or\u00a0leaders from the\u00a0outside?<\/p>\n

By\u00a0the\u00a0way, we worked with President Chavez because he was president. We did not work with President Chavez as\u00a0an\u00a0individual, but we worked with Venezuela. That is why we channelled investments in\u00a0the\u00a0oil sector.<\/p>\n

And\u00a0where did we plan to\u00a0deliver Venezuelan oil while investing in\u00a0the\u00a0oil sector? As\u00a0you know, Venezuela has unique oil that is mostly delivered to\u00a0US refineries. What is so bad about that? We wanted the\u00a0Venezuelan oil and\u00a0gas sector to\u00a0operate steadily, predictably and\u00a0confidently and\u00a0to\u00a0make deliveries to\u00a0those US refineries. I\u00a0do not understand what is so wrong with this.<\/p>\n

First, they faced economic problems, followed by\u00a0domestic political problems. Let them sort things out by\u00a0themselves, and\u00a0these leaders will come to\u00a0power by\u00a0democratic means. But when a\u00a0person enters a\u00a0square, raises his eyes to\u00a0the\u00a0sky and\u00a0proclaims himself president? Let us do the\u00a0same in\u00a0Japan, the\u00a0United States or\u00a0Germany. What will happen? Do you understand that this will cause chaos all over the\u00a0world? It is impossible to\u00a0disagree with this. There will be pure chaos. How could they act like this? But no, they started supporting that person from the\u00a0very outset.<\/p>\n

He may be a\u00a0very good person. He may be just wonderful, and\u00a0his plans are good. But is it enough that he entered a\u00a0square and\u00a0proclaimed himself president? Is the\u00a0entire world supposed to\u00a0support him as\u00a0president? We should tell him to\u00a0take part in\u00a0elections and\u00a0win them, and\u00a0then we would work with him as\u00a0the\u00a0state leader.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Let us talk about another democracy in\u00a0Europe, my\u00a0own country. You are going to\u00a0have a\u00a0meeting with Mrs May, which is going to\u00a0be one of\u00a0her last meetings before she steps down as\u00a0Prime Minister. Do you think that there is a\u00a0possibility of\u00a0some improvement in\u00a0Anglo-Russian relations and\u00a0that we can move on\u00a0from some of\u00a0these issues that are obviously of\u00a0great sensitivity, like the\u00a0Skripal affair? Or\u00a0do you think that we are going to\u00a0stay in\u00a0a\u00a0deep freeze for\u00a0the\u00a0next three or\u00a0five years?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>Listen,all this fuss about spies and\u00a0counter-spies, it is not worth serious interstate relations. This spy story, as\u00a0we say, it is not worth five kopecks. Or\u00a0even five pounds, for\u00a0that matter. And\u00a0the\u00a0issues concerning interstate relations, they are measured in\u00a0billions and\u00a0the\u00a0fate of\u00a0millions of\u00a0people. How can we compare one with the\u00a0other?<\/p>\n

The\u00a0list of\u00a0accusations and\u00a0allegations against one another could go on\u00a0and\u00a0on. They say, \u201cYou poisoned the\u00a0Skripals.\u201d Firstly, this must be proved.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the\u00a0average person listens and\u00a0says, \u201cWho are these Skripals?\u201d And\u00a0it turns out that Skripal was engaged in\u00a0espionage against us [Russia]. So this person asks the\u00a0next question, \u201cWhy did you spy on\u00a0us using Skripal? Maybe you should not have done that?\u201d You know, these questions are infinite. We need to\u00a0just leave it alone and\u00a0let security agencies deal with it.<\/p>\n

But we know that businesses in\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom (by\u00a0the\u00a0way, I\u00a0had a\u00a0meeting with our British colleagues in\u00a0this same room), they want to\u00a0work with us, they are working with us and\u00a0intend to\u00a0continue doing so. And\u00a0we support this intent.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0think that Mrs May, despite her resignation, could not help but be concerned that these spy scandals made our relations reach a\u00a0deadlock so we could not develop our ties normally and\u00a0support business people, who are doing what? They do not only earn money, this is what is on\u00a0the\u00a0outside. They create jobs and\u00a0added value, plus they provide revenue at\u00a0all levels of\u00a0the\u00a0tax system of\u00a0their countries. This is a\u00a0serious and\u00a0multifaceted job, with the\u00a0same risks you mentioned, including risks related to\u00a0business operations. And\u00a0if we add an\u00a0unpredictable political situation, they will not be able to\u00a0work at\u00a0all.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0think that both Russia and\u00a0the\u00a0United Kingdom are interested in\u00a0fully restoring our relations. At\u00a0least I\u00a0hope that a\u00a0few preliminary steps will be made. I\u00a0think it would be easier for\u00a0Mrs May, maybe, because she is leaving and\u00a0is free to\u00a0do what she thinks is right, important and\u00a0necessary and\u00a0not to\u00a0bother about some domestic political consequences.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Some people might say that a\u00a0human life is worth more than five pennies. But do you believe, Mr President that whatever happened\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Did anybody die?<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Oh yes. The\u00a0gentleman who had a\u00a0drug problem and\u00a0he died after touching the\u00a0Novichok in\u00a0the\u00a0car park. I\u00a0mean somebody did that because of\u00a0the\u00a0perfume. It was more than one person that died, not the\u00a0Skripals. I\u00a0am just\u2026<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> And\u00a0you think this is absolutely Russia\u2019s fault?<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>I\u00a0did not say that. I\u00a0said somebody died.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You did not say that, but if it has nothing to\u00a0do with Russia\u2026 Yes, a\u00a0man died, and\u00a0that is a\u00a0tragedy, I\u00a0agree. But what do we have to\u00a0do with it?<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Let me just ask this and\u00a0I\u00a0really want to\u00a0talk about the\u00a0Russian economy. Do you believe that what happened in\u00a0Salisbury sent an\u00a0unambiguous message to\u00a0anyone who is thinking of\u00a0betraying the\u00a0Russian state that it is fair game?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> As\u00a0a\u00a0matter of\u00a0fact, treason is the\u00a0gravest crime possible and\u00a0traitors must be punished. I\u00a0am not saying that the\u00a0Salisbury incident is the\u00a0way to\u00a0do it. Not at\u00a0all. But traitors must be punished.<\/p>\n

This gentleman, Skripal, had already been punished. He was arrested, sentenced and\u00a0then served time in\u00a0prison. He received his punishment. For\u00a0that matter, he was off the\u00a0radar. Why would anybody be interested in\u00a0him? He got punished. He was detained, arrested, sentenced and\u00a0then spent five years in\u00a0prison. Then he was released and\u00a0that was it.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0concerns treason, of\u00a0course, it must be punishable. It is the\u00a0most despicable crime that one can imagine.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>The\u00a0Russian economy. You spoke the\u00a0other day about decline in\u00a0the\u00a0real wages in\u00a0the\u00a0Russian workforce and\u00a0Russian growth has been less than expected. But at\u00a0the\u00a0same time, Mr President, you have been accumulating foreign exchange reserves and\u00a0international reserves at\u00a0some 460 billion. What are you saving for? What is the\u00a0purpose? Can\u2019t you use some of\u00a0this money to\u00a0ease up on\u00a0the\u00a0fiscal side?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Let me correct a\u00a0few very small details. Real wages are not in\u00a0decline in\u00a0Russia. On\u00a0the\u00a0contrary, they are starting to\u00a0pick up. It is the\u00a0real household disposable income that is falling.<\/p>\n

Wages and\u00a0income are two slightly different things. Income is determined by\u00a0many parameters, including loan servicing costs. People in\u00a0Russia take out a\u00a0lot of\u00a0consumer loans and\u00a0interest payments are counted towards expenses, which drags down real income indicators. Also, the\u00a0shadow economy is undergoing legalisation. A\u00a0substantial part of\u00a0self-employed people\u00a0\u2013 I\u00a0believe, 100,000 or\u00a0200,000, have already legalised their business. This, too, affects real incomes of\u00a0the\u00a0population, disposable incomes.<\/p>\n

This tendency has persisted for\u00a0the\u00a0past four years. Last year we recorded a\u00a0small increase of\u00a00.1 percent. It is not enough. It is still within the\u00a0margin of\u00a0error. But it is one of\u00a0the\u00a0serious problems that we need to\u00a0deal with and\u00a0we are dealing with it.<\/p>\n

Real wages started to\u00a0grow recently. Last year there was an\u00a08.5-percent increase. This year, the\u00a0growth rate of\u00a0real wages has significantly decreased due to\u00a0a\u00a0whole range of\u00a0circumstances. I\u00a0mean that last year we saw a\u00a0recovery growth and\u00a0there are some other factors involved. However, it continues. And\u00a0we really expect that it will have an\u00a0effect on\u00a0real household disposable incomes.<\/p>\n

Even more so because lately we have adopted a\u00a0number of\u00a0measures to\u00a0speed up the\u00a0growth of\u00a0retirement pensions. Last year the\u00a0inflation rate was 4.3 percent and, based on\u00a0these results, in\u00a0the\u00a0beginning of\u00a0this year pensions were adjusted for\u00a0inflation by\u00a07.05 percent. And\u00a0we set ourselves a\u00a0goal, a\u00a0task\u00a0\u2013 which, I\u00a0am certain, will be achieved\u00a0\u2013 to\u00a0adjust pensions by\u00a0a\u00a0percentage that is above the\u00a0inflation rate.<\/p>\n

Now, real incomes were also affected because we had to\u00a0increase VAT from 18 to\u00a020 percent, which affected people\u2019s purchasing power because the\u00a0inflation rate exceeded 5 percent.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0other words, we expected that the\u00a0negative impact of\u00a0the\u00a0VAT increase would be short-term, which is exactly what happened. Fortunately, it worked out and\u00a0our calculations proved right. Now the\u00a0inflation rate is going down, the\u00a0macroeconomic situation is improving; investment is rising slightly. We can see that the\u00a0economy has overcome those difficulties that were caused by\u00a0internal and\u00a0external shocks. The\u00a0external shocks were related to\u00a0restrictions and\u00a0slumping prices on\u00a0our traditional export products. The\u00a0economy has stabilised.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0macroeconomic situation in\u00a0the\u00a0country is stable. It is not accidental and\u00a0all rating agencies registered it. The\u00a0three major agencies raised our investment rating. Economic growth last year was 2.3 percent. We do not think it was enough but we will, of\u00a0course, work on\u00a0speeding up the\u00a0pace. The\u00a0growth rate in\u00a0industrial production was 2.9 percent and\u00a0even higher, up to\u00a013 percent in\u00a0some industries (light industry, processing and\u00a0garment industries and\u00a0several others). Therefore, overall, our economy is stable.<\/p>\n

But the\u00a0most important task we need to\u00a0achieve is to\u00a0change the\u00a0structure of\u00a0the\u00a0economy and\u00a0secure a\u00a0substantial growth of\u00a0labour productivity through modern technologies, Artificial Intelligence, robotics and\u00a0so on. This is exactly why we increased VAT, to\u00a0raise budget funds for\u00a0performing a\u00a0certain part of\u00a0this job that is the\u00a0state\u2019s responsibility, in\u00a0order to\u00a0create conditions for\u00a0private investment. Let us take transport and\u00a0other infrastructure development. Hardly anybody besides the\u00a0state is involved in\u00a0it. There are other factors related to\u00a0education and\u00a0healthcare. A\u00a0person who has health problems or\u00a0has no training cannot be efficient in\u00a0the\u00a0modern economy. The\u00a0list goes on.<\/p>\n

We really hope that by\u00a0starting this work on\u00a0key development areas, we will be able to\u00a0increase labour productivity and\u00a0use this basis for\u00a0ensuring an\u00a0increase in\u00a0the\u00a0incomes and\u00a0prosperity of\u00a0our people.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0concerns the\u00a0reserves, you are not exactly correct here, either. We have over 500 billion in\u00a0gold and\u00a0foreign currency reserves, rather than 460 billion. But the\u00a0understanding is that we need to\u00a0create a\u00a0safety net that would let us feel confident and\u00a0use the\u00a0interest on\u00a0our existing resources. If we have 7 percent more, we can spend those 7 percent.<\/p>\n

This is what we plan for\u00a0the\u00a0next year and\u00a0there is a\u00a0high probability that we will succeed. Do not think that this money is just sitting on\u00a0the\u00a0shelf. No, it creates certain guarantees for\u00a0Russia\u2019s economic stability in\u00a0the\u00a0midterm.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>The\u00a0Central Bank has done a\u00a0very good job in\u00a0helping to\u00a0secure macroeconomic stability even if some of\u00a0the\u00a0oligarchs complain about banks being closed.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>You know, first of\u00a0all, we do not have oligarchs anymore. Oligarchs are those who use their proximity to\u00a0the\u00a0authorities to\u00a0receive super profits. We have large companies, private ones, or\u00a0with government participation. But I\u00a0do not know of\u00a0any large companies that get preferential treatment from being close to\u00a0the\u00a0authorities, these are practically non-existent.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0Central Bank, yes, it is engaged in\u00a0a\u00a0gradual improvement of\u00a0our financial system: inefficient and\u00a0small-capacity companies, as\u00a0well as\u00a0semi-criminal financial organisations are leaving the\u00a0market, and\u00a0this is large-scale and\u00a0complicated work.<\/p>\n

It is not about oligarchs or\u00a0large companies; the\u00a0thing is that it affects, unfortunately, the\u00a0interests of\u00a0the\u00a0depositor, the\u00a0average person. We have relevant regulatory acts that minimise people\u2019s financial losses and\u00a0create a\u00a0certain safety net for\u00a0them. But each case should be considered individually, of\u00a0course.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0general, the\u00a0work of\u00a0the\u00a0Central Bank, in\u00a0my\u00a0opinion, deserves support. It is related to\u00a0both the\u00a0improvement of\u00a0the\u00a0financial system and\u00a0the\u00a0calibrated policy regarding the\u00a0key interest rate.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, I\u00a0would like to\u00a0go back to\u00a0President Xi and\u00a0China. As\u00a0you know, he has pursued a\u00a0rigorous anticorruption campaign in\u00a0order to\u00a0clean up the\u00a0party, maintain the\u00a0legitimacy and\u00a0strengthen the\u00a0party. He has also read the\u00a0history of\u00a0the\u00a0Soviet Union, where Mr Gorbachev essentially abandoned the\u00a0party and\u00a0helped to\u00a0destroy the\u00a0country\u00a0\u2013 the\u00a0Soviet Union. Do you think that Mr Xi is right in\u00a0his approach that the\u00a0party is absolutely crucial? And\u00a0what lessons do you draw for\u00a0Russia? If I\u00a0can just add, you said something interesting a\u00a0few years ago about the\u00a0breakup of\u00a0the\u00a0Soviet Union being the\u00a0greatest geopolitical tragedy of\u00a0the\u00a020th<\/sup> century.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>These two issues are not connected. As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0tragedy related to\u00a0the\u00a0dissolution of\u00a0the\u00a0Soviet Union, this is something obvious. I\u00a0meant, first of\u00a0all, the\u00a0humanitarian aspect of\u00a0it. It appears that 25 million ethnic Russians were living abroad when they learned from the\u00a0television and\u00a0radio that the\u00a0Soviet Union had ceased to\u00a0exist. Nobody asked their opinion. The\u00a0decision was simply made.<\/p>\n

You know, these are issues of\u00a0democracy. Was there an\u00a0opinion poll, a\u00a0referendum? Most (over 70 percent) of\u00a0the\u00a0citizens of\u00a0the\u00a0USSR spoke in\u00a0favour of\u00a0retaining it. Then the\u00a0decision was made to\u00a0dissolve the\u00a0USSR, but nobody asked the\u00a0people, and\u00a025 million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the\u00a0Russian Federation. Listen, is this not a\u00a0tragedy? A\u00a0huge one! And\u00a0family relations? Jobs? Travel? It was nothing but a\u00a0disaster.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0was surprised to\u00a0see the\u00a0later comments on\u00a0what I\u00a0said, in\u00a0particular, in\u00a0the\u00a0Western media. They should try to\u00a0live through seeing their father, brother or\u00a0any other close relative finding themselves living in\u00a0a\u00a0different country, where a\u00a0whole new life has started. I\u00a0assure you.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0party and\u00a0the\u00a0party state building in\u00a0China, this is for\u00a0the\u00a0Chinese people to\u00a0decide; we do not interfere. Today\u2019s Russia has its own principles and\u00a0rules of\u00a0life, and\u00a0China with its 1.35 billion people has its own. You try to\u00a0rule a\u00a0country with such a\u00a0population. This is not Luxembourg, with all due respect to\u00a0this wonderful country. Therefore, it is necessary to\u00a0give the\u00a0Chinese people the\u00a0opportunity to\u00a0decide how to\u00a0organise their lives.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Again a\u00a0big picture question. I\u00a0talked at\u00a0the\u00a0beginning of\u00a0our conversation about fragmentation. Another phenomenon today is that there is a\u00a0popular backlash against elites and\u00a0against the\u00a0establishment and\u00a0you have seen that\u00a0\u2013 Brexit in\u00a0Britain. Perhaps you were speaking about Trump\u2019s America. You have seen it with the\u00a0AFD in\u00a0Germany; you have seen it in\u00a0Turkey; and\u00a0you have seen it in\u00a0the\u00a0Arab world. How long do you think that Russia can remain immune to\u00a0this global movement of\u00a0backlash against the\u00a0establishment?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> You should look at\u00a0the\u00a0realities in\u00a0each particular case. Of\u00a0course, there are some trends, but they are only general. In\u00a0each particular case, when looking at\u00a0the\u00a0situation and\u00a0how it unfolds, you should take into account the\u00a0history of\u00a0the\u00a0given country, its traditions and\u00a0realities.<\/p>\n

How long will Russia remain a\u00a0stable country? The\u00a0longer the\u00a0better. Because very many other things and\u00a0its position in\u00a0the\u00a0world depend on\u00a0stability, on\u00a0internal political stability. Ultimately, the\u00a0wellbeing of\u00a0the\u00a0people depends, possibly primarily, on\u00a0stability.<\/p>\n

One of\u00a0the\u00a0reasons, the\u00a0internal reason for\u00a0the\u00a0Soviet Union\u2019s collapse was that life was difficult for\u00a0the\u00a0people, whose take-home wages were very small. The\u00a0shops were empty, and\u00a0the\u00a0people lost the\u00a0intrinsic desire to\u00a0preserve the\u00a0state.<\/p>\n

They thought that it could not get worse no matter what happened. It turned out that life became worse for\u00a0very many people, especially at\u00a0the\u00a0beginning of\u00a0the\u00a01990s when the\u00a0social protection and\u00a0healthcare systems collapsed and\u00a0industry was crumbling. It could be ineffective, but at\u00a0least people had jobs. After the\u00a0collapse, they lost them. Therefore, you should look at\u00a0each particular case separately.<\/p>\n

What is happening in\u00a0the\u00a0West? What is the\u00a0reason for\u00a0the\u00a0Trump phenomenon, as\u00a0you said, in\u00a0the\u00a0United States? What is happening in\u00a0Europe as\u00a0well? The\u00a0ruling elites have broken away from the\u00a0people. The\u00a0obvious problem is the\u00a0gap between the\u00a0interests of\u00a0the\u00a0elites and\u00a0the\u00a0overwhelming majority of\u00a0the\u00a0people.<\/p>\n

Of\u00a0course, we must always bear this in\u00a0mind. One of\u00a0the\u00a0things we must do in\u00a0Russia is never to\u00a0forget that the\u00a0purpose of\u00a0the\u00a0operation and\u00a0existence of\u00a0any government is to\u00a0create a\u00a0stable, normal, safe and\u00a0predictable life for\u00a0the\u00a0people and\u00a0to\u00a0work towards a\u00a0better future.<\/p>\n

There is also the\u00a0so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of\u00a0the\u00a0liberal idea, such as\u00a0multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.<\/p>\n

When the\u00a0migration problem came to\u00a0a\u00a0head, many people admitted that the\u00a0policy of\u00a0multiculturalism is not effective and\u00a0that the\u00a0interests of\u00a0the\u00a0core population should be considered. Although those who have run into difficulties because of\u00a0political problems in\u00a0their home countries need our assistance as\u00a0well. That is great, but what about the\u00a0interests of\u00a0their own population when the\u00a0number of\u00a0migrants heading to\u00a0Western Europe is not just a\u00a0handful of\u00a0people but thousands or\u00a0hundreds of\u00a0thousands?<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Did Angela Merkel make a\u00a0mistake?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong> Cardinal mistake. One can criticise Trump for\u00a0his intention to\u00a0build a\u00a0wall between Mexico and\u00a0the\u00a0United States. It could be going too far. Yes, maybe so. I\u00a0am not arguing about this point. But he had to\u00a0do something about the\u00a0huge inflow of\u00a0migrants and\u00a0narcotics.<\/p>\n

Nobody is doing anything. They say this is bad and\u00a0that is bad as\u00a0well. Tell me, what is good then? What should be done? Nobody has proposed anything. I\u00a0do not mean that a\u00a0wall must be built or\u00a0tariffs raised by\u00a05 percent annually in\u00a0the\u00a0economic relations with Mexico. This is not what I\u00a0am saying, yet something must be done. He is at\u00a0least looking for\u00a0a\u00a0solution.<\/p>\n

What am I\u00a0driving at? Those who are concerned about this, ordinary Americans, they look at\u00a0this and\u00a0say, Good for\u00a0him, at\u00a0least he is doing something, suggesting ideas and\u00a0looking for\u00a0a\u00a0solution.<\/p>\n

As\u00a0for\u00a0the\u00a0liberal idea, its proponents are not doing anything. They say that all is well, that everything is as\u00a0it should be. But is it? They are sitting in\u00a0their cosy offices, while those who are facing the\u00a0problem every day in\u00a0Texas or\u00a0Florida are not happy, they will soon have problems of\u00a0their own. Does anyone think about them?<\/p>\n

The\u00a0same is happening in\u00a0Europe. I\u00a0discussed this with many of\u00a0my\u00a0colleagues, but nobody has the\u00a0answer. The\u00a0say they cannot pursue a\u00a0hard-line policy for\u00a0various reasons. Why exactly? Just because. We have the\u00a0law, they say. Well, then change the\u00a0law!<\/p>\n

We have quite a\u00a0few problems of\u00a0our own in\u00a0this sphere as\u00a0well. We have open borders with the\u00a0former Soviet republics, but their people at\u00a0least speak Russian. Do you see what I\u00a0mean? And\u00a0besides, we in\u00a0Russia have taken steps to\u00a0streamline the\u00a0situation in\u00a0this sphere. We are now working in\u00a0the\u00a0countries from which the\u00a0migrants come, teaching Russian at\u00a0their schools, and\u00a0we are also working with them here. We have toughened the\u00a0legislation to\u00a0show that migrants must respect the\u00a0laws, customs and\u00a0culture of\u00a0the\u00a0country.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0other words, the\u00a0situation is not simple in\u00a0Russia either, but we have started working to\u00a0improve it. Whereas the\u00a0liberal idea presupposes that nothing needs to\u00a0be done. The\u00a0migrants can kill, plunder and\u00a0rape with impunity because their rights as\u00a0migrants must be protected. What rights are these? Every crime must have its punishment.<\/p>\n

So, the\u00a0liberal idea has become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the\u00a0interests of\u00a0the\u00a0overwhelming majority of\u00a0the\u00a0population. Or\u00a0take the\u00a0traditional values. I\u00a0am not trying to\u00a0insult anyone, because we have been condemned for\u00a0our alleged homophobia as\u00a0it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons. God forbid, let them live as\u00a0they wish. But some things do appear excessive to\u00a0us.<\/p>\n

They claim now that children can play five or\u00a0six gender roles. I\u00a0cannot even say exactly what genders these are, I\u00a0have no notion. Let everyone be happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to\u00a0overshadow the\u00a0culture, traditions and\u00a0traditional family values of\u00a0millions of\u00a0people making up the\u00a0core population.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Does that include\u00a0\u2013 this is very important, like you say\u00a0\u2013 the\u00a0end of\u00a0this liberal idea, because\u00a0\u2013 what else did you say\u00a0\u2013 uncontrolled immigration, open borders, definitely, as\u00a0you say, diversity as\u00a0an\u00a0organizing principle in\u00a0society? What else do you think is just finished over in\u00a0terms of\u00a0the\u00a0liberal idea? And\u00a0would you say\u00a0\u2013 if I\u00a0could just add\u00a0\u2013 that religion therefore must play an\u00a0important role in\u00a0terms of\u00a0national culture and\u00a0cohesiveness?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>It should play its current role.It [religion] cannot be pushed out of\u00a0this cultural space. We should not abuse anything.<\/p>\n

Russia is an\u00a0Orthodox Christian nation, and\u00a0there have always been problems between Orthodox Christianity and\u00a0the\u00a0Catholic world. This is exactly why I\u00a0will now say a\u00a0few words about Catholics. Are there any problems there? Yes, there are, but they cannot be over-exaggerated and\u00a0used for\u00a0destroying the\u00a0Roman Catholic Church itself. This is what cannot be done.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, I\u00a0get the\u00a0feeling that these liberal circles are beginning to\u00a0use certain elements and\u00a0problems of\u00a0the\u00a0Catholic Church as\u00a0a\u00a0tool for\u00a0destroying the\u00a0Church itself. This is what I\u00a0consider to\u00a0be incorrect and\u00a0dangerous.<\/p>\n

All right, have we forgotten that all of\u00a0us live in\u00a0a\u00a0world based on\u00a0Biblical values? Even atheists and\u00a0everyone else live in\u00a0this world. We do not have to\u00a0think about this every day, attend church and\u00a0pray, thereby showing that we are devout Christians or\u00a0Muslims or\u00a0Jews. However, deep inside, there must be some fundamental human rules and\u00a0moral values. In\u00a0this sense, traditional values are more stable and\u00a0more important for\u00a0millions of\u00a0people than this liberal idea, which, in\u00a0my\u00a0opinion, is really ceasing to\u00a0exist.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>So religion, religion is not the\u00a0opium of\u00a0the\u00a0masses?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>No, it is not. But I\u00a0get the\u00a0impression that you are detached from religion because it is already 12.45 am Moscow Time, and\u00a0you continue to\u00a0torture me. As\u00a0we say here, there is no fear of\u00a0God in\u00a0you, is there? (Laughter<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>This is history. I\u00a0have waited a\u00a0long time for\u00a0this. I\u00a0have got one last question. And\u00a0thank you for\u00a0your\u00a0\u2013 go on\u00a0please.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>Please, go ahead.<\/p>\n

Henry Foy: <\/strong>Mr President, would you say\u00a0\u2013 I\u00a0was reflecting on\u00a0what you just said: some of\u00a0the\u00a0themes you were referring to\u00a0would echo in\u00a0people such as\u00a0Steve Bannon, and\u00a0Mr Trump himself, and\u00a0the\u00a0groups in\u00a0Europe who have come to\u00a0power. Do you think if the\u00a0end of\u00a0the\u00a0liberal idea is over, is now the\u00a0time of\u00a0the\u00a0\u2018illiberals\u2019? And\u00a0do you see more and\u00a0more allies growing around the\u00a0world to\u00a0your way of\u00a0seeing the\u00a0human existence at\u00a0the\u00a0moment?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:\u00a0<\/strong>You know, it seems to\u00a0me that purely liberal or\u00a0purely traditional ideas have never existed. Probably, they did once exist in\u00a0the\u00a0history of\u00a0humankind, but everything very quickly ends in\u00a0a\u00a0deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to\u00a0become extreme one way or\u00a0another.<\/p>\n

Various ideas and\u00a0various opinions should have a\u00a0chance to\u00a0exist and\u00a0manifest themselves, but at\u00a0the\u00a0same time interests of\u00a0the\u00a0general public, those millions of\u00a0people and\u00a0their lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.<\/p>\n

Then, it seems to\u00a0me, we would be able to\u00a0avoid major political upheavals and\u00a0troubles. This applies to\u00a0the\u00a0liberal idea as\u00a0well. It does not mean (I\u00a0think, this is ceasing to\u00a0be a\u00a0dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of\u00a0view, this position should also be treated with respect.<\/p>\n

They cannot simply dictate anything to\u00a0anyone just like they have been attempting to\u00a0do over the\u00a0recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in\u00a0the\u00a0media and\u00a0in\u00a0real life. It is deemed unbecoming even to\u00a0mention some topics. But why?<\/p>\n

For\u00a0this reason, I\u00a0am not a\u00a0fan of\u00a0quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding everything, arresting everybody or\u00a0dispersing everybody. Of\u00a0course, not. The\u00a0liberal idea cannot be destroyed either; it has the\u00a0right to\u00a0exist and\u00a0it should even be supported in\u00a0some things. But you should not think that it has the\u00a0right to\u00a0be the\u00a0absolute dominating factor. That is the\u00a0point.<\/p>\n

Please.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>You really are on\u00a0the\u00a0same page as\u00a0Donald Trump. Mr President, you have been in\u00a0power for\u00a0almost 20 years.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>For\u00a0eighteen years.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>You have seen many world leaders. Who do you most admire?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>Peter the\u00a0Great.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>But he is dead.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0He will live as\u00a0long as\u00a0his cause is alive just as\u00a0the\u00a0cause of\u00a0each of\u00a0us. (Laughter<\/em>). We will live until our cause is alive.<\/p>\n

If you mean any present-day leaders from different countries and\u00a0states, of\u00a0the\u00a0persons that I\u00a0could communicate with, I\u00a0was most seriously impressed by\u00a0former President of\u00a0France Mr Chirac. He is a\u00a0true intellectual, a\u00a0real professor, a\u00a0very level-headed man as\u00a0well as\u00a0very interesting. When he was President, he had his own opinion on\u00a0every issue, he knew how to\u00a0defend it and\u00a0he always respected his partners\u2019 opinions.<\/p>\n

In\u00a0modern-day history, taking a\u00a0broader view, there are many good and\u00a0very interesting people.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Peter the\u00a0Great, the\u00a0creator of\u00a0the\u00a0Greater Russia. Need I\u00a0say any more? My\u00a0last question, Mr President. Great leaders always prepare succession. Lee Kuan Yew prepared succession. So please share with us what would the\u00a0process be by\u00a0which your successor will be chosen.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>I\u00a0can tell you without exaggeration that I\u00a0have always been thinking about this, since 2000. The\u00a0situation changes and\u00a0certain demands on\u00a0people change, too. In\u00a0the\u00a0end, and\u00a0I\u00a0will say this without theatrics or\u00a0exaggeration, in\u00a0the\u00a0end the\u00a0decision must be made by\u00a0the\u00a0people of\u00a0Russia. No matter what and\u00a0how the\u00a0current leader does, no matter who or\u00a0how he represents, it is the\u00a0voter that has the\u00a0final word, the\u00a0citizen of\u00a0the\u00a0Russian Federation.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>So the\u00a0choice will be approved by\u00a0the\u00a0Russian people in\u00a0a\u00a0vote? Or\u00a0through the\u00a0Duma?<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>Why through the\u00a0Duma? By\u00a0means of\u00a0direct secret ballot, universal direct secret ballot. Of\u00a0course, it is different from what you have in\u00a0Great Britain. We are a\u00a0democratic country. (Laughter<\/em>)<\/p>\n

In\u00a0your country, one leader has left, and\u00a0the\u00a0second leader, who is for\u00a0all intents and\u00a0purposes the\u00a0top figure in\u00a0the\u00a0state, is not elected by\u00a0a\u00a0direct vote of\u00a0the\u00a0people, but by\u00a0the\u00a0ruling party.<\/p>\n

It is different in\u00a0Russia, as\u00a0we are a\u00a0democratic country. If our top officials leave for\u00a0some reason, because they want to\u00a0retire from politics like Boris Yeltsin, or\u00a0because their term ends, we hold an\u00a0election through universal direct secret ballot.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0same will happen in\u00a0this case. Of\u00a0course, the\u00a0current leader always supports someone, and\u00a0this support can be substantive if the\u00a0person supported has the\u00a0respect and\u00a0trust of\u00a0the\u00a0people, but in\u00a0the\u00a0end, the\u00a0choice is always made by\u00a0the\u00a0Russian people.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>I\u00a0cannot resist pointing out that you did take over as\u00a0president before the\u00a0election.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin: <\/strong>Yes, this is true. So what? I\u00a0was acting president, and\u00a0in\u00a0order to\u00a0be elected and\u00a0become the\u00a0head of\u00a0state, I\u00a0had to\u00a0take part in\u00a0an\u00a0election, which I\u00a0did.<\/p>\n

I\u00a0am grateful to\u00a0the\u00a0Russian people for\u00a0their trust back then, and\u00a0after that, in\u00a0the\u00a0following elections. It is a\u00a0great honour to\u00a0be the\u00a0leader of\u00a0Russia.<\/p>\n

Lionel Barber: <\/strong>Mr President, thank you for\u00a0spending time with the\u00a0Financial Times in\u00a0Moscow, in\u00a0the\u00a0Kremlin.<\/p>\n

Vladimir Putin:<\/strong>\u00a0Thank you for\u00a0your interest in\u00a0the\u00a0events in\u00a0Russia and\u00a0your interest in\u00a0what Russia thinks about the\u00a0current international affairs. And\u00a0thank you for\u00a0our interesting conversation today. I\u00a0believe it was really interesting.<\/p>\n

Thank you very much.<\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 en.kremlin.ru<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

27 Jun 2019 – On the eve of the G20 summit in Osaka, Vladimir Putin spoke with The Financial Times editor Lionel Barber and Moscow bureau chief Henry Foy.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":136494,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[180],"tags":[239,1035,1225,278],"class_list":["post-136492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-brics","tag-brics","tag-eastern-europe","tag-g20","tag-russia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136492","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136492"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136492\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/136494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136492"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136492"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136492"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}