Putin Discusses Russian Identity and National Ideas at Valdai Discussion Club

13/03/2018 Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club • President of Russia
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International
Discussion Club. The theme of the club’s anniversary session is Russia’s Diversity
for the Modern World.
September 19, 2013 19:45
Novgorod Region
Excerpts from transcript of the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, friends, ladies and gentlemen,
I hope that the place for your discussions, for our meetings is well chosen and that the timing is
good. We are in the centre of Russia – not a geographical centre, but a spiritual one. [Novgorod
Region] is a cradle of Russian statehood. Our outstanding historians believe and have analysed
how the elements of Russian statehood came together right here. This is in the light of the fact that
two great rivers – the Volkhov and Neva – acted as natural means of communication, providing
a natural linkage at the time. And it was here that Russian statehood gradually began to emerge.
As has already been pointed out, this year the [Valdai] club has brought together an unprecedented
list of participants: more than 200 Russian and foreign politicians, public and spiritual leaders,
philosophers and cultural figures, people with very different, original and sometimes opposing
views.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19243 1/45
You have already been conferring here for a few days now, and I'll try not to bore you unduly. But
nevertheless, I will allow myself to state my views on subjects that you have touched on during
these discussions in one way or another. I am not only thinking about analysing Russian historical,
cultural, and governance experiences. First and foremost, I am thinking of general debates,
conversations about the future, strategies, and values, about the values underpinning our country’s
development, how global processes will affect our national identity, what kind of twentyfirstcentury
world we want to see, and what Russia, our country, can contribute to this world together with its
partners.
Today we need new strategies to preserve our identity in a rapidly changing world, a world that has
become more open, transparent and interdependent. This fact confronts virtually all countries
and all peoples in one form or another: Russian, European, Chinese and American – the societies
of virtually all countries. And naturally, including here in Valdai, we strive to better understand how
our partners are attempting to meet this challenge, because we are meeting here with experts
on Russia. But we proceed from the fact that our guests will state their views on the interaction
and relationship between Russia and the countries that you represent.
For us (and I am talking about Russians and Russia), questions about who we are and who we
want to be are increasingly prominent in our society. We have left behind Soviet ideology, and there
will be no return. Proponents of fundamental conservatism who idealise pre1917 Russia seem
to be similarly far from reality, as are supporters of an extreme, westernstyle liberalism.
It is evident that it is impossible to move forward without spiritual, cultural and national self
determination. Without this we will not be able to withstand internal and external challenges, nor we
will succeed in global competitions. And today we see a new round of such competitions. Today
their main focuses are economictechnological and ideologicalinformational. Militarypolitical
problems and general conditions are worsening. The world is becoming more rigid, and sometimes
forgoes not merely international law, but also basic decency.
[Every country] has to have military, technological and economic strength, but nevertheless
the main thing that will determine success is the quality of citizens, the quality of society: their
intellectual, spiritual and moral strength. After all, in the end economic growth, prosperity
and geopolitical influence are all derived from societal conditions. They depend on whether
the citizens of a given country consider themselves a nation, to what extent they identify with their
own history, values and traditions, and whether they are united by common goals
and responsibilities. In this sense, the question of finding and strengthening national identity really
is fundamental for Russia.
Meanwhile, today Russia’s national identity is experiencing not only objective pressures stemming
from globalisation, but also the consequences of the national catastrophes of the twentieth century,
when we experienced the collapse of our state two different times. The result was a devastating
blow to our nation’s cultural and spiritual codes; we were faced with the disruption of traditions
and the consonance of history, with the demoralisation of society, with a deficit of trust
and responsibility. These are the root causes of many pressing problems we face. After all,
the question of responsibility for oneself, before society and the law, is something fundamental
for both legal and everyday life.
After 1991 there was the illusion that a new national ideology, a development ideology, would
simply appear by itself. The state, authorities, intellectual and political classes virtually rejected
engaging in this work, all the more so since previous, semiofficial ideology was hard to swallow.
And in fact they were all simply afraid to even broach the subject. In addition, the lack of a national
idea stemming from a national identity profited the quasicolonial element of the elite – those
determined to steal and remove capital, and who did not link their future to that of the country,
the place where they earned their money.
Practice has shown that a new national idea does not simply appear, nor does it develop according
to market rules. A spontaneously constructed state and society does not work, and neither does
mechanically copying other countries’ experiences. Such primitive borrowing and attempts
to civilize Russia from abroad were not accepted by an absolute majority of our people. This is
because the desire for independence and sovereignty in spiritual, ideological and foreign policy
spheres is an integral part of our national character. Incidentally, such approaches have often failed
in other nations too. The time when readymade lifestyle models could be installed in foreign states
like computer programmes has passed.
We also understand that identity and a national idea cannot be imposed from above, cannot be
established on an ideological monopoly. Such a construction is very unstable and vulnerable; we
know this from personal experience. It has no future in the modern world. We need historical
creativity, a synthesis of the best national practices and ideas, an understanding of our cultural,
spiritual and political traditions from different points of view, and to understand that [national
identity] is not a rigid thing that will last forever, but rather a living organism. Only then will our
identity be based on a solid foundation, be directed towards the future and not the past. This is
the main argument demonstrating that a development ideology must be discussed by people who
hold different views, and have different opinions about how and what to do to solve given problems.
All of us – socalled NeoSlavophiles and NeoWesternisers, statists and socalled liberals – all
of society must work together to create common development goals. We need to break the habit
of only listening to likeminded people, angrily – and even with hatred – rejecting any other point
of view from the outset. You can’t flip or even kick the country's future like a football, plunging into
unbridled nihilism, consumerism, criticism of anything and everything, or gloomy pessimism.
This means that liberals have to learn to talk with representatives of the leftwing and, conversely,
that nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multiethnic and multi
confessional country from its very inception. Nationalists must remember that by calling into
question our multiethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian
or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code.
In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.
Russia’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are unconditional. These are red lines
no one is allowed to cross. For all the differences in our views, debates about identity and about our
national future are impossible unless their participants are patriotic. Of course I mean patriotism
in the purest sense of the word.
Too often in our nation's history, instead of opposition to the government we have been faced with
opponents of Russia itself. I have already mentioned this; Pushkin also talked about it. And we
know how it ended, with the demolition of the [Russian] state as such. There is virtually no Russian
family that completely escaped the troubles of the past century. Questions about how to assess
certain historical events still divide our country and society.
We need to heal these wounds, and repair the tissues of our historic fabric. We can no longer
engage in selfdeception, striking out unsightly or ideologically uncomfortable pages of our history,
breaking links between generations, rushing to extremes, creating or debunking idols. It's time
to stop only taking note of the bad in our history, and berating ourselves more than even our
opponents would do. [Self]criticism is necessary, but without a sense of selfworth, or love for our
Fatherland, such criticism becomes humiliating and counterproductive.
We must be proud of our history, and we have things to be proud of. Our entire, uncensored history
must be a part of Russian identity. Without recognising this it is impossible to establish mutual trust
and allow society to move forward.
Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here
there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the EuroAtlantic
countries are actually rejecting their roots, including the Christian values that constitute the basis
of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national,
cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with
samesex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan.
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking
about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European
countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished
or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation.
And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this
opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral
crisis.
What else but the loss of the ability to selfreproduce could act as the greatest testimony
of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able
to reproduce themselves, even with the help of migration. Without the values embedded
in Christianity and other world religions, without the standards of morality that have taken shape
over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right
to defend these values . One must respect every minority’s right to be different, but the rights
of the majority must not be put into question.
At the same time we see attempts to somehow revive a standardised model of a unipolar world
and to blur the institutions of international law and national sovereignty. Such a unipolar,
standardised world does not require sovereign states; it requires vassals. In a historical sense this
amounts to a rejection of one’s own identity, of the Godgiven diversity of the world.
Russia agrees with those who believe that key decisions should be worked out on a collective
basis, rather than at the discretion of and in the interests of certain countries or groups of countries.
Russia believes that international law, not the right of the strong, must apply. And we believe that
every country, every nation is not exceptional, but unique, original and benefits from equal rights,
including the right to independently choose their own development path.
This is our conceptual outlook, and it follows from our own historical destiny and Russia's role
in global politics. Our present position has deep historical roots. Russia itself has evolved
on the basis of diversity, harmony and balance, and brings such a balance to the international
stage.
I want to remind you that the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the agreements made at Yalta
in 1945, taken with Russia’s very active participation, secured a lasting peace. Russia’s strength,
the strength of a winning nation at those critical junctures, manifested itself as generosity
and justice. And let us remember [the Treaty of] Versailles, concluded without Russia’s
participation. Many experts, and I absolutely agree with them, believe that Versailles laid
the foundation for the Second World War because the Treaty of Versailles was unfair to the German
people: it imposed restrictions with which they could not cope, and the course of the next century
became clear.
There is one more fundamental aspect to which I want to draw your attention. In Europe and some
other countries socalled multiculturalism is in many respects a transplanted, artificial model that is
now being questioned, for understandable reasons. This is because it is based on paying
for the colonial past. It is no accident that today European politicians and public figures are
increasingly talking about the failures of multiculturalism, and that they are not able to integrate
foreign languages or foreign cultural elements into their societies.
Over the past centuries in Russia, which some have tried to label as the ”prison of nations“, not
even the smallest ethnic group has disappeared. And they have retained not only their internal
autonomy and cultural identity, but also their historical space. You know, I was interested to learn
(I did not even know this) that in Soviet times [authorities] paid such careful attention to this that
virtually every small ethnic group had its own print publication, support for its language, and for its
national literature. We should bring back and take on board much of what has been done in this
respect.
Along with this the different cultures in Russia have the unique experience of mutual influence,
mutual enrichment and mutual respect. This multiculturalism and multiethnicity lives in our
historical consciousness, in our spirit and in our historical makeup. Our state was built in the course
of a millennium on this organic model.
Russia – as philosopher Konstantin Leontyev vividly put it – has always evolved in ”blossoming
complexity“ as a statecivilisation, reinforced by the Russian people, Russian language, Russian
culture, Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s other traditional religions. It is precisely
the statecivilisation model that has shaped our state polity. It has always sought to flexibly
accommodate the ethnic and religious specificity of particular territories, ensuring diversity in unity.
Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions are an integral part of Russia’s identity,
its historical heritage and the presentday lives of its citizens. The main task of the state,
as enshrined in the Constitution, is to ensure equal rights for members of traditional religions
and atheists, and the right to freedom of conscience for all citizens.
However, it is clearly impossible to identify oneself only through one’s ethnicity or religion in such
a large nation with a multiethnic population. In order to maintain the nation’s unity, people must
develop a civic identity on the basis of shared values, a patriotic consciousness, civic responsibility
and solidarity, respect for the law, and a sense of responsibility for their homeland’s fate, without
losing touch with their ethnic or religious roots.
There are broad discussions on how the ideology of national development will be structured
politically and conceptually – including with your participation, colleagues. But I deeply believe that
individuals’ personal, moral, intellectual and physical development must remain at the heart of our
philosophy. Back at the start of the 1990s, Solzhenitsyn stated that the nation’s main goal should be
to preserve the population after a very difficult 20th century. Today, we must admit that we have not
yet fully overcome the negative demographic trends, although we have veered away from
a dangerous decline in the national potential.
Unfortunately, throughout our nation’s history, little value was given at times to individual human
lives. Too often, people were seen simply as a means, rather than a goal and a mission
for development. We no longer have that right and we cannot throw millions of human lives into
the fire for the sake of development. We must treasure every individual. Russia’s main strength
in this and future centuries will lie in its educated, creative, physically and spiritually healthy people,
rather than natural resources.
The role of education is all the more important because in order to educate an individual, a patriot,
we must restore the role of great Russian culture and literature. They must serve as the foundation
for people’s personal identity, the source of their uniqueness and their basis for understanding
the national idea. Here, a great deal depends on the teaching community, which has been
and remains a highly important guardian of nationwide values, ideas and philosophies. This
community speaks the same language – the language of science, knowledge and education,
despite the fact that it is spread out over an enormous territory, from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok.
In this way, the community of teachers, the educational community overall, in the broad sense
of the word, binds the nation together. Supporting this community is one of the most important
steps on the path toward a strong, flourishing Russia.
I want to stress again that without focussing our efforts on people’s education and health, creating
mutual responsibility between the authorities and each individual, and establishing trust within
society, we will be losers in the competition of history. Russia’s citizens must feel that they are
the responsible owners of their country, region, hometown, property, belongings and their lives.
A citizen is someone who is capable of independently managing his or her own affairs, freely
cooperating with equals.
Local governments and selfregulated citizens’ organisations serve as the best school for civic
consciousness. Of course, I’m referring to nonprofits. Incidentally, one of the best Russian political
traditions, the country council tradition, was also built on the principles of local government. A true
civil society and a true, nationallyfocused political elite, including the opposition with its own
ideology, values and standards for good and evil – their own, rather than those dictated
by the media or from abroad – can only grow through effective selfgoverning mechanisms.
The government is prepared to trust selfregulating and selfgoverning associations, but we must
know whom we are trusting. This is absolutely normal global practice, which is precisely why we
have passed new legislation to increase the transparency of nongovernmental organisations.
Speaking of any kind of reforms, it is important to bear in mind that there is more to our nation than
just Moscow and St Petersburg. In developing Russian federalism, we must rely on our own
historical experience, using flexible and diverse models. The Russian model of federalism has
a great deal of potential built into it. It is imperative that we learn to use it competently, not forgetting
its most important aspect: the development of the regions and their independence should
create equal opportunities for all of our nation’s citizens, regardless of where they live, to eliminate
inequalities in the economic and social development of Russia’s territory, thereby strengthening
the nation’s unity. Ultimately, this is a huge challenge because these territories’ development has
been very unbalanced over the course of decades and even centuries.
I would like to touch on another topic. The 21st century promises to become the century of major
changes, the era of the formation of major geopolitical zones, as well as financial and economic,
cultural, civilisational, and military and political areas. That is why integrating with our neighbours is
our absolute priority. The future Eurasian Economic Union, which we have declared and which we
have discussed extensively as of late, is not just a collection of mutually beneficial agreements.
The Eurasian Union is a project for maintaining the identity of nations in the historical Eurasian
space in a new century and in a new world. Eurasian integration is a chance for the entire post
Soviet space to become an independent centre for global development, rather than remaining
on the outskirts of Europe and Asia.
I want to stress that Eurasian integration will also be built on the principle of diversity. This is
a union where everyone maintains their identity, their distinctive character and their political
independence. Together with our partners, we will gradually implement this project, step by step.
We expect that it will become our common input into maintaining diversity and stable global
development.
Colleagues, the years after 1991 are often referred to as the postSoviet era. We have lived through
and overcome that turbulent, dramatic period. Russia has passed through these trials
and tribulations and is returning to itself, to its own history, just as it did at other points in its history.
After consolidating our national identity, strengthening our roots, and remaining open and receptive
to the best ideas and practices of the East and the West, we must and will move forward.
Thank you very much for your attention.
<…>
Member of the Valdai Discussion Club Advisory Board Piotr Dutkiewicz:Mr President, this is
the tenth year that we are meeting with you here.
This is a unique platform and a unique format – there is nothing like it in the world. Thank you
for these ten years of warm support for our club.
I have a twopart question concerning your article in The New York Times. It was an excellent idea
and a brilliant article. Indeed, you are personally responsible for stopping the expansion
and deepening of the Syrian conflict, which is an enormous achievement.
Question: who came up with this idea? Was it Lavrov, Shoigu, Peskov or someone else? And when
did you discuss it for the first time with President Obama?
The second part of the question: it seems to me that you put yourself in a rather awkward position
with this brilliant idea, this brilliant article, because you became a kind of hostage. You and Russia
have taken on the burden of responsibility for the success of this agreement. You already have
many detractors because they do not want to see majorglobal policy to develop as a Putin
and Obama duet. What happens if it doesn’t work?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you for your kind words.
My colleagues and I have always been pleased that there are people in the world interested
in Russia, its history and its culture. Ten years ago, when I was told that these people would like
to come to Russia, talk with us, engage in debate, and want to learn about our point of view on key
issues in the development of the nation itself and its place in the world, well, naturally, we supported
it immediately; I supported it and my colleagues supported it. I am very happy that over the last ten
years, this platform has become even more prestigious compared to the first steps taken a decade
ago. The interest in our nation is not waning; on the contrary, it is increasing and growing.
I want to respond to your words of gratitude in kind. I would like to thank all the experts on Russia
who remain faithful to their love of our nation and their interest in our nation.
Now, regarding the article. I had this idea completely by chance. I saw that President Obama took
the discussion on the possibility of attacking Syria to the Congress and Senate. I followed
the course of that discussion and I just wanted to convey our position, my own position,
to the people who will be forming their opinions on this issue, and to clarify it. Because
unfortunately, the media often present various problems very onesidedly, or simply stay completely
silent.
So this was my idea; I called one of my aides and said that I would like to publish an article
in an American newspaper – it didn’t matter which one, but one of the leading ones – so that this
information would reach the readers, and dictated what I wanted to see written. You may have
noticed that it does not contain anything I have not stated earlier, in various places in public. I have
already talked about all of it in one way or another. So I just dictated it, and then when
my colleagues put it together, I took a look. I didn’t like everything, so I rewrote and added a few
things, gave it back to them, they worked on it some more and brought it to me again. I made some
more changes and felt it was ready for publishing. We arranged through our partners that it would
be in The New York Times; we came to an agreement with this respected publication that the article
would be published without any cuts. If they didn’t like it, we could give it to another newspaper.
But I must give credit to the New York Times editors: they completely abided by our agreements
and published everything as I wrote it. They even waived their usual requirements on the number
of characters and words in the article; it was a little bit over the limit. They were going to submit it,
but then one of my aides said, “President Obama is going to address the nation tomorrow. What if
he announces that there won’t be any strikes, that they changed their minds? It’s better to wait.”
I said, “Very well.” We waited, and the next morning, I was getting ready for work and I was given
President Obama’s speech. I began to read it and realised that nothing had changed fundamentally,
so I laid it aside without finishing it. But then I thought, “No, I need to read it to the end.” And when
I read all of it, it became clear that my article was incomplete. As you understand, the matter
at hand was America’s exceptionalism. So I picked up the article, and right then and there, I hand
wrote the last paragraph. I gave it to my colleagues, they passed it on to The New York Times,
and there it was.
Now, concerning responsibility. You know, you are all very experienced, smart and clever people.
Here is what I will say about Russia’s special responsibility. We have equal rights and equal
responsibilities with all our colleagues involved in the discussion on Syria. This is not the first time
I hear that I now carry a special responsibility. We all carry a special responsibility; we all carry it
equally. If the attempt to resolve the problem by peaceful means is unsuccessful, that will be
a tragedy. But we must investigate before we do take any other steps. My good friend Francois
Fillon – we have known each other for a long time and have become friends during our years
of working together – talked about how after the report was released by UN experts, it became
clear that chemical weapons had been used. But this was clear to us from the very beginning,
and our experts agreed. The only thing that is unclear is who used it.
We are constantly talking about responsibility on the part of Assad’s government, whether he used
chemical weapons or not. But what if they were used by the opposition? Nobody is saying what we
would then do with the opposition – but this, too, is an important question. We have every reason
to believe that this was a provocation. You know, it was clever and smart, but at the same time,
the execution was primitive. They used an ancient, Sovietmade projectile, taken from the Syrian
army’s armaments from a long time ago – it even had “Made in the USSR” printed on it. But this
was not the first time chemical weapons were used in Syria. Why didn’t they investigate
the previous instances?
This matter should be investigated as thoroughly as possible. If we finally get an answer, despite all
obstacles, to the question of who did this, who committed this crime – and there is no question that
it was a crime – then we will take the next step; we will then work with other UN Security Council
colleagues to determine the culpability of those who committed this crime, together and in solidarity.
Thank you.
Moderator Svetlana Mironyuk: They say that Senator McCain followed your example and published
an article of his own in Pravda newspaper. He probably remembers from the Soviet years that
Pravda was a wellknown publication and the most popular newspaper in the country. True, a lot
of time has passed and things have changed a bit since then, so it’s no longer true. I don’t know if
you heard about this or not, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: No, I didn’t know about it. I have met the senator before. He was in Munich when
I made the speech there that went on to become so famous. Actually, there was nothing anti
American in that speech. I simply stated our position frankly and honestly, and there was nothing
aggressive in what I said, if you only take a closer look. What I said then was that we were
promised at one point that NATO would not expand beyond the former Federal Republic
of Germany’s eastern border. That was a promise directly made to Gorbachev. True, it was not
actually set out and written down. But where is NATO today, where is the border? We got cheated,
to put it quite simply. That’s the whole story. But there’s nothing aggressive here. It’s more just
a reluctance to admit to what I just said. But I didn’t say those words to offend anyone. I said them
so that we would be able to lay everything before each other plain and clear and discuss
the problems in an honest, open fashion. It’s easier to reach agreements this way. You shouldn’t
keep things hidden.
The senator has his own views. I do think though that he is lacking information about our country.
The fact that he chose to publish his article in Pravda – and he wanted after all to publish it
in the most influential and widely read newspaper – suggests that he is lacking information. Pravda
is a respected publication of the Communist Party, which is now in opposition, but it does not have
very wide circulation around the country now. He wants to get his views across to as many people
as possible, and so his choice simply suggests that he is not wellinformed about our country.
Actually, I would have been happy to see him here at the Valdai Club say, taking part
in the discussions. As far as I know, our big television channels, the national channels, proposed
that he come and take part in an open and honest discussion. There you have it, freedom
of speech, freedom of the press. He is welcome to share his point of view with the whole country
and discuss things with his equals, with political analysts and politicians, members of the State
Duma or the Federation Council.
In this respect, I can only express my regret that our American colleagues did not react to our
parliamentarians’ proposal and refused to receive them in Washington for a discussion on Syria.
Why did they do this? To be honest, I don’t see anything so bad about this proposal, which,
on the contrary, seems to me of interest and the right thing to do. The more we actually discuss
things directly with each other, the easier it will be to find solutions.
Svetlana MIRONYUK: Thank you.
Are there more questions from the floor?
Let’s stick to the subjects if we can, so as not to jump from one topic to another.
Bridget Kendall, go ahead.
Diplomatic Correspondent For the Bbc Bridget Kendall: Thank you.
Again about Syria, Russia has been lauded for its achievement for bringing about a deal which
looks as though it could lead to the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria, all the more
an achievement given that the Syrian government didn't admit it had them until very recently. Would
you have been able to persuade President Assad to do this if there hadn't been a threat
of American military strikes? In other words, did the threat of US military strikes actually play
a rather useful role?
Vladimir Putin: Am I right in understanding that you are asking about whether it is the threat
of military strikes that plays a part in Syria’s agreeing to have its weapons placed under control?
First, I’d like to ask you all to address your questions to everyone taking part in today’s discussion,
so as not to turn this into a boring dialogue. If you permit, I will redirect your question
to my colleagues and ask them to share their points of view on this issue.
The threat of the use of force and actual use of force are far from being a cureall for international
problems. Look at what we are actually talking about after all. We are forgetting the heart
of the matter. We are talking about using force outside the framework of current international law.
We’ve just been saying how the US Congress and Senate are discussing whether to use force
or not. But it is not there that this matter should be discussed. It should be discussed in the UN
Security Council. That is the heart of the issue. That is my first point.
Second, on whether we will manage to convince Assad or not, I don’t know. So far it looks
as though Syria has fully agreed to our proposal and is ready to act according to the plan that
the international community is putting together, working through the UN. Russia and the USA,
in the persons of Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov have already practically
drafted the outlines of this plan. There is a special organisation that will work together with the UN
on this matter of eliminating chemical weapons. Syria has declared that it will join and that it indeed
already considers itself to have joined the International Chemical Weapons Convention. These are
practical steps that the Syrian government has already taken. Will we succeed in taking the process
through to completion? I cannot give a 100% guarantee. But what we have seen just lately, over
these last few days, gives us hope that this is possible and will be done.
Let me just remind you about how these chemical weapons came about. Syria got itself chemical
weapons as an alternative to Israel’s nuclear arsenal, as we know. What can be done about
the various issues associated with proliferation and nonproliferation of weapons of mass
destruction remains a very relevant question today, perhaps the most important issue of our time. If
this situation gets out of control, like it once happened with gunpowder, the consequences will be
unimaginable. We therefore need to strive towards nuclearfree status in particular parts
of the world, especially in such volatile regions as the Middle East.
We need to be very careful in our action so as to give unconditional security guarantees for all
participants in this process. After all, there are people in Israel itself who categorically oppose
nuclear weapons. You remember the wellknown case when a nuclear physicist was sent to prison,
served his sentence and still continues to think that his position was right. Why? There is nothing
antiIsraeli in his position. He is a Jew himself and a citizen of his country, but he simply believes
that Israel’s technological superiority is such that the country does not need nuclear weapons.
Israel is already technologically and militarily a long way ahead of the region’s other countries. But
nuclear weapons only turn the country into a target and create foreign policy problems. In this
respect, there is sense in the position of this nuclear physicist, who disclosed the existence
of Israel’s nuclear weapons.
But to come back to your question about whether the plan will succeed or not, we hope that it will.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Mr President, I suggest that since we have veered away from defence
and security issues, we should give Mr Rühe a chance to reply, ask a question, and express his
opinion.
Mr Rühe, you have the floor.
Former Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Volker Rühe: Well, I wanted to speak
about the young generation in this country.
First, I would like to begin – because I’ve been here from the beginning – to also compliment our
Russian friends on the format of Valdai, the architects – because it would not be enough to call
them organisers. What we have seen here, I call the culture of inclusiveness and a love
of pluralism. And I can tell you, Mr President, we are quite fascinated by the pluralistic voices from
Russia, including very powerful statements by people that are in opposition to your politics,
and I think this shows the strength of the country, that it was organised in this way.
I’ve never looked at Russia with the somewhat narrow eyes of a defence minister, you know this.
I was first here in 1971, and Sergei Karaganov is a friend of mine since the late 1970s. We don’t
look it, but it’s a fact of life. We have lived through SS20 and Pershing.
And what I would like to say is, I came here as Defence Minister in 1995 and I went to St
Petersburg. And I said, I don’t want to see any tanks or artillery, or any generals. I want to see
the Mayor, Sobchak. And I got to know you also, you were part of his team. Why? He was
a lighthouse for me, as a young member of parliament in West Germany, still in the divided
Germany, and I think what he was doing was much more important than tanks and artillery, and it
has proved to be this way. So it’s a lifelong interest in a neighbour. And we all, I believe, on this
continent, are interested in a successful, modern Russia.
Now, the young generation. What I’ve seen – and of course it was very interesting for me to listen
to his daughter, who is a powerful voice for the young generation, two days ago.
So what I’ve seen here, what I’ve seen in Russia is you have really an asset to the country, your
young generation. They are very intelligent. They want to have a good education. They want to be
more internationally connected. And they want to have a bigger say in the politics of your country.
They are knocking at the doors of the Kremlin.
The young generation in my country, they also want to build their private lives, they are very much
internationally connected. The doors to our Kremlins, which is the parliament and the government,
are very open, but they don’t knock at it. They leave it to politicians because they think things have
been arranged very well. And we are very sad that some of the very best just want to have
a successful private life, but don’t engage in public life.
So my message really is, Russia can be proud of a young generation, even if there are political
opponents that want to engage in public life, which is not the case in many of the west European
countries. And I’ve said earlier in Russia also, we should give up this visa regime in the West,
because that would enable hundreds of thousands of young Russians to come and see our life
and our political system. But I must say, it would also change Russia, because once they have
studied in Rome or in London or in Washington, because they’ll be forces of change, the necessary
change in this country. But I think it would make the country also more competitive.
Now what has that to do with security? I think this is the best way to ensure security and to develop
common points of view. And I’m very glad that this culture of Valdai, I don’t think there’s anything –
I have been to many conferences, and also to Munich, but Munich is very narrow securitywise,
there’s no conference like this in the world.
And also when we listen for four hours to your people about ideas and politics – we very often just
talk from Monday to Thursday about our politics. It was very fascinating to see that the Russian
speakers are much more interested in fundamental questions of society than we are, which is very
much on the surface, what we are debating. So I think this is something to start from, but the real
message is, I think it would be a great project of your third term to integrate this young generation
when they’re knocking at the door of the Kremlin, because don’t forget, we want more people
to knock at the doors of political power in the West, and you can be proud of these people. That’s
my message.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you, Mr Rühe.
Other questions, please.
President and Founder of the Center On Global Interests In Washington Nikolai Zlobin: Good
afternoon.
Everyone seems to be expecting me to ask you about 2018 and whether you will run for a new
term. But I’m not going to ask that question. Everyone else I have put this question to so far have
all said no though, so you might have to run anyway in the end, or else there won’t be anyone at all.
But I want to come back to a question we have already discussed. Unlike you, I did read McCain’s
article. It should be said that it is not exactly a reply to your article, because it is really quite
a personal article and not related to Syria. I think it is not very politically correct really, but that is
my personal view.
Actually, he says there that no criticism of Putin is allowed in Russia. I’m here as a living example
of someone who is always criticising you. Even here at Valdai I have often argued with you, but I’m
still here as you can see, alive and well. To be honest, I do not entirely agree with the things you
said today either. But McCain says that the government Russia has today does not adequately
represent Russian society, and that Russia deserves a different government.
In this respect I have a question. I know that relations between the public and the authorities is
indeed one of Russia’s big problems, an old, historical problem. Before last year’s election, I recall
that you said that there is perhaps a need to change the Constitution, change the relations between
government and society, change the mutual responsibility, develop local government and so on.
There was the very good idea too of bringing more young people into government. Sometimes
I hear voices among the opposition saying that this government should be swept aside and that
a new government is needed. You are now serving your third term as President. How do you view
today the relations between government and society in Russia? Are you happy with these
relations? What should be changed? Is the Constitution really the issue, or is McCain perhaps right
in a way? I do not think his argument is correct. But what is your vision now, in the twentyfirst
century, of the relations between Russia’s highest authorities and society?
Thank you, Mr President.
Vladimir PUTIN: You recall the words of one of the world’s outstanding political leaders, a former
British Prime Minister, who said of democracy that it “is the worst form of government except all
the others that have been tried”. Probably then – not probably, but for certain – Russia does
deserve a better quality of government. Is there an ideal form of government in other countries,
including the one that you and Mr McCain represent? This is a big question, a very big question, if
we are talking about democracy.
It has happened twice in US history that the President of the United States was chosen
by a majority in the electoral colleges, but with a minority of the actual voters. This is an obvious
flaw in the electoral procedure, that is to say, a flaw at the very heart of American democracy.
In other words, everyone has their own problems.
We perhaps have no fewer problems than you, and maybe even more, though this would only be
natural. Russia has gone through the experience of rule under the tsars, then communism, then
the disintegration of the 1990s. This has been a period of very difficult and complicated rebuilding.
But it is very clear that Russia is on the road to democracy and is looking for its own ways
to strengthen these democratic foundations. There is this very fact that for ten years now we have
been getting together, debating, openly discussing, even when we used to meet behind closed
doors, it all became public anyway. And this is not to mention the other aspects of our life.
As for what kind of government Russia should have, this is something for our citizens to decide,
and not for our colleagues from abroad. We held an election a year ago, not so long ago,
and the majority of Russia’s citizens voted for me. I base myself on this decision. That does not
mean we can now sit on our laurels. I have to work on myself, and our institutions need to improve
too. This is just what we are all doing.
Note that we have returned to holding gubernatorial elections in the regions. This practice is not so
widespread in the world. Such elections are the practice in the United States, but India say, has
a completely different procedure. Many countries do things very much their own way. Germany has
its system, France has its way of doing things, and in Russia we have decided to elect regional
governors by direct secret ballot.
We have liberalised political parties’ activity. As a specialist on Russia, you know just how many
new political parties took part in the regional elections. In many cases they achieved victory,
and as far as I know, the winners of elections from these new political parties are here at Valdai too.
The improvement process is therefore going ahead. I think it will never stop, because government
organisation, the political organisation of society, and democratic procedures need to keep up more
or less with a society’s current needs and demands, and society is developing and changing.
The political system will change and develop with it.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you.
Any other questions?
Founder Director, Centre For European Reform Charles Grant: Charles Grant from the Centre
for European Reform, London.
I have a question for the President, but if other panellists wish to comment, I would be grateful,
because it’s about Ukraine. I know Mr Prodi has a special interest in Ukraine.
I’d like the President to tell us whether he sees Ukraine as a normal, sovereign, independent
country or a country that’s a bit different. I ask that because we have a question now – Ukraine has
to choose whether to join the Customs Union with Russia and other countries, or to reach a closer
agreement with the EU. And we’ve heard from participants here in the last few days that some
people in Ukraine find Russia’s heavyarmed tactics – closing the borders, blocking exports from
Ukraine – counterproductive. They have told us this is pushing public opinion in Ukraine to be
a little more critical of Russia and perhaps closer to the EU. So could you explain what your
strategy is with regard to Ukraine and what kind of country you believe it is.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: My good, longtime friend Romano headed the European Commission for many
years. So let’s ask him to open the discussion. I have an answer, and I’m ready to reply to you, but
I would like to hear his opinion.
Former Prime Minister of Italy Romano Prodi: First of all, you remember that I was President
of the European Commission. And I remember that in our last common press conference, when
I was asked about the relation between the European Union and Russia, I said, they must be like
vodka and caviar – I don’t know which is which – but we are so strict, and things are not going
in this direction. There is something that we have to move or to change, because really – well,
maybe my vision is influenced by the fact I am by education an economist – but I see such
a complementarity, such a necessity of working together, that I think we have to work in this
direction.
And clearly, it’s not only a Russian problem. Europe is fairly divided. In this case, you have
countries that are much more inclined to deal with Russia, some others are not confident in that.
We also have a different vision in very simple problems like the visa. And I agree that the first step
is to have free circulation of young people. The Erasmus project in Europe, which is a very simple
circulation of students, is changing the mentality of a generation. We must do the same with
Russia.
And clearly, in the case of Ukraine, I think it’s going in the same direction. There is now a double
proposal that says, one is the association agreement that will be signed probably in Vilnius
at the end of November, and then there is the proposal of, let’s say, the Eurasian economy.
First of all, I am not a technical expert of trade, but all my consultants say, “Look, the two proposals
are not incompatible. They are incompatible taken as a picture, as static, but if we sit around
the table, with good will, we can make very few changes and then make them compatible.” And so,
as I answer to Mr Grant, reinforce the identity of Ukraine – not as a dividing country, but as a bridge
between Russia and Europe, because we need bridges, and Ukraine must and can be a bridge
between us. This is, I think, my position. And I’m working in this direction because Ukraine is
a great country. Fortyfive million people, even if the decreasing population is, geopolitically, very
important. And it must be an exercise in cooperation between Russia and European Union.
Vladimir, on this point, clearly, why I am so warm about that? Because I think that if we create two
divided trade areas, we’ll be, for the future, damaging the structure. Because clearly, Europe is
going in the direction of transatlantic trade investment partnership with such a big area.
Russia, with this Customs Union, will have a dimension that is not comparable to the other one. So
I think – well, I don’t want to judge Russia, because I do not have the right to do it – but
the dimensions of the country, the characteristics of the country, are such that the great change that
you are working for, modernisation and technology, needs a strong link with you. From this point
of view, really, we are like vodka and caviar. I think the complementarity is so high that you cannot
do without us and we cannot do without you. So you have to be very prudent following your
doctrine, your diversity cooperation, very prudent to create a structure that then will diverge
in the future.
This is the moment in which we must stay around the table, as you did with Syria. Your proposal
with Syria is a masterpiece, because first of all, it has avoided the war, and even the American
president was not so happy with this war. And second, it was giving the possibility to the Americans
to set the big principles of being against the chemical weapons. So they could get a proposal that
could be accepted by you.
I think this is the moment in the relations between Europe and Russia to use the same
methodology as has been done with Syria. Because if we start to diverge, Russia will be more
alone, Europe will be worse off, and the future relations cannot help us in the direction that we both
tried to explore in the past.
I agree that to dance, we need to be two. One cannot dance alone. But I think this is the moment
in which we have to make these proposals.
Vladimir Putin: You see what a good idea it was to gave the floor to Mr Prodi.
Yes, Romano and I have been working together for a long time, and we do have a very good
personal relationship. That’s how things have played out. In Italy, I have always had good relations
with him, and with Mr Berlusconi, with whom he is in constant conflict in the political arena.
And Berlusconi is currently on trial for living with women, but nobody would lay a finger on him if he
were gay. (Laughter.)
Anyway, I want to talk about Mr Romano’s words. Please note that he is not just an intellectual,
although he is indeed a professor, a scientist, a true European intellectual. But he is also
a European bureaucrat, down to his core. Just look at what he said: relations between Russia
and Europe are like caviar and vodka. But both caviar and vodka are Russian products, products
of Russian origin. (Laughter.)
After all, Europe is used to the wellknown principle of eating from one’s neighbours’ plate before
eating from one’s own.
Romano Prodi: Let it be whisky and soda.
Vladimir Putin: Well, whisky and soda is a bad drink to begin with; why ruin the whisky? You should
be drinking it straight.
Regarding Ukraine. Ukraine, without a doubt, is an independent state. That is how history has
unfolded. But let’s not forget that today’s Russian statehood has roots in the Dnieper; as we say, we
have a common Dnieper baptistery. Kievan Rus started out as the foundation of the enormous
future Russian state. We have common traditions, a common mentality, a common history
and a common culture. We have very similar languages. In that respect, I want to repeat again, we
are one people.
Of course, the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian culture and the Ukrainian language have wonderful
features that make up the identity of the Ukrainian nation. And we not only respect it, but moreover,
I, for one, really love it, I like all of it. It is part of our greater Russian, or RussianUkrainian, world.
But history has unfolded in such a way thattoday, this territory is an independent state, and we
respect that.
By the way, Ukraine had a long and difficult path to reach its current state today. It was part of one
state, then another state, and in each, a part of Ukraine’s public entities were not privileged.
The Ukrainian people had a very difficult destiny, but when we united into one Rus, that part
of the nation began to develop rapidly, began developing infrastructure and trade. After World War
II, the Soviet government allotted somewhere around 1.5 trillion rubles to restore certain
companies – very large companies. One third of that funding went to Ukraine.
Let me reiterate: today, Ukraine is an independent state, and we respect that fact. Naturally,
selecting priorities and selecting allies is the national, sovereign right of the Ukrainian people
and the legitimate Ukrainian government.
How do we see this process of [Ukraine] joining the EU or signing a Customs Union agreement with
Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus? After all, Russia is also going to sign a new framework
agreement. We have already discussed signing [an agreement on] some form of a free trade zone
with the European Union, and Romano and I have talked about this as well. This is all possible.
You know what the difference is? The fact that during negotiations on Russia’s WTO accession we
agreed on a certain level of tariff protection. This is hard for us because our competition has cheap
and – we can say frankly – quite highquality agricultural products, agricultural machinery. Things
are very difficult for us in several other sectors, for our industries. But the level of customs
protection in Russia is higher than in Ukraine; I think it is twice as high, or near that.
Why are we marking time in negotiation processes with our European partners? It’s true what I said
earlier about them earlier that before eating what’s on their plate, they first eat the neighbours’ food.
They are very nice guys, very friendly, polite, pleasant to talk with, we can eat caviar and drink
vodka, good German beer or Italian or French wines, but they are very tough negotiators.
At present we can’t even move forward and conclude a new framework agreement, much less
a further agreement about free trade. That is because we believe our partners are making
excessive demands and, in fact, imposing on us an agreement that we refer to as WTO Plus. That
is, it comprises the WTO requirements with regards to open markets and several other things,
particularly regarding standards, plus some additional demands.
But first of all we need to digest WTO accession; we cannot go too fast. And we believe that if
Ukraine joined the Customs Union and we coordinated our efforts and negotiated with
the Europeans, we would have more chances to negotiate better terms of trade with our main
economic and trade partner. Europe remains our major trading partner; 50% of our trade is with
the European Union.
In this sense, we believe that [joining the Customs Union] serves both our and Ukrainian interests.
All the more so since during the negotiation process we would lower energy prices and open
Russian markets. According to our calculations, and the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences confirms
this, Ukraine would receive an additional $9 billion. Not a minus, but a plus.
How would Ukraine benefit from joining the EU? Open markets? Well, this would make
the economy more liberal. But I have no idea whether Ukraine’s economy can cope with such
liberalism. It’s none of our business really, our Ukrainian partners must decide this for themselves.
But what is our problem? If import duties are further reduced in Ukraine, then good quality
and cheap European goods will make their way there. They will squeeze products of Ukrainian
origin out of the domestic market, pushing them where? Towards us. This creates problems. We
are therefore warning in advance and saying: we understand all this, it’s your choice, go ahead if
you want to, but keep in mind that we will somehow have to protect our market and introduce
protectionist measures. We are saying this openly and in advance, so that afterwards you will not
accuse us of interfering with anyone or questioning another country’s sovereign right to decide
in favour of the EU.
You understand that we will simply need to consider how many goods can access our market
and what protectionist measures we will have to take, that’s all. After all, look at the share
of agricultural products that Ukraine imports and which end up on the Russian market. I think
probably about 70 to 80% of all food imports. And what will they do with their pipes and other
products? There's a whole range of issues, we engage in massive internal cooperation, and some
businesses cannot exist without their counterparts. And if we introduce such limitations, these
companies – and perhaps whole industries –will then face severe problems. That’s what we’re
talking about, that’s what we’re warning about. We are doing so in good faith and in advance,
without in any way encroaching on [Ukraine’s] sovereign right to take a foreign policy decision.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Thank you very much, Mr President.
I want to give Mr Simes the chance to reply.
President of the Us Centre For the National Interest Dimitri Simes: I enjoyed listening to this whole
conversation and the President’s speech. I feel a little uncomfortable, like the honest old man who
said: “Mr President, I am an honest old man, I have nothing to lose, and you are a genius.” I do not
want to speak like that and won’t do so here.
Vladimir Putin: That’s a pity. It’s not hard – just say it. (Laughter.)
Dimitri Simes: Maybe you’ll like [what I have to say], we’ll see.
I found our previous conversation a little perturbing because it seemed like “all is well, my beautiful
marchioness”, except for a tiny trifle. Yes, of course there are problems between Russia
and the European Union, there are disagreements between Russia and the United States, but
on the whole everything is done with goodwill and mutual understanding. I had the feeling while
listening to the conversation earlier that all we have to do is show some goodwill and common
sense, and everything will go smoothly.
Friends, we have not yet recovered from, and have only just begun to seek a way out of one
of the most serious international crises since World War II. We have not yet emerged from this
crisis. Apart from the technical aspects of the situation with Syria’s chemical weapons, there is also
a fundamental difference of views. As the President said, Russia’s position is that there should be
no use of force.
Vladimir Putin: Without UN Security Council approval.
Dimitri Simes: Without UN Security Council approval.
In addition, as the President said, there is no proof that chemical weapons were used by Assad’s
government, which in the United States and in Europe is usually referred to only as the regime.
The American position and that of leading European powers is fundamentally different.
Why was President Obama forced to take on President Putin’s initiative? As I understand it, not
because he fundamentally rejected the idea of a military strike on Syria. As Mr President just said,
Mr had Obama addressed the Congress and was clearly preparing the country for a military strike,
but he failed. First he was let down by the British Parliament, and then suddenly by American public
opinion.
I have never seen anything like what has just happened in the United States. I emigrated there forty
years ago, in 1973, and what I have seen in that time is that the majority of Americans are political
realists who do not like any foreign humanitarian interventions, and who do not want to spread
democracy by using force.
Public opinion does not matter much, because for most people it wasn’t an important issue; that is
not why they voted the way they did. And then suddenly, for the first time a real protest hurricane
developed very fast, and took on momentum like a snowball. When it began the Administration was
certain that they had the support of the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats. And after
the Senate’s vote, it would be possible to pressure the House [of Representatives], which has
a Republican majority.
And suddenly I saw on American television – and I’m sure my American colleagues did too – how
at these meetings of congressional representatives, senators and voters, including Senator John
McCain, the voters shouted: “How dare you?! What are you doing?!” And the more
the Administration and President Obama talked about needing to attack Syria, the greater was
the public opposition.
Then your initiative appeared, Mr President, one that allowed President Obama to save face
and to recognise the inevitable, that strikes won’t work. But the main motives remain: removing
Assad, demonstrating that if the United States and President Obama personally set some kind
of red line, in this case the use of chemical weapons, then it cannot be crossed. And if it does
happen, then America won’t tolerate that the perpetrator remains in power, or for evil not to be
punished, as Washington said. All these points remain valid.
The problem is much broader than Syria. When you talk about Russia’s national identity,
I remembered how I was in Russia in 1991 with former President Nixon, and how he spoke
at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He surprised everyone there
by saying that Russia is a part of Western civilisation and that naturally Russia must understand
that there are some common democratic mechanisms and free market principles.
He said that Russia should never simply follow along behind US foreign policy, nor should it adopt
American Western values . Not only is it unnatural for Russia, because it is simply dressingup
the country as something it isn’t, but it will have a boomerang effect. Russian public opinion,
Russian policy will never support this in the long term. As a result, there will be some resentment
of the United States and the West, and they will have to pay for this.
In conclusion, Winston Churchill, who President Putin referred to earlier, said a very interesting
and wise thing about the United States: He said that “you can always count on the Americans to do
the right thing – but only after they’ve tried everything else.” I hope that we are coming to the end
of trying everything else, and that this will open up a real opportunity for RussianAmerican
relations.
I fully support President Putin’s tough stance, not because I’m not an American patriot, but because
I believe that baby talk among great powers is not the way to reach an agreement. One has
to understand what to expect from the other country, and what their mettle is.
My question to the President is as follows. I think you showed in your Munich speech and in your
highly effective article in The New York Times what Russia will not allow, and the red lines that
Russia is laying down. But if you talk oneonone with President Obama (and I understand that
an audience such as this is a different format), what does Russia disagree with in addition to what
you said in The New York Times? What would you tell him if the United States saw a window
of opportunity and tried to use it? How would you see the possibilities for cooperation with Russia?
What concessions could you offer? Is it possible, for example that Russia’s position on some
important issues might change?
Vladimir Putin: First of all, I do not think that the initiative to put Syria’s chemical weapons under
[international] supervision contributed, as you said, to saving President Obama’s face. It has
nothing to do with saving anyone’s face. It was his decision, based on an empirical analysis
of the situation, and I’m very pleased that our positions on this issue coincided. That’s the first point.
Secondly, what would I say? You know, there is no secret here. After all, I spoke to President
Obama oneonone, including last time we met in St Petersburg, we talked on the sidelines
of the G20 summit, and at previous meetings in Los Cabos [in 2012]. You know, I always have
the same question. After all, the vast majority of people sitting here are experts and I can ask them
all, and you too, one of the most respected experts on Russia and international politics, the same
question: what is it the purpose? You know, I always ask: what are you trying to achieve? If evil
must be punished, what is evil there? The fact that President Assad’s family has been in power
for 40 years? Is that evil? The fact that there is no democracy there? Indeed, perhaps there is none
as the American establishment defines it.
Remark: There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either, but for some reason no one is bombing it.
Vladimir Putin: See, they say there is no democracy in Saudi Arabia either, and it’s difficult
to disagree with that. Nobody is getting ready to bomb Saudi Arabia.
The issue is that we establish a trusting dialogue with Americans and Europeans so that we can
listen to each other and hear our respective arguments.
“Evil must be punished. There must be a democracy.” Look at what happened in Egypt: there was
a state of emergency there for forty years, the Muslim Brotherhood was forced underground. Then
they were allowed to come out into the open, elections were held and they were elected. Now
everything is back like it was before. Once again the Muslim Brotherhood has been pushed
underground, and there’s a state of emergency. Is this good or bad? You know, we need to realise
that there are probably countries and even entire regions that cannot function according
to universal templates, reproducing the patterns of American or European democracy. Just try
to understand that there is another society there and other traditions. Everything in Egypt has come
full circle, came back to what they started with.
Apparently, those who committed the now famous military actions in Libya were also inspired
by noble motives. But what was the outcome? There too they fought for democracy. And where is
that democracy? The country is divided into several parts which are run by different tribes.
Everybody is fighting against everybody else. Where is democracy? They killed the US
ambassador. Do you understand that this is also the result of the current policy? This is a direct
outcome.
I don’t say this now to criticise or attack anyone. I just want to encourage all of our partners to listen
to each other, and to each other’s arguments. Russia has not special interests in Syria, and that is
not what we are trying to protect by supporting the current government. Of course not. In my article,
I think I wrote something like “We are fighting to preserve the principles of international law.” After
all, it was at the initiative of the American founding fathers that when the statutes of the United
Nations and its Security Council were signed – and I would stress that this was at American
initiative – that they contained a provision that decisions pertaining to war and peace must be made
unanimously. This holds profound meaning. No matter how hard or how difficult this may be.
After all, you understand that if any country feels invulnerable and strikes unilaterally wherever it
deems necessary, then the international order and the very meaning of the UN and the Security
Council will be reduced to zero. This would be a blow to the world order, not simply to Syria. That’s
what I’m talking about, do you understand? That’s what I’d like to say to you and this audience,
and to our partners in the United States.
Mr Fillon wants to speak.
Former French Prime Minister, Deputy of the French National Assembly Francois
Fillon (retranslated): I have great respect for President Putin for two reasons.
First, because he is the president of a great country, a vast land with a centuriesold culture, and so
dialogue with him is essential. But I respect him for another reason too. He is someone who keeps
his promises and with whom dialogue is possible. It is not always an easy dialogue, but it is always
possible.
Over the five years that I headed the government, I often saw formal discussions in international
relations, sometimes rather tedious events, where the participants would all simply read out
documents prepared by their assistants. I can say that with Vladimir Putin the discussions were
also a lot lengthier and more spontaneous and alive, and of course more constructive too. This
brings me to two moments.
First, of course we cannot simply export our political system. I believe that every people has
the right choose how they want to live in accordance with their own culture and way of life. But
at the same time, we, whether in Russia or Europe, cannot be completely indifferent to a situation
in which mass murder has been taking place for two years now.
One country intervening in another’s affairs in an attempt to impose its model is not the same thing
as attempting to stop mass killing. In this context, if we had not intervened in the situation in Libya,
as Vladimir Putin knows very well, the Libyan army would have wiped the city of Benghazi from
the face of the earth.
Vladimir Putin has made several references to Christianity, to which he, like I, is deeply committed.
But it is in Christianity that we find values that oblige us not to be just silent witnesses to these
mass killings. Of course we must respect international law in the actions we take. France therefore
opposes airstrikes at this moment, because I think that airstrikes carried out outside international
law would only worsen the situation in Syria.
I call for building relations of trust in the Security Council. We can build these relations of trust if we
take steps towards each other. We might have doubts about the UN experts’ report, but it is better
to have this report than not to have it. Now that we have it, we need to work together to build
between Russia, Europe, the USA and the Security Council members the relations of trust that will
allow us to avoid war and will push the conflicting parties in Syria towards a political solution.
Vladimir Putin took my words about responsibility as if they were addressed to him alone. What
I meant was that Russia of course has particular responsibilities through its ties with Bashar
Assad’s regime, and we in Europe also have our responsibilities through the ties that we have with
the opposition. This responsibility should impel us towards one and the same result – to get the two
sides to stop the fighting. We are not talking about imposing Westernstyle democracy there, but
about stopping the mass killing, which is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that it should have gone
on for so long.
Vladimir Putin: Let me just make one remark in this respect.
Of course we cannot simply watch calmly as mass murder takes place, but at the same time, let’s
be honest with each other. Yes, an internal conflict began there, but it immediately started being
fuelled from abroad. Weapons began flowing in, fighters began arriving in Syria. They started
coming right from the outset, maybe even earlier. This is a clear and wellknown fact.
Where did AlNusra, an organisation linked to AlQaeda, come from? And there’s another group
there too, also linked to AlQaeda. The State Department recognises this, recognises these groups’
links. They have admitted after all that groups that are part of AlQaeda are fighting there. What do
we make of this?
In my discussions on this matter with my colleagues, I say, “Ok, you’re essentially wanting to take
their side and help them come to power, but what will you do next? Just grab a newspaper
and chase them away from the power they’ve taken?” It doesn’t happen that way. We know it’s not
possible. It doesn’t work that way. So I ask them, “What will you do?” They say, “We don’t know.”
That’s a direct discussion, no secrets to hide. But if you don’t know what you’re going to do next,
what’s the point in rushing in and bombing away when you don’t know the outcome? That’s the big
question.
You know what the main difference in our approaches is? If we try to intervene in favour of one
of the parties to the conflict, give them our support, it will ultimately make it impossible to establish
an internal balance of power in the country. Everything will start to come apart and then collapse.
Difficult though it may be, we need to force them to look for common ground, force them to reach
agreements among themselves and find a balance of interests, and then it might be possible
to bring longerlasting stability to the country and eventually even have things level out. But if we
lend our full force to one or the other conflicting party no balance will be possible.
People in the US recognise now that the operations in Iraq were a mistake. We said this would be
the case, but no one wanted to listen. I remember my discussions with the former President,
and with the former British prime minister. I won’t repeat the details, but we spoke about precisely
these things. And yet no one wanted to listen. As for the result, I’m sure this audience is already
fully aware of the result.
You say that Benghazi would have been destroyed. I don’t know. Perhaps this is so, and perhaps
not. But is today’s situation better, when a civil war is underway and people are being killed every
day? To this day we are still seeing dozens of people dying every day in Iraq. Every single day!
The number of people killed since the end of the military operations is already greater than
the number of people killed during the military action itself. And what is the result? It is exactly
the opposite to what was hoped for, and that is what we are trying to get across, and why we seek
a constructive dialogue with our partners in Europe and in the USA.
In Libya, living standards were a lot higher before. What is the fighting there all about? The fighting
today is about different tribes trying to get control of the oil resources. I am not saying that Libya
had a good or balanced regime. Gaddafi thought up some political theory of his own. This does not
mean that things should have continued unchanged there for another 100 years. But to resolve
the problem the way they tried, in the end they failed to resolve it at all, and are unlikely to do so
any time soon.
Mr President, Mr Rühe wants to respond.
Mr Rühe, please go ahead.
Volker Rühe: President Putin, I go along with you, what you said on Iraq. And we were as critical;
the French were, also. It was not a NATO – it was an American decision.
But Libya was different. And I would like to remind you that in the first decade of this century,
the United Nations created a new development in international law called Responsibility to Protect.
What does this mean? Every state has a responsibility to protect its own population. And if it
doesn’t do this, then there’s a right of the international community to intervene, once there’s
a decision in the Security Council.
Russia abstained and made it possible to have this attack. And I would just like to say, I’m very
grateful to the French forces who saved the lives of thousands of people in Benghazi. This was not
to create democracy and it will take a long time and will always be different from us. But how many
people can you kill in your own country by saying, “This doesn’t concern the outside community”?
The international law says this is no longer possible.
And coming to Syria, it’s a different case. There is no international basis for intervention. But when
you remember how it started, and we had a very interesting debate last night, it was in Daraa
in the south that young people demonstrated like we do in the streets, like young Russians do
in the streets. And they were shot.
And later on, we all see the pictures of a president sending out his air force to kill people who are
queuing to buy a piece of bread. I can tell you, a president who kills people with his air force who
want to buy a piece of bread, he has no future. He has no future. And this is nothing we just can
look at. We have to come to an agreement what to do, and I’m very much grateful for what has
been established between you and the United States. It’s very precious. And I hope it will lead
to results and it will help both of you. It’s a winwin situation for all of us.
But we must also understand that in the world of today, you cannot just go at states that attack
other states. That was the case in the 20th century. But what do you do with states that don’t protect
their own population? You don’t have the right just to intervene, but on the basis of the UN decision,
this makes sense. Because everybody, every president of every country, also has a responsibility
to protect his own people.
That’s my position.
Vladimir Putin: I fully agree that the use of force is possible only through a decision by the UN
Security Council. Otherwise, of course, I completely concur.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Dimitri Simes. We promised a degree of debate, and here we have it.
Dimitri Simes: Responsibility to protect is a very good principle. I know that in the West, we follow it
to the letter. For example, I heard that Germany broke off diplomatic relations with Egypt when they
killed one thousand mostly peaceful demonstrators supporting their lawfully elected president. I’m
joking of course; Germany did not break off relations. The United States did not impose any
sanctions, and did not even stop supplying arms. And I must say honestly, I have no problem with
this, because I am a political realist: that’s how the world works.
Indeed, I think it would be a mistake for the United States to let Egypt fend for itself. But we must be
honest with ourselves. I will never forget when I read about 1862, that France and England,
particularly France, were giving Alexander II lectures regarding socalled Russian soldiers
in Poland. At the same time, England and France were colonising Africa, using the most brutal
methods imaginable.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, let’s take a swing at the Europeans, with their double standards…
Dimitri Simes: This double standard exists. And I must tell you honestly, as President Putin’s friend
and admirer Henry Kissinger says, it’s a wellknown double standard in international relations when
you differentiatebetween friends and adversaries; this double standard is normal, but you must
know when to stop.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, it is too bad that Henry is not here. He would add some very interesting
insight to the discussion. You know, I say this sincerely, because there are people in the world who,
in spite of patriotism and international interests, have learned to say what they think. He is one
of them.
I think the President of Israel is like that as well; he states his position freely. I mean, he is
the acting President, he certainly has limitations, but in personal discussions, he is very open,
and I am sometimes amazed by how free he is with his words. And Kissinger – he is not even
in government service and can speak sincerely.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Mr President, we have about ten to fifteen more minutes for questions.
Vladimir Putin: Mr Ryzhkov, you have the floor.
Member of the Valdai Discussion Club Vladimir Ryzhkov: Mr President, I have also been a member
of this club for ten years and can confirm that this is a firstrate platform, with no censorship, with
open discussions and the hardesthitting questions. I think this 10th Valdai meeting is, in my view,
the most incisive and interesting. We have been working productively for ten hours every day.
If you will allow, I would like to return to domestic policy, because we already spent a lot of time
discussing foreign policy. Especially since, as you know, we have been working here for three days,
and I think that Russian domestic policy is currently of enormous interest. This is because we see
a kind of incredible societal awakening over the last several years; I think you see it as well.
In some places, it is happening very intensely, and in other places, less so, but society is
awakening very actively.
It is hard to disagree with what you said, that a strong nation cannot be built without dialogue,
without taking into account all opinions, through violence, force and coercion. This is equally true
of Syria, Russia and Libya.
If you allow, I want to ask you some fairly topical questions about something that troubles me
personally, which I know to be troubling to other people present here and an enormous number
of people throughout the nation.
The first of these questions has to do with the events of May 6, 2012. There was a demonstration
in Moscow, which, unfortunately for all of us, ended with a few clashes between some
of the demonstrators and the law enforcement agencies. Currently, the socalled Bolotnaya Case is
underway; if I’m not mistaken, 28 people are on trial. Some of them, about twelve of them, have
already been under investigation, under arrest, for eighteen months. One of them wasn’t even able
to say goodbye to his mother, who died. Today, another defendant’s grandmother died; we don’t
know whether he will be able to go to her funeral. I know for a fact that for a large part of society,
the Bolotnaya Case – the criminal case against participants in the demonstration – evokes strong
emotions and serious tensions.
Mr President, I have studied this issue very carefully and looked into our Criminal Code. It says that
mass disturbances are defined as involving explosives, arms, health risks, property damage
and largescale unmotivated violence. Fortunately for us, there were no explosives, no arms, no
largescale violence or health risks on May 6; there were individual confrontations. But the charges
are very severe. And I’m afraid that if it comes to severe, stiff sentences, this will become an issue
that creates a lot of tension within the society. So perhaps – I understand that the judicial authorities
are working independently – it would be good to consider amnesty for participants in these events,
to mollify the enormous anxiety on the part of many citizens?
And my second concern, Mr President. We spent two days discussing the September 8 elections.
We had a very intense discussion, by the way, there were participants from two of the most
noteworthy campaigns: Sergei Sobyanin spoke for the Moscow campaign, and Yevgeny Roizman
spoke for Yekaterinburg. Many regions saw truly bright, passionate, competitive electoral
campaigns. But unfortunately, Mr President, a dozen regions – and maybe more – once again saw
largescale falsifications. The observers say this, the experts say this, and the people living in those
regions say this. What does this lead to?
Society is awakening; society wants to participate in running the government, it wants to participate
in the elections, and it wants to have legitimate power, but certain individuals in the regions are
used to throwing in extra ballots, rewriting them and falsifying them. This leads to apathy, it leads
to disappointment, and it ultimately leads to undermining trust in the government – a government
that both those in power and those in the opposition wish to see succeed.
So perhaps, Mr President, it could be worthwhile to consider some sort of additional steps, taking
into account that a year from now, there will be many more electoral campaigns, in order
to guarantee fair, open, competitive elections – not just in the major cities where elections were
competitive, but throughout the nation overall? This would release an enormous amount of tension
that exists in many regions and I am sure that an entire generation of bright, talented, proactive,
patrioticallyminded politicians would enter the political arena.
Thank you very much.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
As for the socalled Bolotnaya Case [in 2011, for which 12 people are facing trial], I don’t want
to make any juridical pronouncements as to whether a form of riot took place there or not. I don’t
doubt your competences as a lawyer, but all the same it is the investigative and judicial authorities
that must take such decisions.
What is it I want to say in this regard? Whatever happens we must not forget the lessons recent
history has taught us and our neighbours. We remember the London riots that took place just
recently, three years ago, when cars were overturned. Thanks to the CCTV cameras that are
everywhere in London, the police and British intelligence services spent a year looking for all
the participants in the riots. They found almost every one, and all were convicted. And I think that
the English did the right thing, because no one should entertain the illusion that such behaviour is
permissible.
I don’t know whether there were signs of riots [in Bolotnaya Square] or not. Let’s leave that
to the law enforcement and judicial authorities. I do not want to intervene in this debate. But there’s
one thing I can say, and I would like to once again publicly articulate my position regarding this kind
of situation. If people behave and express themselves in a way that violates other citizens’ rights
and interests, and break the law, then the state must react accordingly.
You cannot call for beatings or bodily injuries of the police, try to gouge out eyes, call for hitting
people on the head, or rip off their epaulettes. And do you know what outcome this would have
in any country, and in Russia in particular? Such acts must be repressed in accordance with
applicable law. This should be clear to everyone. And there is no need to blackmail authorities with
the fact that they will be labelled undemocratic. The authorities must respond accordingly.
Can we consider granting amnesty in this case? I do not exclude it. But we have to deal with this
case in an extremely responsible way. I do not exclude it. We need to give [the authorities]
the opportunity to see all necessary legal procedures through to their logical conclusion.
About whether or not the elections were dishonest. I don’t know, there probably was some fraud.
You drew our attention to and mentioned the elections in Yekaterinburg. Here I think a candidate
[Yevgeny Roizman] ran for, spoke at and won the mayoral elections. A nonaligned person,
a representative of the socalled nonsystemic opposition. And he went out and won.
In Moscow, our largest city, elections were free and fair, and people even expected that the mayor
[Sergei Sobyanin] would win in the first round. But they expected he would win by a large margin.
Actually, his main rival [Alexei Navalny] had almost half as many votes. This also speaks
to the level of support among Muscovites. But I cannot say that elections in Moscow were
fraudulent. I think that both you and your colleagues were probably present at polling stations.
I can’t even imagine what else we could do to make them more transparent. If you have any
suggestions or ideas, let’s discuss them, and we will integrate them into existing legislation. Do
such negative phenomena occur in some Russian regions? I would not exclude it. I would urge you
to join with the authorities and law enforcement agencies to detect such infringements and take
corresponding measures.
Finally, in answer to your question, I would like to express my hope that your assumptions are
correct. I would also very much like – and I think about this every day – smart, patriotic young
people to enter Russian politics, people with a clear vision and understanding of what needs to be
done for the good of their country, for their Motherland. I myself truly want this and will contribute
in every way possible to making it happen, including through informal channels.
You yourself have been in politics a long time now. You were a [State Duma] deputy, and you know
it is possible to use a protest mood to achieve electoral success. But this does not directly translate
into the positive, effective development of a given region, municipality or the entire country. We
need really qualified people, competent, effective managers with a clear understanding and vision
of how the country will develop.
Ms Sobchak, please go ahead.
Television presenter Kseniya Sobchak: Mr President, the first postSoviet generation grew up
during your time in power. This generation has shown that it is prepared to invest time in politics.
We see that these people – largely urban university graduates, middle or high income – are willing
to work as volunteers and election observers, and participate in rallies.
What do you think this generation’s moral and political demands are? Do you see any of these
thirtysomethings as your political opponents? And how do you think this generation will remember
you and, likewise, how will you remember it?
Vladimir Putin: You know, at the beginning of the 1990s and in the early 2000s, a vast number
of Russians went through an extremely trying period due to the collapse of a great power,
the collapse of standards and moral principles on which Soviet society had been based. All this was
followed by the collapse of our economy, social sphere and security, and what was virtually a civil
war in the Caucasus. People were clearly frightened.
Naturally all these people wanted to quickly pass through this difficult stage in the country’s
development, to stabilise it, and start a positive and progressive stage. In general, these objectives
have been achieved. In general. Of course, not everything has been achieved, but fundamental
things have. Now there's an opportunity to look at everything closely, to analyse what was done
well and what was done badly, and to glance into the future, and we can do it calmly, without
the pressure of the severe problems of the 1990s and early 2000s. I am very pleased that young
people are engaged in this.
As in any country young people have big demands and little experience. Who were the Red Guards
in China? They were young people [groups of students formed into paramilitary units during
the Cultural Revolution (1966–76)]. We're not going to follow their example. We still need to focus
on modern people who understand the country in which they live, and have a clear idea about its
potential development paths. That is very important, extremely important. In part I already tried
to answer Vladimir Ryzhkov’s question to this effect: we need [to enlist] the thinking part
of the population, not just the destroyers.
We have already had a lot of destroyers. One war after another, one revolution after another. We
need creators. I would really like to see more and more creators among those people who are
actively involved in politics, more and more professionals. And [when this happens it] is a very good
process, a very good sign, a sign of at least relative wellbeing. I am sure that in general this will
come to pass.
Our German colleague talked about how, unfortunately, in Germany young people are not very
interested in politics. Nevertheless I do not entirely agree with you, because in its time the Green
Party was set up mainly by young people, then just very recently there was another party that was
established…
Volker RÜHE: The friends of the Green Party.
Vladimir Putin: I support environmental movements, and I think it is a very important aspect of our
work.
Then the Pirate Party appeared. Now it’s not quite as successful in the electoral sense, but it’s still
there and it’s also composed of young people. In principle, young people are active everywhere.
I would very much like for this activity to take on a positive character. Of course, there must also be
political struggle and competition. And I very much hope that this will happen, that outstanding
leaders will emerge; the country needs them.
Please go ahead.
Question: Mr President, first of all thank you very much for your rich and varied presentation.
Returning to the topic of integration, Charles Grant asked for comments about other EU members’
thoughts and opinions about signing an association agreement with Ukraine. Valdai participants are
well aware that, to varying degrees, the EU has become more sceptical about signing such
an agreement in the past two years. But it is noteworthy that this scepticism has significantly abated
in response to Russia’s policy, and not only with respect to Ukraine, but also Moldova,
and especially Armenia.
My question is: does this surprise you? And if such an agreement [with Ukraine] is signed
in November, what will Russia’s response be?
Vladimir Putin: I think I have already answered this question. Russia’s response will primarily
involve steps in the economic sphere. We have no desire or aspiration to revive the Soviet empire
with respect to politics or [infringements of] sovereignty. This is obvious, do you understand? It’s not
advantageous for us, and it is also both impossible and unnecessary. But when we talk about
pragmatic things we must not forget, as I already said, that this affects not only Ukraine, but also
Moldova, which you have also mentioned.
Where will Moldova sell its wine? In France? I’m sure the French will not let them sell a single bottle
of Moldovan wine in their country. It’s just as impossible in Italy. That is a fact; there is absolutely no
doubt about it. Let’s see what will happen if they try. Wine producers will dump out all the crates,
destroy everything, and pour it all into ditches. It will be impossible for small states to sell any
of their priority exports on the European market. Everything will be sold on our market, nearly 100%
of their exports. If we take, for example, Moldova’s exports and ask where they are going?
The answer is: to Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
If Moldovan leaders sign this document – and good luck to them – good quality cheap Italian
and French wine will enter the Moldovan market. Where will Moldovan wine go? Besides, there are
certain technical regulations that are inconsistent with ours. Rules are different. There are some
economic parameters that are automatically applied by the EU and European Commission, but not
by Moldova itself. And they will be automatically extended to Moldova. All these goods will rush
to us, this is the first thing.
Secondly, we suspect that we’ll receive products from third countries disguised as Moldovan
or Ukrainian goods. That’s what worries us. This has nothing to do with trying to put pressure
on a sovereign right to make decisions. We just ask you to look at everything and make your
calculations. If our colleagues deem our arguments invalid, do not be offended if we are forced
to defend our interests, or to introduce certain restrictions. There is nothing unusual or selfish here.
We have to think about our own national economic interests.
I would like to give the floor to a representative of our Muslim community.
Question: Mr President,
Let me thank you for this excellent platform that has given us a chance to spend three or four days
working as a small multifaith team discussing various issues.
First of all, we thank you for your policy that reaffirms humanity’s moral values. This is very
important today. You and the supporters of your initiative have proposed a plan for resolving
the conflict in Syria. The situation there is very serious indeed, and if you permit, I would like
to remind the audience that Syria’s capital is not an ordinary city, but in the belief of a billion
Muslims, and perhaps Christians too, it is the city where Jesus Christ will appear.
We believe in the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and it is said that it is in Damascus that he will
appear. Even the late Pope John Paul II, when he came to Damascus, he visited the white minaret,
where many say that Christ will appear. This is an amazing thing. This explains why the heads
of many religions have given your initiative their backing, because it is so important to preserve
peace in this land.
I would also like to thank you for the support that our country’s traditional faiths receive.
At the Iversky Monastery, Metropolitan Hilarion spoke about how over recent years, sadly, we have
lost more than 50 imams and muftis, who were killed for their convictions, killed because they stood
guard over Russia’s stability, calm and peace. Not only Muslims have been killed. An attempt was
made on the life of a rabbi in Dagestan, and our Orthodox brothers have been targets too. I hope
very much that relations between the authorities and the country’s religions will develop in the right
direction in the future.
Vladimir Putin: This was more of a short speech than a question, I think.
Svetlana MIRONYUK: If you permit, I will call for the last two questions now. There are still of lot
of questions, and a lot of familiar faces. I can see Alexei Kudrin hiding away in the back rows.
Vladimir PUTIN: Alexei, where are you hiding? Do you have any questions?
Svetlana MIRONYUK: I meant that there are plenty of people you know well here. It simply won’t be
possible to answer all the questions. Let’s have two more questions. You can choose.
Vladimir PUTIN: I’ve got questions I want to ask him [Kudrin]. What questions does he have
for me? (Laughter)
Please, go ahead.
Question: Mr President,
We all have our various political differences, but we all have one thing in common: we all want
a great Russia. Russia can be great only when it is united. I mean ‘united’ in the broad sense
of the term and am not referring to the [United Russia] political party’s name. When Vladimir
[Ryzhkov] spoke earlier about the Bolotnaya Square case, he spoke precisely about this issue
of disunity. I think you have definitely secured yourself a place in history. Future generations will
give their assessment of all that you have done.
But the discussion now is about this minority, just a small minority, yes, but one that came knocking
at the Kremlin gates many times, only it seems to them that no one is listening. So they came
knocking one time and ended up in a scuffle with the guards. Is there a crime in this or not? You
won the presidential election and you have the power to pardon them. A draft law to amnesty these
people has already been submitted to the State Duma. This action will receive the response it
deserves.
There are many other dividing lines too. You spoke about a very important issue in your speech,
about regional divisions, for example, the problem of separatism, and you mentioned Siberian
separatism. I represent Siberia in the State Duma…
Vladimir PUTIN: Which part of Siberia?
Question: Novosibirsk. I represent Novosibirsk and plan next year to run for Mayor of Novosibirsk.
In other words, I want to enter that same Kremlin gate and show that the opposition is not just
about talking, but also about actually doing something. This is what I wanted to ask you about.
In your election campaign promises and subsequent executive orders, you decided to raise
teachers’ wages. The actual results of this promise give a vivid illustration of the state
of the country’s system of government today. Our region carried out your executive order
and raised teachers’ wages. A teacher in our region now earns 22,000 roubles. That seems surely
a good thing. But what situation do we end up with? We now have half the regional budget being
spent on education. That’s great, I’m leftwing and this is just what I always wanted.
But in the villages you now have teachers earning 22,000 rubles while the people working
on the farms are getting only 6,000 rubles. That makes the teachers ‘oligarchs’ there, and the locals
are already taking up arms against them. In Novosibirsk itself on the other hand, 22,000 rubles is
nothing. Every time I meet with voters they always ask me when we are finally going to raise
wages. I say that we’ve only just raised them. This is just to show that it is very difficult to run
the regions from Moscow. You need to delegate powers to the regions themselves.
One of the last promises in the annual presidential address made by your predecessor, Mr
Medvedev, was the promise to redistribute budget revenues so as to transfer 1 trillion
to the municipal level. Mr President, what is your view on this promise? As a future mayor, I can tell
you that if we do get this money, you will see what our great Russia could look like.
Vladimir PUTIN: On the subject of education and teachers’ pay, what I said was that teachers
should be paid at least the equivalent of the region’s average wage, the average for that particular
region. If the average wage in the region you represent is 22,000, than teachers, no matter where
they live, including in rural areas, should be paid 22,000. This does not make them oligarchs.
Imagine calling teachers oligarchs when they are really just people living modest lives.
But they maybe should indeed be earning more than some of the other groups you mentioned.
Why, for whose sake? It’s precisely for the sake of these very people who do not earn much money,
so that their children will have the same opportunities as children from better off families to get
a good education and open the doors to their future lives.
Our country’s future depends on the quality of education. I am sure that you would fully agree with
me on this. But if we do not pay our teachers a decent wage we will not achieve this goal.
As for the fact that a big part of the region’s budget is being spent on social sector needs, of course
it would be good to have more money in the regional budgets for investment projects too. You are
right here, of course. But all of these investment projects also involve a large share of, shall we say,
inefficient spending in all sorts of subcontracted work – let’s just call it inefficient since I don’t want
to accuse anyone of corruption. There are often big doubts about the efficiency of it all. But when
we get the money directly to the people, and all the more so when it is groups such as teachers,
I can assure you that these are the most effective investments in our country’s future.
As for the trillion roubles, I would like to give a trillion or two to the regions, and we are in fact
discussing very actively the reform of financial relations with the regional and local authorities. We
need to balance the share of powers and responsibilities and make sure they have their own
financing sources.
Whether it’s a trillion, half a trillion, or 1.5 trillion – this would need to be based on the federal
budget’s real possibilities, which are limited at the moment by the problems in the global
and the Russian economies.
Of course, the goal we are working towards is for the local authorities, especially in big cities
of a million people or more like Novosibirsk, to have sufficient funds of their own for carrying out
the tasks before them.
The election time will come and you can show us your best qualities. I hope the election will be
open, honest, and competitive.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Mr President, the last question. Please choose.
Reply: The wrestlers want to speak.
Vladimir Putin: What are you wrestling with?
Question: I’m sorry for holding up my hand for so long, but I just couldn’t give up because I have
been asked to speak for wrestlers from around the world. The Wrestling World Championships are
currently underway in Budapest, as you know. I want to express our gratitude to you on behalf
of the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles and the Russian Wrestling
Federation: thank you very much for the contribution you made to ensuring that our sport, Greco
Roman wrestling and Freestyle Wrestling remain in the Olympic programme and in the Olympic
family.
All of us realise that this is thanks to your efforts. The children who started training again have
a light in their eyes. This is a big achievement and a great policy, and it was completely down
to you. Throughout the world, our wrestlers, Olympic champions and even children, entered their
training studios today in a better mood, with a new determination to fight for Olympic medals.
But that decision was made by the IOC; it was measured and balanced. It is true that we have a lot
of friends there. We try to work closely with IOC members. Indeed, we welcome this decision. It
would be hard to imagine the Olympic programme without the sports that were at the heart
of the ancient Olympic games – track and field, running and wrestling.
You know, I want us to finish on a positive note today, so I have a suggestion: why don’t I ask
the audience that instead of addressing your questions me, you address them to each
of my colleagues on the stage, or as they say, on the panel. You can ask each of my colleagues
a question, and then I will answer one last question.
Right now, Germany is going through a very important period: the elections. Perhaps someone has
a question regarding this issue, about how the government will be formed and who will be
in the coalition? How the future Germany will build its relations with Russia? It is our largest trade
and economic partner after China. Unfortunately, Germany is now second to China in trade volume.
Perhaps these questions…
Svetlana Mironyuk: A question for Mr Rühe?
Vladimir Putin: Yes.
Volker Rühe: I’ll take your questions.
Vladimir Putin: I don’t doubt it.
Volker Rühe: I think you’ll see the same Chancellor as a partner in the future. Russianspeaking
Angela Merkel, with about 40%.
Vladimir Putin: For the third time, now.
Volker Rühe: I think she will not change. She will always be afraid of dogs. But she’ll get 40%
and more.
But the question is: which coalition partner? It’s an open question if the liberals with the foreign
minister, whom you know, will get into Parliament. So this is why Mr Genscher, I think, who was
originally supposed to be here, didn’t come. Because it’s really about the existential situation
of the FDP, the liberal party in Germany. If they get a little more than 5%, there’s a chance
for a coalition, like now, but I think more likely now will be a grand coalition led by Angela Merkel
and the Social Democrats.
But the Social Democrats last time had 23%, and it’s not easy for them to be a junior partner again,
because they are 150 years old, a very prominent German Party. And so, I think they have to gain
votes. If they go up on Sunday to 27–28%, they have enough confidence probably to win the party
over, to be a junior partner.
But I think as regards Russia, there’s a big consensus in Germany that we want to work closer, ever
closer. I saw you were fascinated by the Greens and the Pirates. I’m afraid the Greens are
in a crisis and the Pirates will have about 2%.
Vladimir Putin: Why?
Volker Rühe: Because they have no programme. I mean, your opposition is very concrete
compared with the Pirates in Germany.
So I think you see a lot of continuity in German politics, but as I hope, for instance, that Mr
Steinmeier will be Foreign Minister again. I think he is very much engaged in the GermanRussian
relations. And I am also feeling that we should start a new impetus. And I’m very much encouraged
by how you’ve treated the opposition and what you’ve told them here.
So I go home very optimistic. I will cast my vote next Sunday. And I think you will see a stable
Germany on Monday – also a Germany, as I’ve said earlier this week – which needs the European
Union more than any other state. Just because it is so big, we can look after our national interests
best in this European context. And when there were problems coming up, in the future, there will
still be problems. I see a Germany that doesn’t try to Germanise Europe, which is a difficult thing. It
would make Europe also a very boring place, if everybody were like us, it would not be so
interesting. We like the differences. We like solidity, but also solidarity. And from my point of view,
I think solidarity among north and south in the European Union may play a bigger role after these
elections.
That’s my analysis. You can compare next Monday if it’s working.
As for the decline in the popularity of certain parties, including new ones, as a result of lacking
a programme, a clear political and competitive programme. This is very important for all nations,
including Russia. This is part of the answer to certain questions that I have been asked
by the audience.
Let’s ask Mr Fillon if he is going to run in the presidential election. (Laughter.) You can answer
briefly, in one word.
Francois Fillon (retranslated): I don’t know why I should answer this question. After all, you didn’t
answer it when you were asked directly.
Vladimir Putin: I wasn’t asked this question.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Yes you were.
Vladimir Putin: Was I? I didn’t hear it.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Nikolai Zlobin asked you.
Francois Fillon (retranslated): Let me reply one more time. I think my answer was misinterpreted
or misheard. I prefer not to answer this question, because you did not answer it when you were
asked directly.
Vladimir Putin: So will you answer if I do?
Francois Fillon (retranslated): We’ll see.
Vladimir Putin: I’m not ruling it out.
Francois Fillon (retranslated): I’m not ruling it out, either.
Vladimir Putin: Mr Fillon and I worked together when he and I were both prime ministers. I want
to express my appreciation for him, in the best sense of that word. He was a very reliable
and constructive partner, always positive, professional and calm. And when he said “no”, it never
sounded insulting, it was always substantiated. But if he said “yes”, we always carried our
agreements to their logical conclusion. So I just want to thank you for our work together. Thank you
very much.
Svetlana Mironyuk: Mr President, I want to let you know that we [RIA Novosti] release news
updates on what you say as President, and today, since you have succeeded as an interviewer, we
are releasing the breaking news that Mr Fillon “does not rule it out.”
Vladimir Putin: Very well.
Romano, will Letta’s Government hold its ground, will everything be all right? We are counting
on the stability of the Italian Government.
Romano Prodi: Absolutely. If you want to have a boring Europe, you need to impose German
values, but if you want to have a fun Europe, you should impose Italian values.
Vladimir Putin: Fun is more appealing, of course.
Romano Prodi: We could come to an agreement on this issue.
People are now asking: will Berlusconi remain in Parliament? I think either way, this will not lead
to a government crisis. The Government will continue its work, or at least fulfil its previous promises
regarding what is best according to political experts. Without a doubt, anyone can face personal
problems, and personal decisions can certainly disrupt the situation temporarily. But right now,
a split of sorts is underway between Berlusconi and the Government.
The coalition is complicated. It does not resemble the German one, it consists of parties that have
common values, but they have their differences as well. Two coalitions that currently form the Italian
Government are certainly divided on many issues. But the Prime Minister is working quite
efficiently, wisely, and is truly achieving results and movement in the right direction. So even if we
cannot promise anything right now concerning longterm prospects, we can promise stability
in the short and mediumterm.
I would like to share a brief observation. I’m enjoying our meeting very much. It resembles a circus.
We are all like animals, talking here and performing. And we are free animals. Moreover, there are
not that many of us. This is exactly the right scale. We can express a large number of viewpoints,
and at the same time, we can speak one after another. It’s a good combination. And I want to ask
you not to change anything, because if there are many participants, like at other forums, then our
ideas and the essence of what is happening can be lost, whereas here we fully understand what is
happening. And this is a very useful experience.
And one last remark. We have been discussing the European Union and the world. I want to say
that we can act only with the help of the Security Council, but even in that case, it is imperative
to understand the consequences. If, for example, we consider the war in Libya, it was started
to prevent atrocities and widespread killing. But certainly, we must move in the right direction, and it
is imperative to understand which direction is the correct one.
Vladimir Putin: Here in Russia, we also wish Mr Letta’s Government success. I won’t deny that he
really surprised me at the G20 summit, when he suddenly announced that Italy cannot support
the plans for a strike against Syria. This was unexpected for me. I can honestly say I was surprised
by such an open, personal position within the Western community, in spite of NATO’s wellknown
solidarity.
Romano Prodi: He used to be my deputy secretary.
Vladimir Putin: It’s hard to agree that we are all animals here. But can I just ask you, do you think
we are herbivores or predators?
Romano Prodi: We are omnivores. (Laughter.) We eat all kinds of food; we have diversity, including
in our diet. Otherwise, we would contradict what we are saying.
And one more question for our American friend and colleague. What will the United States do about
the budget deficit, the debt that has reached an incredible size? It is the largest debt in the United
States’ postwar history. How will the situation unfold moving forward? This directly affects
the global economy and is a real concern for everyone.
Dimitri Simes: First of all, we count on further cooperation with our Chinese partners, that they will
buy even more American financial obligations. I think you will see that over the course of the next
two weeks…
Vladimir Putin: Just don’t forget that Russia – Mr Kudrin is sitting right there – has bought a bunch
of your obligations. Mr Kudrin, how much did we buy?
Former Russian Finance Minister of 2000–2011 Alexei Kudrin: Mr President, Russia’s Stabilisation
Fund has been transferred into the Central Bank’s foreign currency accounts. We do not buy
securities; we simply hold currency in Central Bank accounts. On the global market, the Central
Bank invests about 50% in American government bonds, which are included in the foreign currency
reserves.
Vladimir Putin: We currently have over 500 billion in foreign currency reserves, 40% of which is
denominated in US dollars; it was 50% when Mr Kudrin was minister, and now it’s 40%. This,
of course, is not the Chinese trillion, but nevertheless, it is still a significant sum. It speaks
to Russia’s trust in our American partners and our trust in the policy being implemented by the US
government – I say that without any sense of irony.
People attacked Alexei Kudrin, particularly members of the leftist parties, for the fact that
the Central Bank holds a significant proportion of its reserves in securities denominated in dollars.
But nevertheless, we must give credit to our American partners; when we needed money, we
goteverything, regardless of any internal problems within the US economy, or any problems with
the famous mortgage companies. In terms of partnership discipline, our American partners fulfilled
everything with great discipline. But ultimately, what will happen next, in your opinion? With
the Federal Reserve policy and the enormous debt?
Dimitri Simes: You will see several very difficult weeks, perhaps even months, when the House
of Representatives votes against the budget proposed by Obama, unless Obama decides not
to finance his medical insurance programme, and that will not happen. And you will see conflict
between the House and the Senate, between the Senate and Presidential
Administration and the House.
I assume, given responsibility to you and Alexei Kudrin, the American currency will hold out; I am
almost certain of this, although there will be a few very nervewracking weeks, or perhaps even
months.
Vladimir Putin: On the one hand, we have always assumed that the monetary mitigation policy must
end at some point; but the first steps in this direction, even the first words in this direction, have led
to a certain destabilisation within developing markets. It has affected Russia to a smaller degree,
in terms of currency and outflows. This is not related to the Federal Reserve policy; partially not
related. But we very much expect that our American partners will succeed in overcoming these
difficulties, which are evident as well, and the fundamental backbone of the American economy will
prove to be stable.
The last question, please. Mr Prokhanov.
Prose Writer, Member of the Valdai Discussion Club Alexander Prokhanov: Mr President, a great
deal of financing is allocated to the military industrial complex. I am familiar with the programme
to develop highspeed transport; in particular, I travelled the MoscowKazan route. There are plans
to intensify development of the Northern Sea Route, and to create innovation centres. Before you
were elected, you published a whole set of fundamental articles.
Is there a synthetic, integral project, a large project, a “Russia” project underway, or are all these
just symptoms of such a project, and the project is being assembled part by part?
Vladimir Putin: Russia is not a project – it is a destiny. You know, it’s life.
Of course, we have plans for development. We have a development plan through to 2020; there are
plans for developing the Armed Forces and they are very intense; we have plans for developing
infrastructure. We have agreed not to touch our reserves, and the reserves are quite significant. We
talked about the Central Bank reserves, but we also have two reserves accumulated
by the Government: the National Welfare Fund, and the Reserve Fund.
I believe the first already contains $89 billion, and the second also has around $90 billion. We
agreed that after reaching a certain reserve fund level, we will carefully allow ourselves to begin
investing in developing infrastructure. This gave birth to the project of highspeed railways, in this
case, to Kazan. In the first stage, we are going to organise survey works, and then, of course, we
will build it.
It is imperative to conduct a great deal of work to develop infrastructure. We know how
underdeveloped the infrastructure is in the Far East, in Eastern Siberia – all this needs to be done.
At the same time, Alexei Kudrin and I have often argued: of course, we need to have a fundamental
backbone, of course, we are striving for these projects to pay for themselves. We know that there
are not that many efficient projects in the world. Try to make some kind of roadbuilding project
in the Far East pay for itself entirely. You know this, as an expert, right?
They immediately count the amount of traffic that will use this road and look into the opportunity
to utilise it as a toll highway, but according to the law, it can be a toll road only if there is a parallel
route, which there isn’t. And it will not pay for itself in the next few years. So what then, should we
stop building roads at all? Then Russia would not have a highway connecting the eastern
and western parts of the nation. We only completed one recently.
So I feel that we ultimately need to invest money in it, even if during the first stage – the first
stage! – it does not really bring quick returns. We should include funding from the reserves, but
carefully, so that we maintain a safety cushion.
The same is true of the Armed Forces. We do not have a militaristic budget. Ours is a necessary
budget; it is large, but we could never compare it with, say, the United States. You are familiar with
the figures. If we take all the military budgets of all the nations in the world, they would add up
to less than what the US spends on its military needs. So our budget is very modest. We just have
some equipment reaching retirement age, figuratively speaking, our main combat systems: rocket
technology, planes, aviation equipment. One way or another, we simply need to replace them; they
are becoming outdated.
And, of course, if we replace them, we should replace them with modern, promising models. We
have plans in this domain as well. Now we must adjust them based on budgetary feasibility
and the capabilities of the industry itself. This is a natural process, it’s normal. There is nothing
remarkable about this. We will not make any sudden cuts. As the experts say, we will move a few
things slightly to the right. But, of course, we will certainly do all these things.
But this is not a project. This is destiny. It is our destiny. It is our Fatherland, our nation. We must
develop it and we will do this for ourselves and future generations. I feel that Russia has a great,
powerful future, and that this is a very promising nation.
I have already recounted my first meeting with Chancellor Kohl several times. For me, it was
entirely unexpected – I already said this but I will say it again – because this conversation had
a very deep impact on me. When we were in Bonn, suddenly, unexpectedly for me as a former
Soviet intelligence officer, he began to say, “Europe does not have a future without Russia.” And he
began to lay out his reasoning. He is a historian by training, and he began to develop this idea
intelligently, calmly, without any posturing.
You know, something changed in my mind. I understood that there are people in the world,
in Europe, who genuinely believe this. Unfortunately, in terms of practical policy, it doesn’t always
work. But people like Kohl are always ahead of today’s practical politicians; compared to others,
they are looking somewhat ahead. I think that we will also gain some understanding, the Europeans
will ultimately reach this insight, and we will find common ground on issues more quickly. But
Russia has a great future.
Gerhard Mangott: Mr President, my name is Gerhard Mangott, I’m from Austria. I’m a professor
of international relations at the University of Innsbruck.
Two brief questions. One on Syria: let’s assume and hope that the permanent five members
of the Security Council find a consensus on the text of a new resolution. What happens, however, if
the Syrian government does not abide by its obligations? Your foreign ministry has said yesterday
that in such a case, the Security Council will get seized of the matter again. Can you,
as the Russian President, in such a case, think of Russia supporting Article 42 measures?
And the second point I want to raise: I really admire the diversity of your country. It’s a great
country. But of course, with a lot of diversity, you get a lot of contradiction of values. And that
requires respect among the people. Respect by the minorities for the majority, but also respect
by the majority for the minorities. And I personally would like you to endorse the idea of the beauty
of love, regardless of its expression and its form, spread over all your country, without any
harassment, without anyone having to fear to get beaten or killed.
Vladimir Putin: Let’s begin with the second part of your question. We do not have any harassment
on a sexual basis. Russia does not have any laws punishing sexual minorities for their… for their
what?
Reply: For their orientation.
Vladimir Putin: For their orientation, right. So there is nothing to worry about here.
We have passed a law that forbids propaganda to minors. But I will tell you again: there is a serious
population problem in your nation, in all European nations and in Russia – a demographic problem.
The birth rates are low, the Europeans are dying out; do you understand that or not? Samesex
marriages do not produce children. Do you want to survive on account of immigrants? You don’t like
immigrants either, because society cannot take in such a large number of immigrants. Your choice
is the same as in many other nations: recognising samesex marriages, the right to adopt, and so
on. But allow us to make our own choice, as we see fit for our own nation.
As for rights, I will repeat again: we are not limiting our sexual minorities’ rights in any way. There
are no limitations, we do not have laws limiting them in anything at all: at work, or in other areas
of activity. I have already said many times, I communicate with these people, I present state awards
to them, medals and so on, if they have earned them by carrying out their work in the arts,
at enterprises, and so on. This is normal in our political practice. Let’s not make baseless charges.
These are unnecessary fears.
Some nations, by the way, still criminalise homosexuality; for example, it is still illegal in some US
states. And the Supreme Court is against this, it feels it is unconstitutional, but has been unable
to abolish it. But this exists, you understand? Why does everyone like to put so much stress
on Russia? Let’s not make false accusations, there is nothing frightening here.
Concerning Syria. You see, I feel it is wrong to talk now about what we will do if the Syrian
government does not fulfil its promises. They have already acceded to the Chemical Weapons
Convention and we currently do not have any grounds to believe they will fail to fulfil the obligations
they have taken upon themselves. If they don’t, we will look into it. But it is too early to discuss this.
I want to thank you all for our work together. I want to say – I began by saying this, but I want to say
it again – we are very pleased that there are many people in the world who are interested in Russia
and who have made studying Russia their profession. It is pleasant and we recognise that it is very
important. Your considerate assessments and your critical view of Russia’s reality are important
to us.
This will certainly help us develop our national policy; an outside perspective is always important.
And it will help us build relations with the nations you represent, because it gives us a better
understanding of the ideas guiding a particular nation in general and with regard to Russia. This is
very important and useful work. Thank you very much for doing it and for finding the time to come
to the Valdai Discussion Club.
Thank you.

Putin Discusses Russian Identity and National Ideas at Valdai Discussion Club

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Putin Discusses Russian Identity and National Ideas at Valdai Discussion Club

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

13/03/2018 Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club • President of Russia

S-ar putea să vă placă și