Transcript
Meeting with Russia Today Journalists
English includes full house translations. Review is pending; untranslated passages and selected digest glosses remain labelled.
| Русский | English |
|---|---|
| М.Симоньян: Первый вопрос я про Вас задам, если можно, нескромно: какие впечатления? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: I will ask the first question to you, if you don't mind, somewhat presumptuously: what are your impressions? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Russia Today Editor-in-Chief |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Margarita Simonyan: Mr Putin, thanks again for visiting us. |
| 1 RT's Mission — Breaking the Anglo-Saxon Media Monopoly | |
| В.Путин: Хорошие впечатления. Когда мы задумывали это предприятие в 2005 году, мы исходили из того, что на мировой информсцене должен появиться ещё один сильный игрок, который не только будет объективно рассказывать о том, что происходит в нашей стране, в России, но и попытается – я хочу это подчеркнуть, попытается – сломать монополию англосаксонских СМИ на информационные мировые потоки. И, мне кажется, вам это удаётся. И хотелось бы сразу подчеркнуть, это самое главное: мы никогда не исходили из того, что это будет информслужба или канал, который будет заниматься апологетикой российской политики. Нам хотелось, чтобы на информационной арене появился абсолютно независимый информационный канал. Конечно, он финансируется государством, и так или иначе не может не отражать позицию российских официальных властей на то, что происходит в нашей стране и за рубежом. Но всё‑таки я хочу это подчеркнуть ещё раз: мы не задумывали этот канал – RT – как какую‑то апологетику российской политики – и внешней, и внутренней. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Good impressions. When we conceived this enterprise in 2005, we proceeded from the view that one more strong player must appear on the world information scene, one that would not only tell objectively what is happening in our country, in Russia, but would also try — I want to stress this, would try — to break the monopoly of the Anglo-Saxon media on the world's flows of information. And it seems to me that you are succeeding. And I would like at once to stress what is most important: we never proceeded from the view that this would be an information service, or a channel, that would engage in an apologia for Russian policy. We wanted an absolutely independent information channel to appear in the information arena. Of course it is financed by the state, and one way or another it cannot help reflecting the position of the Russian official authorities on what is happening in our country and abroad. But all the same I want to stress this once more: we did not conceive this channel, RT, as some apologia for Russian policy, foreign and domestic. |
| М.Симоньян: Спасибо. Теперь более по нашим журналистским темам. Тема, которая по крайней мере сегодня будоражит умы нашей аудитории – это Сноуден, которого называют вторым Ассанжем, человек, который «слил», по‑русски говоря, информацию о том, что американские власти занимались тотальной слежкой. Есть два аспекта: с одной стороны, вроде бы это тайна, вроде бы он предатель; но, с другой стороны, [он обнародовал] мегазначимую для общества – американского в первую очередь – и всего мира информацию. Вы что об этом думаете? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Thank you. Now, more on our journalistic topics. The topic that is at least today stirring the minds of our audience is Snowden, who is called the second Assange, a person who 'dumped', in Russian terms, information about the fact that American authorities were engaged in total surveillance. There are two aspects: on the one hand, it seems like a secret, it seems like he is a traitor; but, on the other hand, [he made public] information that is mega-significant for society – primarily American – and the whole world. What do you think about this? |
| 2 Snowden and State Surveillance | |
| В.Путин: Он не сказал ничего такого, чего кто‑то не знал. По‑моему, все давно знали о том, что электронная разведка занимается контролем за гражданами, за организациями. В условиях борьбы с международным терроризмом это приобретает глобальный характер, и в целом такие методы работы востребованы. Вопрос только в том, насколько они контролируются обществом. Ведь нельзя просто, допустим, прослушать телефонный разговор, допустим, в России – уж точно могу вам сказать – без соответствующих санкций суда. Вот по большому счёту так же должно происходить в цивилизованном обществе при борьбе с терроризмом с использованием любых современных технических средств. Если это делается в рамках закона, который регламентирует правила поведения специальных служб, то это нормально, если это делается вне рамок закона, то это плохо. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: He said nothing that someone did not know. In my view everyone had long known that electronic intelligence keeps citizens and organizations under surveillance. In the conditions of the fight against international terrorism this takes on a global character, and on the whole such methods of work are in demand. The only question is how far they are controlled by society. One cannot simply, let us say, listen in on a telephone conversation — in Russia, I can tell you for certain — without the corresponding authorization of a court. By and large the same thing ought to happen in a civilized society when terrorism is fought with the use of any modern technical means. If this is done within the framework of a law that regulates the rules of conduct of the special services, then it is normal; if it is done outside the framework of the law, then it is bad. |
| М.Симоньян: Обама так витиевато сказал, что нельзя иметь и стопроцентную безопасность, и стопроцентную приватность в частной жизни. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Obama said so convolutedly that one cannot have both one hundred percent security and one hundred percent privacy in private life. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Well, we have nothing to hide. |
| В.Путин: Можно. Повторяю ещё раз: внутри страны мы же исходим из необходимости получения санкций суда на те или иные оперативные действия. Почему это не должно распространяться на работу спецслужб в данном случае? Может и должно. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: One may. I repeat once more: inside the country we proceed from the necessity of obtaining a court authorization for particular operational actions. Why should this not extend to the work of the special services in this case? It can, and it should. |
| М.Симоньян: Тема недели у нас в стране, как Вы, конечно, знаете или догадываетесь, – обсуждали не Сноудена, не Турцию, не Сирию, а обсуждали Ваш развод. Вы об этом сказали и сказали довольно подробно – Вы и Людмила Александровна, – когда выходили из театра, с балета. Но некоторые вещи всё же ещё остались неотвеченными, некоторые вопросы. Мне интересно: как быть с религиозным аспектом Вашего развода? Много людей об этом пишут, думают, задаются вопросом. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: The topic of the week in our country, as you, of course, know or can guess, was not discussing Snowden, not Turkey, not Syria, but discussing your divorce. You said about it and said it quite in detail – you and Lyudmila Alexandrovna – when you left the theater, from the ballet. But some things still remain unanswered, some questions. I am interested: how to deal with the religious aspect of your divorce? Many people write about it, think about it, ask questions. ] |
| 3 Putin's Divorce and Its Religious Dimension | |
| В.Путин: Во‑первых, хочу сказать, что и я, и Людмила Александровна исходили из того, что сказать прямо и честно о том положении, которое у нас по факту сложилось, – это гораздо более правильное поведение, чем что‑то скрывать. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: First, I want to say that both I and Lyudmila Aleksandrovna proceeded from the view that to say plainly and honestly what situation had in fact taken shape for us is much more correct conduct than to conceal something. |
| М.Симоньян: Так и пишут сейчас, причём из «обоих лагерей». |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: They write it that way now, from both camps. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: One issue that at least our viewers are generally excited about today is the Snowden case. A man who is now being dubbed ‘a second Assange’ has exposed total surveillance practices employed by the American government. There are two sides to this story: on the one hand, that was classified information, which makes this man a traitor. But on the other hand, the information he has leaked is of crucial importance, primarily for the American public, and for the world in general. What do you think of that? |
| В.Путин: Слава богу, спасибо. Что касается религиозной стороны дела, то её не существует, потому что мы никогда не венчались. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Thank God, thank you. As for the religious side of the matter, it does not exist, because we were never married in a church ceremony. |
| М.Симоньян: Спасибо. Следующий вопрос задаст Маша Финошина, это наш боевой корреспондент английского канала. В Сирии, когда уже шла война, 56 дней в последний раз подряд там провела? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Thank you. The next question will be asked by Masha Finoshina, our combat correspondent for the English channel. In Syria, when the war was already underway, how many days in a row did she spend there last time, 56? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Yes you can. I’d like to reiterate: you do have to obtain a warrant for specific policing activities domestically, so why shouldn’t this requirement be valid for intelligence agencies as well? It can, and it should. |
| М.Финошина: Да, почти 54. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: Yes, almost 54. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: As you probably know, it isn’t Snowden, or Syria, or Turkey that’s been top news in Russia this week. It’s your divorce everybody has been talking about. Both yourself and Ms Lyudmila Putina explained it at length when you spoke to the press after a ballet performance, but a few questions still remain. I wonder about the religious aspects of your divorce, and this is something many people are questioning at the moment. |
| М.Симоньян: Она каждый день выходила в эфир. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: She went on air every day. |
| В.Путин: Вам, как руководителю канала, могу сказать, что так делать нельзя. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: To you, as the head of the channel, I can say that this must not be done. |
| М.Финошина: Я сама, Владимир Владимирович. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: I myself, Vladimir Vladimirovich. |
| В.Путин: Нет-нет-нет, я вам серьёзно говорю. Это говорят некоторые мои друзья, ваши коллеги, в частности, из европейских стран, профессиональные люди, которые всю жизнь работают в журналистике. Один из них мне прямо сказал: нельзя так долго журналиста держать в стране, охваченной конфликтом. Почему? Потому что он… |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: No, no, no, I am speaking to you seriously. This is what some of my friends say, your colleagues, in particular from European countries, professional people who have worked in journalism all their lives. One of them told me outright: one must not keep a journalist so long in a country gripped by conflict. Why? Because he… |
| М.Финошина: Теряет ощущение реальности. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: Loses the sense of reality. |
| В.Путин: Да, теряет ощущение реальности. Притупляется чувство опасности. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Yes, one loses a sense of reality. The sense of danger becomes dulled. |
| М.Финошина: Абсолютно. И надо вовремя человека оттуда убирать. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: Absolutely. And one must remove the person from there in time. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Thank you. The next question will be from Maria Finoshina, who’s sitting right next to you. She is a war correspondent on RT English. She has spent 56 days in a row in wartime Syria recently, isn’t that right? |
| М.Симоньян: Вот я тебе сколько раз звонила и говорила: возвращайся! На самом деле. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: That's how many times I called you and said: come back! In fact. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Maria Finoshina: Almost. It was 54 days. Margarita |
| М.Финошина: А у меня уже притупилось чувство опасности… |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: And my sense of danger has already dulled... |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified SIMONYAN: She went on air every day without fail. |
| М.Симоньян: День на двадцатый я начала ей звонить и говорить: «Маша, что‑то ты там… как ты? Возвращайся!» – «Нет-нет-нет, я ещё вот это хочу и вот это». |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: On the twentieth day, I started calling her and saying: 'Masha, something is wrong with you... how are you? Come back!' – 'No, no, no, I still want to do this and this.' |
| В.Путин: На самом деле, это действительно опасно. Правда, это не шутки. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: In fact, this really is dangerous. Truly, this is no joke. |
| М.Симоньян: Да, конечно. Здесь практически все из нас прошли боевые точки, и это, конечно, опасно для жизни в прямом смысле слова. Маша, тебе слово. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Yes, of course. Almost all of us here have passed through combat zones, and this is indeed dangerous to life in the literal sense. Masha, you have a word. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Maria Finoshina: It was my own initiative, Mr President. |
| М.Финошина: Спасибо большое, Маргарита. Здравствуйте ещё раз, Владимир Владимирович! Ещё раз спасибо большое, что пришли к нам. Очень рада Вас видеть в нашем новом доме. Здесь было… ну чего‑то не хватало, сейчас здесь стало теплее и уютнее. Вот меня представили как боевого корреспондента… Некоторые считают, что репортёры вообще все – это солдаты, бойцы невидимого фронта. Действительно, в последние два года приходилось ездить на фронт видимый. Много работали в местах, где проходит настоящая война. Много времени я провела в Сирии, 54 дня… Страну объездили вдоль и поперёк. Буквально зашли в каждую деревню, в каждый город. Были в соседних странах, где в большинстве случаев не поддерживали действующий режим Асада. И вот что бросилось в глаза и что поразило: с каждым моим приездом я отмечала, что всё больше и больше людей вовлекаются в конфликт. Мы поговорили с колоссальным количеством людей, совершенно разных. И сейчас, спустя два года, уже нет ни одного человека, который бы мог остаться в стороне. Так или иначе задет каждый, и задеты все. Все разные абсолютно, то есть мы разговаривали с жёнами расстрелянных офицеров сирийской армии, с их детьми, которые бы и рады остаться в стороне, но как? Их отцы были убиты, и они должны мстить. Может, они не хотят, но они должны мстить, это дело чести. Конечно, встречались с повстанцами, с сирийцами и не сирийцами, в Сирии и не в Сирии, в Европе, в Турции, в Иордании. Такие боевые ребята, очень оптимистично были настроены вначале, потом как‑то начали сдавать, жаловаться: мол, Запад нас забыл, предал. Стали просить больше денег, больше оружия. Как Вы сами тоже подчёркивали, Башар Асад не ангел, поэтому приходилось встречаться и с теми, кто открыто и откровенно его ненавидит. Я помню, буквально встретила в гостинице, где останавливались ооновцы в Дамаске, дедушку, он обувь чистил. И вот он чистил эту обувь, не думал об этом, потому что механически выполнял все действия, и думал только о том, когда, в какой момент его застанет эта прекрасная новость, что Башара Асада больше нет. Физически или как президента. То есть он его ненавидел прямо совсем открыто. Ещё с папы [Хафеза Асада], ещё с 1982 года, за Хаму. В соседнем Ливане удалось выйти на торговцев оружием, которые говорят: нам вообще всё равно, кто это оружие получит, когда мы его переправим через границу, кто из него будет убит, кто будет стрелять, мы бизнесмены, нас интересуют только деньги. Поговорили с ребятами, мальчишками 11–12 лет, которым всучили в руки вот эти самые автоматы, которые, может, из того же самого Ливана и пришли, повязали какие‑то платки, поставили перед камерой и заставили читать текст… В общем, очень грязно. Вы знаете, используют детей в этом конфликте. В общем, целый калейдоскоп прошёл перед нашими глазами. И действительно, за 56 дней уже как‑то становишься частью этого всего. И, что страшно, не важно, где все эти люди были в марте 2011 года, когда всё это началось. Сейчас ощущение, что они все подошли к какому‑то рубежу, некоторому финальному рубежу, на котором они потеряли надежду, веру – в себя, в других людей, в человечество, в доброту, в справедливость. И они обозлились. Очень сильно на всех и вся. И вот приближаясь к моему вопросу, есть среди них и те, кто обозлились на Россию. Сильно, серьёзно обозлились. За что? Кто‑то за бездействие, что, мол, нет решительных мер, чтобы остановить кровопролитие, а кто‑то, наоборот, за действие, мол, поддерживаете Асада, поставляете оружие. Все спрашивают: почему Россия так, почему Россия не так? И, если отходить от сирийского конфликта, это везде. В Сербии – просто на каждом шагу, на баррикадах в Косово: что, где Россия? Или в Иране сейчас мы были. Даже на Мали вспомнили. И как Президенту этой страны я бы хотела задать Вам вопрос от лица этих людей. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: Thank you very much, Margarita. Hello again, Vladimir Vladimirovich! Thank you very much again for coming to us. I am very glad to see you in our new home. There was... well, something was missing, now it has become warmer and cozier here. They introduced me as a combat correspondent... Some believe that all reporters are soldiers, fighters on the invisible front. Indeed, over the last two years, I had to travel to the visible front. I worked a lot in places where real war is taking place. I spent a lot of time in Syria, 54 days... We traveled the country from end to end. We literally entered every village, every city. We were in neighboring countries, where in most cases the ruling regime of Assad was not supported. And what struck me and amazed me: with each of my visits, I noted that more and more people were being drawn into the conflict. We spoke with a colossal number of people, completely different ones. And now, after two years, there is not a single person who could remain on the sidelines. In one way or another, everyone is affected, and everyone is affected. All are absolutely different, that is, we spoke with the wives of executed officers of the Syrian army, with their children, who would be happy to remain on the sidelines, but how? Their fathers were killed, and they must take revenge. Maybe they don't want to, but they must take revenge, it is a matter of honor. Of course, we met with rebels, with Syrians and non-Syrians, in Syria and not in Syria, in Europe, in Turkey, in Jordan. Such combat guys, they were very optimistically disposed at first, then somehow they started to give up, complaining: well, the West has forgotten us, betrayed us. They started asking for more money, more weapons. As you yourself also emphasized, Bashar al-Assad is not an angel, so we had to meet with those who openly and frankly hate him. I remember, I literally met in a hotel where UN staff were staying in Damascus, a grandfather, he was cleaning shoes. And he was cleaning these shoes, not thinking about it, because he mechanically performed all actions, and thought only about when, at what moment he would be caught by this wonderful news that Bashar al-Assad is no more. Physically or as president. That is, he hated him openly and completely. Even with his father [Hafez al-Assad], even since 1982 year, for Hama. In the neighboring Lebanon, we managed to get in touch with arms dealers, who say: we don't care at all who gets this weapon, when we transport it across the border, who will be killed by it, who will shoot, we are businessmen, we are interested only in money. We spoke with guys, boys 11–12 years old, to whom these very automatic weapons were shoved into their hands, which may have come from the same Lebanon, tied some scarves, put them in front of the camera and made them read a text... In general, very dirty. You know, children are used in this conflict. In general, a whole kaleidoscope passed before our eyes. And indeed, after 56 days, you somehow become part of all this. And, what is scary, it doesn't matter where all these people were in March 2011 year, when all this started. Now the feeling is that they have all approached some threshold, some final threshold, on which they lost hope, faith – in themselves, in other people, in humanity, in kindness, in justice. And they became enraged. Very strongly against everyone and everything. And as I approach my question, there are among them those who are enraged against Russia. Strongly, seriously enraged. For what? Some for inaction, that is, no decisive measures to stop the bloodshed, and some, on the contrary, for action, that is, you support Assad, you supply weapons. Everyone asks: why is Russia like this, why is Russia not like that? And, if we move away from the Syrian conflict, it is everywhere. In Serbia – just at every step, at barricades in Kosovo: what, where is Russia? Or in Iran we were there now. Even in Mali, they remembered. And as the President of this country, I would like to ask you a question on behalf of these people. |
| В.Путин: Как Президенту? Или Вы как Президент? |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: As President? Or you as President? |
| М.Финошина: Нет-нет-нет. (Смех) . Я хотела сказать, как Президента этой страны я хотела бы Вас спросить. Так вот мне что этим людям отвечать? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Финошина: No, no, no. (Laughter). I meant to say, as the President of this country, I would like to ask you. So, what should I answer these people? |
| 4 Syria — Against Outside Intervention | |
| В.Путин: У Вас был такой длинный вопрос. Я постараюсь ответить как можно короче. Прежде всего, вот Вы сказали, что я сказал однажды, что Башар Асад не ангел. Я об этом не говорил. Я стараюсь быть очень аккуратным в этих выражениях. Но что я говорил – я говорил о том, что в стране, видимо, назрели какие‑то… не какие‑то, а серьёзные изменения. И руководство страны должно было это почувствовать вовремя и эти изменения начать проводить. Это очевидный факт, иначе бы то, что сейчас происходит, не произошло. Это первое, что я говорил. Второе, что я говорил: мы не являемся адвокатами действующего правительства и самого действующего Президента Башара Асада. Но что нас беспокоит и в чём заключается наша позиция… Да, ещё что бы мне хотелось сказать. Мы ни в коем случае не хотим вмешиваться в конфликт между различными направлениями в исламе, между суннитами и шиитами. Это внутреннее дело самого ислама. У нас очень хорошие отношения с арабским миром. У нас хорошие отношения с Ираном, слава богу, и так далее. Но что нас беспокоит и почему мы занимаем такую позицию, о которой Вы знаете? Вы посмотрите, что происходит в регионе в целом. Ирак явно неспокоен, и нет уверенности в его единстве на будущее и в сохранении территориальной целостности. Йемен неспокоен. Тунис не угомонился. В Ливии происходят межплеменные этнические столкновения. То есть весь регион погрузился как минимум – я очень аккуратно скажу – в состояние неопределённости и конфликтов. И ещё Сирия туда же. Во‑первых, на мой взгляд, почему это происходит. Потому что некоторым людям со стороны думается, что если весь этот регион как бы причесать под ту гребёнку, которая кому‑то нравится, которая кем‑то называется демократией, то там будет мир и порядок. А это совсем не так. Без учёта истории, традиций, религиозных особенностей этого региона делать ничего нельзя. Особенно нельзя вмешиваться со стороны. Вот вмешались в события в Ливии. Хороший был, плохой режим, но уровень жизни был самый высокий в регионе. Что там сейчас происходит? Происходит борьба за ресурсы, непрекращающаяся межплеменная борьба. Во что она превратится, никто не знает. Нас очень беспокоит, что если так же мы будем действовать и в Сирии, то там будет такое же состояние. Нам что, мало того пространства неопределённости и терроризма, которое образовалось между Афганистаном и Пакистаном? Где никто ничем не управляет, только базы боевиков там функционируют? Разве мы этого хотим? А это ж совсем близко от наших границ. Вот это нас беспокоит прежде всего. Это первое. И второе. Нас беспокоит будущее всех этнико-религиозных групп, проживающих на территории Сирии. Мы хотим, чтобы там установился долгосрочный мир и порядок, были обеспечены законные интересы и права всех людей, которые там проживают. Поэтому наша позиция всегда заключалась в том, чтобы сначала дать им возможность определиться с тем, как будет выстроена власть в Сирии, как будут обеспечены законные права, интересы и безопасность всех, кто там проживает, а потом уже на основе этих договорённостей переходить к каким‑то системным изменениям. А не наоборот: сначала всех выгнать, а потом погрузить всю страну в хаос. Ведь на что нам наши коллеги не могут ответить? Одной из ключевых организаций в стане так называемой вооружённой оппозиции является – здесь арабисты, наверное, есть, мне подскажут – организация «Джабхат ан-Нусра». Это одна из ключевых организаций вооружённой оппозиции. Госдеп США признал её террористической и связанной с «Аль-Каидой». Она, собственно, этого и не скрывает. И что? Она будет входить в будущее правительство? Нам говорят: «Нет». А я говорю: «А как вы, возьмёте газетку и их прогоните, как мух?» – «Нет». – «А что будет?» – «Не знаем». Но это же не шутки, это всё серьёзные вещи. Или другой пример. С одной стороны, поддерживаем некоторые организации, которые воюют в Сирии против Асада. С другой стороны, эти же страны, которые их там поддерживают, воюют с ними в Мали. Это не только одни и те же организации – те же самые люди. Часть людей ушла в Мали и там воюет. Там с ними борются, а потом они переезжают назад, в Сирию, их там начинают поддерживать. Где логика? И к чему это всё приведёт? Понимаете, это же всё не пустые фразы, не пустые слова. Я очень надеюсь на то, что те инициативы, которые были выдвинуты и Президентом Египта – мы с ним недавно встречались в Сочи, и он предложил более активное участие стран региона; инициатива Премьер-министра Великобритании, который исходит из того, что надо более активно подключить постоянных членов Совета безопасности ООН; инициатива МИДа России и Госдепа США, то, над чем мы сейчас все вместе работаем, – что вот эта совместная работа даст наконец шанс для урегулирования в стране. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: You had such a long question. I will try to answer as briefly as possible. Above all, you said that I once said that Bashar al-Assad is not an angel. I did not say this. I try to be very careful in these expressions. But what I did say — I said that in the country, apparently, some… not some, but serious changes had matured. And the leadership of the country ought to have sensed this in time and begun to carry out these changes. This is an obvious fact; otherwise what is happening now would not have happened. This is the first thing I said. The second thing I said: we are not advocates of the acting government and of the acting President Bashar al-Assad himself. But what worries us, and what our position consists of… Yes, one more thing I would like to say. We in no case want to interfere in the conflict between the various directions in Islam, between Sunnis and Shiites. This is the internal affair of Islam itself. We have very good relations with the Arab world. We have good relations with Iran, thank God, and so on. But what worries us, and why do we take the position you know? Look at what is happening in the region as a whole. Iraq is plainly unsettled, and there is no confidence in its unity for the future or in the preservation of its territorial integrity. Yemen is unsettled. Tunisia has not calmed down. In Libya intertribal ethnic clashes are taking place. That is, the whole region has sunk at least — I will say this very carefully — into a state of uncertainty and conflicts. And Syria into the same place. First, in my view, why this is happening. Because it seems to some people from the outside that if this whole region is, as it were, combed with the comb that someone likes, that someone calls democracy, then there will be peace and order there. And this is not so at all. Without taking into account the history, the traditions, the religious peculiarities of this region, nothing can be done. Especially, one cannot interfere from outside. They interfered in the events in Libya. It was a good regime, a bad one, but the standard of living was the highest in the region. What is happening there now? A struggle for resources is taking place, an unceasing intertribal struggle. What it will turn into, no one knows. We are very worried that if we act in the same way in Syria too, there will be the same state of affairs there. Do we not have enough of that space of uncertainty and terrorism that formed between Afghanistan and Pakistan? Where no one controls anything, and only militant bases function there? Is this what we want? And this is quite close to our borders. This is what worries us above all. That is the first thing. And the second. We are worried about the future of all the ethnic and religious groups living on the territory of Syria. We want long-term peace and order to be established there, and the lawful interests and rights of all the people who live there to be ensured. So our position has always consisted in first giving them the possibility of determining how power in Syria will be built, how the lawful rights, interests, and security of everyone who lives there will be ensured, and only then, on the basis of these agreements, moving on to any systemic changes. And not the reverse: first drive everyone out, and then plunge the whole country into chaos. After all, what can our colleagues not answer us? One of the key organizations in the camp of the so-called armed opposition is — there are probably Arabists here who will prompt me — the organization Jabhat al-Nusra. This is one of the key organizations of the armed opposition. The U.S. State Department has recognized it as terrorist and linked to al-Qaeda. It, in fact, does not conceal this. And what? Will it enter a future government? They tell us: "No." And I say: "And how will you take a newspaper and drive them off, like flies?" — "No." — "And what will happen?" — "We don't know." But these are not jokes; these are all serious things. Or another example. On the one hand, we support some organizations that are fighting in Syria against Assad. On the other hand, these same countries that support them there are fighting them in Mali. These are not only the same organizations — the very same people. Part of the people went to Mali and are fighting there. There they fight them, and then they move back to Syria, and there they begin to support them. Where is the logic? And what will all this lead to? You understand, these are not empty phrases, not empty words. I very much hope that the initiatives that were put forward both by the President of Egypt — we met with him recently in Sochi, and he proposed more active participation by the countries of the region; the initiative of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who proceeds from the view that the permanent members of the UN Security Council must be brought in more actively; the initiative of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department, what we are all now working on together — that this joint work will at last give a chance for a settlement in the country. |
| М.Симоньян: Ира Галушко, тоже корреспондент английской редакции, которая тоже ездила много где, Фукусиму освещала, одной из первых в Японии. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Ira Galushko, also a correspondent for the English edition, who has also traveled to many places and covered Fukushima, was one of the first in Japan. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: You have to pull reporters out. |
| И.Галушко: Сейчас не про Фукусиму. В частности, мы очень часто в последнее время ездили в Европу, освещали всяческие протесты. Протестов там много, и можно сказать, что большинство из людей, которые протестуют на улицах Европы, – это молодые люди. И они там находятся, потому что им, по сути, нечего делать: они получили образование или всё ещё получают, но они не могут найти работу. У них нет никаких перспектив на какое‑либо не то что светлое, а просто будущее. И, естественно, они недовольны, они на улицах, они громко выражают свой протест тому, что происходит в государствах. А между тем правительства этих европейских государств считают, что единственное, что они могут сделать, – это ужесточить экономические меры, закрутить гайки, особенно в том, что касается каких‑то социальных секторов. И говорят: потерпите ещё лет 10–15, а потом, может быть, вздохнёте, ну пожалуйста. Как Вы считаете, такой подход – он правильный? И если нет, то есть ли у России какой‑то рецепт? Как с этим бороться? |
Full house translation — pending review И.Галушко: Not about Fukushima now. In particular, we have been traveling to Europe very often recently, covering various protests. There are many protests there, and one can say that the majority of the people protesting on the streets of Europe are young people. And they are there because, essentially, they have nothing to do: they have received an education or are still receiving it, but they cannot find work. They have no prospects for any kind of future, let alone a bright one. And, naturally, they are dissatisfied, they are on the streets, they loudly express their protest against what is happening in the states. Meanwhile, the governments of these European states believe that the only thing they can do is to tighten economic measures, turn the screws, especially in what concerns certain social sectors. And they say: endure for another 10–15 years, and then, perhaps, you will sigh, please. In your opinion, is such an approach correct? And if not, does Russia have any recipe? How to deal with this? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: I’ve called you so many times and told you to come back! Honestly. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Maria Finoshina: But I’ve already lost my sense of danger… |
| В.Путин: Для них правильный. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: The right one for them. |
| И.Галушко: А для нас? |
Full house translation — pending review И.Галушко: And for us? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Maria Finoshina: Thank you very much, Margarita. Hello, Mr Putin, we are very happy to see you here, in our new home. Something seemed to be missing here at first, but now it’s become much cozier. I was introduced as a war correspondent. Some people believe that all correspondents are, in a way, invisible soldiers, so to say. Over the last two years we had to work in warzones where the war was very real. I’ve spent a lot of time in Syria – 54 days just recently – we travelled across the country, visited practically every town and village. We also went to neighbouring countries, which in majority of cases did not support al-Assad’s regime. The thing that struck me most was that over time more and more people were becoming involved in the conflict. We’ve talked to a huge number of completely different people. Now, two years later, there is no single person standing on the sidelines. One way or another, the conflict affected everyone. The people we talked to were very different, I mean, we talked to, for example, widows of military officers of the Syrian Army and their children, who would maybe prefer not to be involved, but it’s impossible. Their fathers have been killed, and they must seek revenge. Perhaps they don’t want to, but they must – it’s a question of honour. We also talked to rebels, both Syrian and non-Syrian, who were living in Syria and other places, for example, in Europe, Turkey, and Jordan. They were in very high spirits at first, very optimistic, but then they started complaining that the West had forgotten and betrayed them. They wanted more money and more weapons. As you’ve highlighted yourself, Bashar al-Assad is no angel, and we met with people who openly hated him. I remember seeing this old man in a hotel in Damascus where the UN observers were staying. He was a shoe polisher, and he kept doing his job, mechanically going through the familiar motions, and the only thing he was thinking about is when the happy news that Bashar al-Assad is gone – either dead or no longer president – would reach him. He has been hating al-Assad vigorously ever since 1982, for what his father did to the city of Hama. In Lebanon we managed to contact arms dealers who ship weaponry into Syria. They told us that they didn’t care in the slightest who got those guns and who got killed as a result. They said, “We are businessmen, we care only about money.” We talked to young boys, about 11–12 years old, who were given these guns – maybe they even came from Lebanon – put in front of cameras in their scarves and made to read aloud the words that someone else wrote. Nasty business. Well, you know, children are being used in this conflict. We have seen so much, and during our time there we became part of it. The horrifying part is that it doesn’t matter where any of these people were in March 2011, when it all began. Now it feels like they’ve crossed a critical line of sorts, losing hope and faith – in themselves and other people, perhaps even humankind as a whole, in kindness and justice. And they’ve become angry, really angry at everyone. So, coming to my question – there are people who are really angry at Russia. Some people feel that way because they think Russia is doing nothing in order to stop the bloodshed. Others are angry at Russia for supporting al-Assad and supplying weapons. And everyone’s expecting something from Russia, hoping for something. And it’s not limited to the Syrian conflict, it happens every time – in Serbia, in Kosovo; everyone’s asking where is Russia. The same is true for Iran, where we’ve been just recently, and even in Mali they ask about Russia. So, as the president of this country, I would like to ask you a question on behalf of these people. |
| 5 Europe's Crisis vs Russia's Economic Health | |
| В.Путин: А для нас неправильный. У нас разные экономики. У нас развивающаяся экономика и рынки развивающиеся, а в Европе в основном мы имеем дело с развитыми экономиками. И разное состояние этих экономик сегодня. Она у нас в целом достаточно здоровая. У нас нет отягощения внешним долгом, таким, который есть в Европе и в Соединённых Штатах, кстати сказать. Там, в Европе, средняя задолженность бюджета уже около 90 процентов. В США тоже к этому приближается или даже чуть больше, сто с лишним процентов. Там действительно очень большая безработица. Там у всех дефицитные бюджеты. Мало того что государственный долг огромный, ещё и дефицит огромный. У нас внешний долг 2,5 процента, общий – около 10 процентов. У нас бездефицитный бюджет, у нас безработица 5,6 процента, а в Европе – 25–26 процентов в некоторых странах, а среди молодёжи достигает 40 процентов, а в некоторых странах к 60 процентам приближается. Катастрофа! У нас разные ситуации. Да, конечно, мы можем использовать так называемые нефтегазовые доходы. Но я хочу обратить Ваше внимание на другое: у нас нет печатного станка для резервных валют, а у них есть. И ситуация заключается не в том, что у нас есть нефтегазовые доходы и, соответственно, резервы, а в том, что мы ограничивали расходы. Вот постоянно ругают Центральный банк за то, что у нас высокие ставки. Сейчас у нас 8–8,5 процента? 8,25 процента? Не важно, но она большая. И говорят: вот нам бы так. Да, ЦБ держит такую высокую ставку в том числе и для того, чтобы не раздувать так называемые «финансовые пузыри». Ведь можно раздать дешёвые кредиты, можно добиться того, что на эти дешёвые кредиты производители произведут продукцию, но потом она не будет иметь спроса. Вот вам, пожалуйста, «пузырь». И, конечно, найти ту грань, за которой и смягчение денежно-кредитной политики, и ужесточение, связанное с расходами, приведёт к максимальному эффекту, – вот это экономическая политика на грани искусства. Я не думаю, что мы такую грань нашли, что мы так уж эффективно во всём работаем. Надеюсь, что сейчас Правительство России после наших неоднократных встреч сделает какие‑то дополнительные шаги, стимулирующие развитие экономики и деловую активность. Но вот одна из них, одна из этих мер, она у нас постоянно применяется, нас за это, конечно, критикуют, кстати, наши коллеги – либеральные экономисты. Но, скажем, поддержание темпов роста реальных доходов населения у нас достаточно высокое. В прошлом году это было, по‑моему, 4,5–4,6 процента. За январь, февраль, март, апрель этого года уже 5 процентов с лишним – рост реальных располагаемых доходов населения. А это увеличение внутреннего спроса. Понимаете, у нас немного разные ситуации. И поэтому в целом я разделяю позицию тех наших европейских коллег, которые видят выход из кризиса в консолидации бюджетов, в наведении порядка и дисциплины в экономике. Конечно, всё имеет какие‑то границы. И всё перекладывать на плечи граждан, конечно, невозможно. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: And for us it is the wrong one. We have different economies. We have a developing economy and developing markets, while in Europe we are dealing mainly with developed economies. And the condition of these economies today is different. Ours is on the whole fairly healthy. We do not have the burden of an external debt such as there is in Europe and in the United States, by the way. There, in Europe, the average indebtedness of the budget is already about 90 percent. In the United States it is also approaching this, or even a little more, a hundred-plus percent. There really is very large unemployment there. Everyone there has deficit budgets. It is not enough that the state debt is enormous; the deficit is enormous too. Our external debt is 2.5 percent, the overall one about 10 percent. We have a deficit-free budget; our unemployment is 5.6 percent, while in Europe it is 25–26 percent in some countries, and among young people it reaches 40 percent, and in some countries it approaches 60 percent. A catastrophe! We have different situations. Yes, of course we can use the so-called oil and gas revenues. But I want to draw your attention to something else: we do not have a printing press for reserve currencies, and they do. And the situation consists not in our having oil and gas revenues and, accordingly, reserves, but in our having limited expenditures. The Central Bank is constantly scolded for our having high rates. Now we have 8–8.5 percent? 8.25 percent? It does not matter, but it is large. And they say: if only we had it so. Yes, the Central Bank holds such a high rate including in order not to inflate the so-called "financial bubbles." After all, one can hand out cheap credits; one can achieve a situation in which producers produce output on these cheap credits, but then it will have no demand. There you are, a "bubble." And of course, finding the line beyond which both an easing of monetary policy and a tightening connected with expenditures will lead to the maximum effect — this is economic policy on the verge of art. I do not think we have found such a line, that we work so very effectively in everything. I hope that now the Government of Russia, after our repeated meetings, will take some additional steps stimulating the development of the economy and business activity. But one of them, one of these measures, is constantly applied with us; we are of course criticized for this, by the way, by our colleagues the liberal economists. But, say, the maintenance of the pace of growth of the real incomes of the population is fairly high with us. Last year this was, I think, 4.5–4.6 percent. For January, February, March, April of this year it is already 5 percent and more — growth in the real disposable incomes of the population. And this is an increase in domestic demand. You understand, our situations are a little different. And so on the whole I share the position of those of our European colleagues who see the way out of the crisis in the consolidation of budgets, in putting things in order and discipline in the economy. Of course everything has some boundaries. And shifting everything onto the shoulders of citizens is of course impossible. |
| М.Симоньян: Дэниэл Бушелл, ведущий одного из шоу на английском канале. Наверное, самый скандальный ведущий, о нём периодически пишут западные СМИ, вроде Foreign Policy и New Statesman, – о том, что он слишком критически относится к «мейнстримовскому» представлению о мире. Это, я думаю, действительно так. Дэниэл. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Daniel Bushell, host of one of the shows on the English channel. Probably the most controversial host, about whom Western media such as Foreign Policy and New Statesman periodically write – about the fact that he is too critical of the 'mainstream' view of the world. This, I think, is indeed true. Daniel. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Who are these people? ( Laughter ) What should I tell these people? |
| Д.Бушелл: Да. Владимир Владимирович, очень хотелось услышать Ваше мнение о мультикультурализме. Лидеры ЕС не так давно неохотно признали, что их эксперимент с мультикультурализмом не удался. Когда я жил и учился в Англии, а потом работал во Франции и Бельгии корреспондентом RT, было ясно видно, что у коренного населения и иммигрантов очень мало общего. И Россия сейчас, в последние годы, сталкивается с массовой иммиграцией. Хотелось спросить, как Россия может избежать проблемы, ошибки Евросоюза с иммиграцией? |
Full house translation — pending review Д.Бушелл: Yes. Vladimir Vladimirovich, I very much wanted to hear your opinion on multiculturalism. The leaders of the EU have not long ago reluctantly admitted that their experiment with multiculturalism failed. When I lived and studied in England, and then worked in France and Belgium as a correspondent for RT, it was clearly visible that there was very little in common between the native population and immigrants. And Russia is now, in recent years, facing mass immigration. I wanted to ask how Russia can avoid the problem, the mistake of the European Union with immigration. |
| В.Путин: У нас разные исходные позиции. Ведь проблемы иммиграции в Западной Европе, кстати говоря, и в Штатах отчасти, они связаны… они более жёсткие, на мой взгляд. Они более выпуклые и более опасные, потому что ведь и Западная Европа, и Штаты имеют дело с людьми, которые приехали из других стран и очень трудно ассимилируются на своей новой родине, годами не учат язык, не владеют языком, не могут влиться в рынок труда. Мне один из моих западноевропейских коллег говорил: «По десять лет, даже больше, приезжают выходцы, скажем, из Северной Африки, и не могут говорить». (В данном случае говорил прямо на испанском). А наши эмигранты? Сейчас‑то уже, наверное, лучше, а вот те, которые в Штаты приезжали в 80-е годы, в 90-е. У меня один знакомый был в известном районе, где жили наши, до сих пор наши живут… |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Our starting positions are different. The problems of immigration in Western Europe, and in the States too, in part, by the way, are connected… they are harsher, in my view. They are more pronounced and more dangerous, because both Western Europe and the States are dealing with people who have come from other countries and assimilate only with great difficulty in their new homeland, who for years do not learn the language, do not command the language, and cannot enter the labor market. One of my Western European colleagues told me: "For ten years, even more, people arrive, say from North Africa, and cannot speak." (In this case he was speaking straight in Spanish.) And our emigrants? By now it is probably better, but those who were arriving in the States in the 80s, in the 90s. I had an acquaintance in a well-known district where our people lived; our people still live there… |
| 6 Multiculturalism and Immigration | |
| Реплика: Брайтон-Бич. В.Путин Да-да, правильно. И бабушка одна уже в возрасте, она уже живёт там лет пятнадцать, по‑английски не говорит. И говорит своим гостям: «Завтра поеду в магазин, в Нью-Йорк». Она не считает даже, что она в Нью-Йорке живёт. Это вообще общая проблема, связанная, конечно, прежде всего с экономикой, с необходимостью привлечения дешёвой рабочей силы. У нас, собственно говоря, то же самое происходит. Но у нас при всей остроте этой проблемы всё‑таки она не такая тяжёлая и опасная, как в Европе или в Штатах. Почему? Потому что если мы говорим об иммиграции, то есть об иностранных гражданах, то всё‑таки должны признать, что это выходцы из республик бывшего Советского Союза. У нас хоть они, новые поколения, плохо владеют языком, но в семьях так или иначе кто‑то говорит на русском, общий менталитет сохраняется, общая историческая память есть, кто‑то жил в каких‑то российских регионах, есть какие‑то родственники. То есть гораздо проще людям вливаться в жизнь тех этнических групп, куда они переселяются на постоянное жительство. Но и у нас тем не менее нужно заниматься более целенаправленно, нужно готовить тех людей, которые хотят приехать в Россию жить, нужно, как мы говорим, у нас плохо пока это получается, открывать в этих республиках, в этих новых государствах курсы русского языка, истории, помогать людям ещё со школьной скамьи лучше понимать друг друга. И здесь, конечно, нужно прививать нашим гражданам или тем, кто хочет стать гражданами России, чувство ответственности, понимание того, что они приехали в другую страну и обязаны соблюдать наши традиции, наши законы, с уважением относиться к нашей культуре и к нашей истории. Это отдельная большая работа. Раньше просто на неё не обращали внимания. Но сейчас нужно обратить и нужно целенаправленно заниматься этим. Что касается внутренней иммиграции, то тоже не всё так просто. В Советском Союзе просто с этим поступали: была прописка. Нарушил прописку – будь здоров, как у нас в народе говорят, Иван Петров, поезжай в места не столь отдалённые или за 101‑й километр. Сейчас всё сложнее. Конституцией прописка признана незаконной, поэтому нужны какие‑то более современные механизмы, но повторяю ещё раз: всё‑таки у нас есть преимущество, которое заключается в том, что мы многонациональный народ, но это всё‑таки единая цивилизация. |
Full house translation — pending review Реплика: Brighton Beach. V. Putin Yes, that's correct. And the grandmother is already elderly, she has been living there for about fifteen years, and she does not speak English. She tells her guests: 'Tomorrow I will go to the store, to New York.' She does not even consider that she lives in New York. This is a general problem, of course, primarily related to the economy and the need to attract cheap labor. The same thing happens with us. But despite the acuteness of this problem, it is not as severe and dangerous as in Europe or in the States. Why? Because if we talk about immigration, that is, about foreign citizens, we must still admit that they are descendants of the republics of the former Soviet Union. Even though the new generations among them do not speak the language well, in families someone speaks Russian in one way or another, the common mentality is preserved, there is a common historical memory, someone lived in certain Russian regions, there are certain relatives. That is, it is much easier for people to integrate into the lives of those ethnic groups to which they relocate for permanent residence. But even with us, we still need to work more purposefully, we need to prepare those people who want to come to Russia to live, we need, as we say, although we are not doing well at this yet, to open courses in Russian language and history in these republics, in these new states, to help people understand each other better from school. And here, of course, we need to instill in our citizens or those who want to become citizens of Russia, a sense of responsibility, an understanding that they have come to another country and are obliged to observe our traditions, our laws, to respect our culture and our history. This is a separate large task. Previously, simply no attention was paid to it. But now we need to pay attention and need to work purposefully on this. As for internal immigration, it is also not all that simple. In the Soviet Union, they simply dealt with this: there was registration. If you violated registration – be healthy, as they say among us, Ivan Petrov, go to places not so remote or beyond the 101‑th kilometer. Now it is more complicated. Registration is recognized as illegal by the Constitution, so some more modern mechanisms are needed, but I repeat once again: we still have an advantage, which consists in the fact that we are a multi-ethnic people, but this is still a single civilization. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Irina Galushko is a correspondent of RT English, too. She has travelled a lot, and became one of the first in Japan to cover the Fukushima disaster. |
| М.Симоньян: К вопросу об иммигрантах. У нас тут есть одна иммигрантка – Елена Милинчич, она работает у нас на испанском канале, сама из Сербии. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: On the question of immigrants. We have one immigrant here – Elena Milincic, she works for us on the Spanish channel, she is from Serbia herself. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Irina Galushko: My question will not be dealing with Fukushima. Recently we have spent a lot of time in Europe, covering all kinds of demonstrations. There are a lot of protests in Europe, and we can say that there are mostly young people on the streets. They take part in demonstrations because they have nothing to do – they have got an education or they are still students, but they can’t find a job. They don’t have any prospects for the future at all, let alone a promising one. So of course they are dissatisfied – they take to the streets and voice their protest against what is going on in their countries. Meanwhile the governments of those European states believe that the only solution is austerity measures – they tighten the screws, especially in terms of the social commitments. They tell those young people to wait for some ten or fifteen years, promising that maybe after that period the situation will probably get better. Do you think this is the right approach? If no – then, does Russia have a recipe how to deal with this? |
| Е.Милинчич: Да, я из Сербии и в России уже 11 лет живу. Я могу сказать, что Россия стала для меня второй родиной, но у меня всё ещё нет российского гражданства. И если я подам документы, весь процесс будет длиться 5–6 лет как минимум. Для того чтобы это сделать, мне нужно иметь квартиру, например. На квартиру нужно взять ипотеку, для ипотеки нужно иметь российское гражданство – получается какой‑то замкнутый круг. И на самом деле, похоже, что на Западе, где, Вы сами сказали, эта проблема стоит гораздо более остро… |
Full house translation — pending review Е.Милинчич: Yes, I am from Serbia and have been living in Russia for 11 years already. I can say that Russia has become my second homeland for me, but I still do not have Russian citizenship. And if I submit the documents, the entire process will take at least 5–6 years. In order to do this, I need to have an apartment, for example. You need to take out a mortgage on the apartment, and for a mortgage you need to have Russian citizenship – it turns out to be some kind of a vicious circle. And in fact, it seems that in the West, where, as you yourself said, this problem is much more acute... |
| В.Путин: Там всё‑таки легче получить гражданство, чем в России. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: It is still easier to obtain citizenship there than in Russia. |
| Е.Милинчич: Поэтому там и «остро». Потому что там легче получить гражданство. В этом смысле что‑то будет меняться в России? |
Full house translation — pending review Е.Милинчич: Therefore, it is 'acute' there. Because it is easier to get citizenship there. In this sense, will something change in Russia? |
| 7 Citizenship Policy and Protecting Native Citizens | |
| В.Путин: Мы должны действовать очень аккуратно, для того чтобы обеспечить интересы коренных жителей Российской Федерации прежде всего. Мы всё‑таки Российское государство, и у нас 85 процентов считают себя русскими. И другие народы нам всё‑таки ближе, чем все те граждане, которые проживают за территорией Российской Федерации, то есть это наши коренные народы. Их много у нас – свыше 120. Вы же 11 лет прожили? А чтобы получить гражданство, нужно 5–6 лет, как Вы сказали. Вот подали бы уже. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: We must act very carefully, so as to secure above all the interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the Russian Federation. We are the Russian state, after all, and 85 percent consider themselves Russian. And the other peoples are, after all, closer to us than all those citizens who live outside the territory of the Russian Federation; that is, these are our indigenous peoples. There are many of them here — over 120. You lived here for 11 years, did you not? And to obtain citizenship one needs 5–6 years, as you said. You might have filed the application already. |
| Е.Милинчич: А чтобы подать документы, нужно иметь прописку. |
Full house translation — pending review Е.Милинчич: And in order to submit the documents, you need to have a registration. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Daniel Bushell, the presenter of one of our shows in English. Western media such as Foreign Policy and New Statesman often comment that he is too critical of the mainstream view on the world. I think it’s really so. Daniel, the floor is yours. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Daniel Bushell: Mr Putin, I’d like to hear your opinion on multiculturalism. Not long ago, the leaders of the European Union admitted reluctantly that their experiment with multiculturalism failed. When I lived and studied in England, and then worked in France and Belgium as an RT reporter it was evident that the local residents and immigrants had little in common. Over the last years Russia’s been facing the same issue of mass immigration. I’d like to ask, how can Russia avoid the same mistakes that the EU has made in the issue of immigration? |
| В.Путин: Ну Вы могли ведь за это время купить какую‑то элементарную жилую площадь. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Well, you could have, after all, bought some basic living space during this time. |
| Е.Милинчич: А кредит как взять? |
Full house translation — pending review Е.Милинчич: And how can you take out a loan? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Speaking of immigrants… We have an immigrant in our midst — Jelena Milincic. She works on RT Spanish, but she is actually from Serbia. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Jelena Milincic: Yes, I am from Serbia, and I have lived in Russia for 11 years. I can say that Russia has become my second home, but I still don’t have Russian citizenship. And if I file for citizenship now, the process will take at least 5 or 6 years. But in order to do that, I need to own an apartment, for example. In order to get an apartment, I have to take out mortgage, but I have to be a Russian citizen for that. It is a vicious cycle. So seems that in the West, where this is a more serious issue, like you said… |
| В.Путин: Я думаю, что, если бы Вы захотели получить гражданство, Вы смогли бы приобрести хоть какую‑то комнату где‑то в Подмосковье, чтобы иметь формальное право подать документы на гражданство. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: I think that if you had wanted to obtain citizenship, you could have acquired at least some room somewhere in the Moscow region, so as to have a formal right to submit the documents for citizenship. |
| Е.Милинчич: А то, что я живу здесь 11 лет и работаю, – это не является формальным? |
Full house translation — pending review Е.Милинчич: And the fact that I have lived here 11 years and worked here – is that not formal? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Jelena Milincic: That’s why it’s a more serious issue, because it’s easier to get citizenship. Will anything change in Russia in this respect? |
| В.Путин: Является. И я думаю, что Вы правы, и мы в определённых случаях, конечно, должны скорректировать свою политику в этом направлении. Нужно привлекать в нашу страну квалифицированных и нужных для различных сфер деятельности людей. Вот таких, как Вы. Вы ещё совсем молодая и красивая женщина. Вы уж меня извините, но это правда. В репродуктивном возрасте. Вот Ваша руководительница показывает хороший пример. То есть в принципе ведь во многих странах – очень хорошим примером среди них является Канада – целые программы привлечения нужных стране людей. А у нас всё так закостенело, к сожалению, в этом смысле. Есть сейчас некоторые идеи и некоторые подвижки в том смысле, чтобы приглашать так называемых соотечественников – выходцев из республик бывшего Советского Союза, и облегчить им возможность приобретения гражданства, если они отвечают ряду критериев. Но в целом наша политика в миграционной сфере должна быть более гибкой, обеспечивающей, безусловно, интересы наших коренных граждан, но должна быть более гибкой для привлечения нужных нам хотя бы трудовых ресурсов. Поэтому Вы абсолютно правы, и сейчас Правительство работает над этим, я уже говорил Вам. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: It is. And I think you are right, and in certain cases we of course ought to adjust our policy in this direction. We need to draw into our country people who are qualified and needed in various spheres of activity. People such as you. You are still quite a young and beautiful woman. Forgive me, but it is true. Of reproductive age. Your superior sets a good example. That is, in principle, in many countries — and a very good example among them is Canada — there are whole programs for attracting the people a country needs. And with us everything has grown so rigid in this respect, unfortunately. There are now some ideas and some movement in the sense of inviting so-called compatriots, people from the republics of the former Soviet Union, and of easing their possibility of acquiring citizenship if they meet a number of criteria. But on the whole our policy in the migration sphere must be more flexible, securing, of course, the interests of our indigenous citizens, but it must be more flexible for attracting at least the labor resources we need. So you are absolutely right, and the Government is working on this now; I have already told you. |
| М.Симоньян: У другой нашей ведущей английского канала – Софико Шеварднадзе, есть российское гражданство, по отношению к ней политика оказалась более гибкой. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Our other English channel host, Sofiko Shevardnadze, has Russian citizenship, and the policy towards her has been more flexible. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Jelena Milincic: I have to have residence registration for that. |
| С.Шеварднадзе: Но при этом, должна сказать, тоже не сразу получилось. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Шеварднадзе: But at the same time, I must say, it didn't work out immediately. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: You could’ve bought some basic housing… |
| М.Симоньян: Да, не сразу, это правда, через пень колоду. Софико, наша ведущая. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Yes, not immediately, that's true, through a bush and a deck of cards. Sofiko, our host. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Jelena Milincic: But how can I take out mortgage? |
| С.Шеварднадзе: Я уже здесь живу давно, 8 лет. Я работаю в Москве, но, Владимир Владимирович, я родилась в Тбилиси, всё своё детство провела в Грузии. Будет лукавством говорить, что я не переживаю из‑за отношений между Россией и Грузией. Это меня трогает очень лично, очень глубоко. У Вас есть понимание, если уже в скором будущем эти отношения снова станут нормальными, особенно учитывая то, что, например, мы знаем о том, что Грузия примет участие в сочинской Олимпиаде, да и вообще она готова помочь в соблюдении безопасности. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Шеварднадзе: I have been living here for a long time, 8 years. I work in Moscow, but, Vladimir Vladimirovich, I was born in Tbilisi and spent my entire childhood in Georgia. It would be disingenuous to say that I am not affected by the relations between Russia and Georgia. This touches me very personally, very deeply. You understand that if these relations become normal again in the near future, especially considering that, for example, we know that Georgia will participate in the Sochi Olympics, and generally that it is ready to help in maintaining security. |
| 8 Georgia — Reconciliation Without Reversal | |
| В.Путин: Я уже говорил на этот счёт многократно, в чём заключается позиция России. Я считаю, что действующий президент совершил большую ошибку. Мы с ним много раз говорили на этот счёт, и, думаю, он не будет этого отрицать. Я ему говорил: «Михаил Николаевич, всё что угодно, только ни в коем случае не доводите до кровопролития». И он мне всё время говорил: «Да-да, ни в коем случае, мы будем работать, наберёмся терпения, будем работать и с Абхазией, и с Южной Осетией». Но всё, к сожалению, закончилось войной. Многие ваши коллеги, особенно в зарубежных странах: и в Европе, и в Штатах, и в самой Грузии, часто обвиняют Россию. Но я думаю, что любой объективный наблюдатель понимает, что Россия здесь ни при чём. Конфликт межэтнический тянется уже, наверное, не десятилетиями, а столетиями. И в Грузии не могут этого не знать. Ну не могут не знать о событиях 1919 года, 1921 года. Не могут не знать об отношениях между людьми. И нужно было действительно набраться терпения и государственной мудрости, чтобы выстроить отношения в рамках единого государства и с Южной Осетией, и с Абхазией. Но, к сожалению, этого не удалось. И, как реакция на происходившие тогда события, Россия сделала тот шаг, который привёл к признанию независимости Южной Осетии и Абхазии. Я не представляю себе обратного шага, я просто его не представляю. Но это и для Грузии в известной степени красная черта, через которую Грузия тоже не может перейти. Потому что она борется, как считает сама Грузия, за восстановление территориальной целостности. Это вопрос, требующий очень внимательного рассмотрения и, я бы сказал, не просто компетентного решения, а желания решить этот вопрос на основе уважения к интересам людей, которые проживают на всей этой территории. Вы знаете, я точнее не скажу. Вот если с уважением относиться к интересам всех людей, которые проживают на этих территориях, и на основе этого подхода найти решения, то это может быть долгосрочно. Но это могут сделать только люди, которые там проживают, без навязывания какого‑либо решения извне. Что касается решения нового правительства Грузии принять участие в Олимпиаде, сделать какие‑то другие шаги навстречу, мы их видим. Мы в состоянии их оценить, мы, как вы, наверное, заметили, отвечаем им тем же самым. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: I have already spoken many times on this score about what Russia's position consists of. I consider that the acting president committed a great mistake. We spoke with him many times on this score, and I think he will not deny it. I told him: "Mikhail Nikolaevich, anything you like, only in no case bring it to bloodshed." And he kept telling me: "Yes, yes, in no case; we will work, we will summon patience, we will work both with Abkhazia and with South Ossetia." But everything, unfortunately, ended in war. Many of your colleagues, especially in foreign countries — both in Europe and in the States, and in Georgia itself — often accuse Russia. But I think any objective observer understands that Russia has nothing to do with it here. The interethnic conflict has already been dragging on, probably, not for decades but for centuries. And in Georgia they cannot fail to know this. They cannot fail to know about the events of 1919, of 1921. They cannot fail to know about relations between people. And one really did have to summon patience and state wisdom in order to build relations within the framework of a single state both with South Ossetia and with Abkhazia. But unfortunately this did not succeed. And, as a reaction to the events that were taking place then, Russia took the step that led to the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I cannot imagine a reverse step; I simply cannot imagine it. But this is also, to a known degree, a red line for Georgia, which Georgia too cannot cross. Because it is fighting, as Georgia itself considers, for the restoration of territorial integrity. This is a question requiring very attentive consideration and, I would say, not simply a competent decision, but the wish to solve this question on the basis of respect for the interests of the people who live on all this territory. You know, I will not say it more precisely. If one treats with respect the interests of all the people who live on these territories, and on the basis of this approach finds solutions, then this can be long-term. But this can be done only by the people who live there, without the imposition of any decision from outside. As for the decision of Georgia's new government to take part in the Olympics, to take some other steps toward us, we see them. We are in a position to assess them; we, as you have probably noticed, answer them in the same way. |
| С.Шеварднадзе: Вы готовы принять их помощь? Если они вам предлагают помощь в соблюдении безопасности? |
Full house translation — pending review С.Шеварднадзе: Are you ready to accept their help? If they are offering you help in maintaining security? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Jelena Milincic: Isn’t the fact that I have’s lived and worked here for 11 years enough? |
| В.Путин: Да, конечно. Мы вообще готовы к сотрудничеству с Грузией. Мы хотим восстановления отношений с Грузией, мы относимся к Грузии очень тепло. Мы очень близкие народы с грузинами. И Вы здесь живёте, Вы имеете гражданство. Но сколько грузин живёт в России, достижениями которых Россия гордится как достижениями своих граждан! |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Yes, of course. We are entirely ready to cooperate with Georgia. We want relations with Georgia restored; we regard Georgia very warmly. We and the Georgians are very close peoples. And you live here; you have citizenship. But how many Georgians live in Russia, achievements of whom Russia is proud of as the achievements of its own citizens! |
| М.Симоньян: Много. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: A lot. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Sophie Shevardnadze, presenter and show host on RT English, has Russian citizenship. Authorities were more flexible in her case. |
| В.Путин: Я уж не буду вспоминать про войну 1812 года, мы знаем, кого я имею в виду. Но и в советский период, да и сейчас тоже… Поэтому культура очень нам близка, в общем, очень многое нас связывает, я уж не говорю о чисто духовной стороне, религиозной стороне дела. Я встречался с католикосом… |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: I will not even mention the war of 1812 years, we know who I am referring to. But even during the Soviet period, and now as well... Therefore, culture is very close to us, in general, many things connect us, I will not even mention the purely spiritual side, the religious side of the matter. I have met with the Catholicos... |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Sophie Shevardnadze: It didn’t happen right away though. |
| С.Шеварднадзе: С Илиёй II. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Шеварднадзе: With Ilia II. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Yes, she had to jump through hoops first. Sophie, our presenter and show host. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Sophie Shevardnadze: I have lived here for 8 years. Mr Putin, I work in Moscow, but I was born in Tbilisi and grew up in Georgia. I wouldn’t be honest if I said that I wasn’t concerned about the relations between Russia and Georgia. This is something that I care about on a deep personal level. Do you think there is a chance that these relations will return to normal in the near future? As we know, Georgian athletes will come to the Sochi Olympics, and Tbilisi is even ready to help with security issues during the Olympics. |
| В.Путин: Да, он очень добрый человек, и он настоящий грузин, конечно. Понимаете, секунды не было, чтобы он не говорил об интересах грузинского народа. Но он всё так мудро, мягко, спокойно. Вы знаете, что мы приняли решение о допуске грузинских товаров на русский рынок. Мы понимаем, что это может быть не ключевой вопрос, но всё‑таки это важно для Грузии, для её экономики. Мы будем и дальше действовать в этом направлении. Будем развивать отношения, а вот эти самые сложные вопросы, конечно, должны решить, ещё раз повторяю, только те люди, которые на этой территории живут, в диалоге и без всякого давления извне. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Yes, he is a very kind man, and he is a real Georgian, of course. You see, there was not a second in which he was not speaking of the interests of the Georgian people. But he does it all so wisely, gently, calmly. You know that we took the decision to admit Georgian goods to the Russian market. We understand that this may not be the key question, but it is important for Georgia all the same, for its economy. We will go on acting in this direction. We will develop relations, and these most difficult questions must of course be decided, I repeat once more, only by the people who live on that territory, in dialogue and without any pressure from outside. |
| С.Шеварднадзе: Можно не про самое сложное, а про визы. Просто я буквально пару лет назад задала тот же вопрос Дмитрию Анатольевичу, и тогда всё сводилось к тому, что, пока Михаил Саакашвили у власти, об этом вообще речи не может быть. Что должно сейчас произойти, для того чтобы мои родственники, близкие мне люди, могли беспрепятственно приезжать ко мне, в Москву, так же, как и мои русские друзья ездят сейчас в Грузию, потому что им виза не нужна? |
Full house translation — pending review С.Шеварднадзе: You can skip the most difficult part and talk about visas. I literally asked the same question to Dmitry Anatolyevich a couple of years ago, and then everything came down to the fact that as long as Mikheil Saakashvili was in power, there could be no talk about it. What needs to happen now for my relatives, people close to me, to be able to come to me, in Moscow, without hindrance, just as my Russian friends travel to Georgia now because they do not need a visa? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Sophie Shevardnadze: Would you be willing to accept the help they offer? I mean security assistance… |
| В.Путин: Если мы действительно будем работать совместно в борьбе с преступностью, с террором, то тогда это возможно. Ведь я же, наверное, Вам не открою большого секрета, Вы, наверное, знаете, что с территории Грузии на Кавказ к нам постоянно просачивается террористический элемент. И вот те малоприятные эпизоды, связанные с нанесением ударов по грузинской территории, были связаны с тем, что мы наносили удары лет шесть-семь назад не просто по грузинской территории, а по бандформированиям, которые на 30 километров подошли к Сочи. Вы понимаете? Вот до чего дошло. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: If we really work together in the fight against crime and against terror, then this is possible. I am probably not revealing a great secret to you; you probably know that a terrorist element constantly seeps through to us in the Caucasus from the territory of Georgia. And those unpleasant episodes connected with strikes on Georgian territory were connected with the fact that, some six or seven years ago, we were striking not simply at Georgian territory, but at bandit formations that had come within 30 kilometers of Sochi. Do you understand? That is what it came to. |
| М.Симоньян: Вы имеете в виду в Кодорском ущелье? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Do you mean in the Kodori Gorge? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Many. |
| В.Путин: Нет, не в Кодорском, там было другое. Но не важно, во всяком случае их грузовики МВД перебросили. Грузовики МВД перебрасывали их к границам с Россией. Мы вынуждены были осуществить превентивные действия. Я тогда сказал об этом действующему Президенту. И нам бы очень хотелось, чтобы такого никогда больше не повторилось. Мы хотим сотрудничать, хотим работать с Грузией, хотим восстановить отношения в полном объёме. И, повторяю, если мы сможем наладить такую работу в сфере правоохранительных органов, специальных служб – это будет первым шагом к тому, чтобы восстановить безвизовый режим. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: No, not in Kodori; there it was something else. But it does not matter; in any case the Interior Ministry's trucks moved them. Interior Ministry trucks were moving them to the borders with Russia. We were compelled to take preventive action. I told the serving President about this at the time. And we would very much like this never to happen again. We want to cooperate, we want to work with Georgia, we want to restore relations in full. And, I repeat, if we can establish such work in the sphere of the law-enforcement bodies and the special services, that will be a first step toward restoring the visa-free regime. |
| М.Симоньян: Спасибо. Салям Адиль, работает в арабской редакции, замруководителя этой дирекции. Салям, Вам слово. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Thank you. Salam Adil, works in the Arabic edition, deputy head of this directorate. Salam, the word is yours. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Sophie Shevardnadze: Ilia II. |
| С.Адиль: Спасибо, Маргарита. В нынешнем качестве, в котором меня представила наш главный редактор, всего лишь неделю. А так я на протяжении 20 лет работал журналистом, объездил практически весь мир, был во многих горячих точках. Поэтому у меня взгляд не притупился, и я живой до сих пор. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Адиль: Thank you, Margarita. In the current capacity in which our chief editor presented me, I have been in this role for just one week. Otherwise, I have worked as a journalist for 20 years, traveled almost the entire world, and was in many hot spots. Therefore, my perspective has not dulled, and I am still alive. |
| В.Путин: Слава богу. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Thank God. |
| С.Адиль: Да, слава богу. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Адиль: Yes, thank God. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Sophie Shevardnadze: Can I ask a simpler question? It’s about visas. A couple of years ago I asked Dmitry Medvedev this same question. And he basically said that while Saakashvili was in office, there was not going to be any progress in this area. What needs to happen so that my relatives, my close ones can freely visit me in Moscow, just like my Russian friends go to Georgia without any visas? |
| В.Путин: Дай Вам бог здоровья. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: God grant you health. |
| С.Адиль: Спасибо большое. А вопрос тоже из горячих тем – это применение «дронов», в смысле беспилотников. Как известно, Америка чуть ли не каждый день использует эти дроны, бомбит. Особенно часто это происходит в Пакистане, в ряде других стран. Вы уже упомянули об этом – о той опасной ситуации, которая сложилась на границе между двумя государствами: Пакистаном и Афганистаном. На первый взгляд это очень удобно: никакого риска для солдат воюющей страны, здесь не происходит прямых столкновений. Как в компьютерной игре – дистанционное управление. Однако это чревато, как мы это видим каждый день, большими человеческими жертвами среди гражданского населения. Вот такая возникает ситуация: с одной стороны, да, это применяется эффективно. С другой стороны, мы видим, какой результат. Общественность этим шокирована во многих странах мира. И сейчас поднимается вопрос о запрете на международном уровне применения дронов. Поэтому я хотел бы узнать, какую позицию наша страна занимает по этому вопросу. Спасибо. |
Full house translation — pending review С.Адиль: Thank you very much. And the question is also on a hot topic – the use of 'drones', meaning unmanned aerial vehicles. As is known, America uses these drones almost every day and bombs. This happens especially often in Pakistan and in a number of other countries. You have already mentioned this – about the dangerous situation that has arisen on the border between two states: Pakistan and Afghanistan. At first glance, this is very convenient: there is no risk for the soldiers of the warring country, and there are no direct clashes. Like in a computer game – remote control. However, this can lead, as we see every day, to large human casualties among the civilian population. Such a situation arises: on the one hand, yes, it is applied effectively. On the other hand, we see what the result is. The public is shocked by this in many countries around the world. And now the question of banning the international use of drones is being raised. Therefore, I would like to know what position our country takes on this issue. Thank you. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: You mean the Kodori Gorge? |
| 9 Drones and Regulating New Weapons | |
| В.Путин: В своё время в Китае изобрели порох. Никто не смог удержать его распространение. Потом возникло ядерное оружие. И оно тоже начало распространяться. Современные средства ведения вооружённой борьбы, они совершенствуются и будут совершенствоваться дальше. Сомневаюсь, что можно всё запретить. Но поставить под контроль и подчинить определённым правилам, конечно, можно и нужно. И Соединённые Штаты, конечно, не стремятся к тому, чтобы были жертвы среди мирного населения – разумеется, нет. И те операторы, о которых Вы сказали, они тоже живые люди, и я думаю, что они тоже это понимают. Но бороться с терроризмом нужно. Повторяю ещё раз: знаю, что и в Штатах сейчас идут дебаты на этот счёт, и на площадке ООН всё чаще и чаще этот вопрос поднимается. Нужно поставить это под контроль, нужно выработать определённые правила применения, с тем чтобы минимизировать или лучше свести к нулю случайные жертвы. Это чрезвычайно важно. Не знаю, пойдут ли наши партнёры на это, но я полагаю, что это и в их интересах было бы сделать. Но у нас и другие угрозы существуют. Скажем, в Штатах дебатируется вопрос о применении стратегических баллистических ракет в неядерном исполнении. Вы представляете, какая это угроза? А если откуда‑нибудь из акватории Мирового океана стартует такая ракета? А если средства обнаружения ракетного нападения отфиксируют, что эта ракета летит в направлении ядерной державы? Как эта держава должна реагировать? Откуда она знает, ядерная там боеголовка или неядерная? Эта ракета упадёт рядом с её границами или уже в рамках её границ? Представляете, какая это угроза? А теория применения ядерного оружия небольшой мощности? Представляете, насколько это может размыть сам факт применения? Опускание этого порога? И к чему это может привести? Где граница этого порога, кто его определил? У нас очень много угроз в современном мире. И есть только один способ их решения – это совместная работа в рамках международного права. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: In its time gunpowder was invented in China. No one was able to hold back its spread. Then nuclear weapons arose. And they too began to spread. Modern means of conducting armed struggle are being improved and will be improved further. I doubt that one can forbid everything. But to put it under control and subordinate it to definite rules is, of course, possible and necessary. And the United States, of course, does not strive to have victims among the civilian population — of course not. And the operators you spoke of are living people too, and I think they understand this too. But one must fight terrorism. I repeat once more: I know that debates on this score are going on in the States now too, and at the UN venue this question is raised more and more often. This must be put under control; definite rules of use must be worked out, so as to minimize, or better to reduce to zero, accidental victims. This is extremely important. I do not know whether our partners will go along with this, but I suppose it would be in their interest to do so too. But we have other threats as well. Say, in the States the question of using strategic ballistic missiles in a non-nuclear configuration is being debated. Do you imagine what a threat this is? And if such a missile launches from somewhere in the waters of the World Ocean? And if the means of detecting a missile attack register that this missile is flying in the direction of a nuclear power? How is that power supposed to react? How does it know whether the warhead there is nuclear or non-nuclear? Will this missile fall beside its borders, or already within its borders? Do you imagine what a threat this is? And the theory of using nuclear weapons of small yield? Do you imagine how far this can blur the very fact of use? The lowering of this threshold? And what this can lead to? Where is the boundary of this threshold; who defined it? We have a great many threats in the modern world. And there is only one way of solving them — joint work within the framework of international law. |
| М.Симоньян: Питер Лавелль, ведущий одной из самых главных, пользующихся большим успехом программ, – Crosstalk. С самого начала Питер работает с нами. Он, наверное, по‑английски будет задавать вопрос, я переведу. Питер Лавелль. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Peter Lawell, host of one of the main, most successful programs – Crosstalk. Peter has been working with us from the very beginning. He will probably ask the question in English, and I will translate. Peter Lawell. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Thank you. Salam Adil is Deputy Editor-in-Chief with RT Arabic. Salam, you have the microphone. |
| П.Лавелль: Благодарю. Господин Президент, я задам короткий вопрос. Считается, что мы живём во времена оппозиции: «арабская весна», кризис в Европе, движение Occupy, которое было замечательно освещено каналом RT… А что насчёт оппозиции в России? Опросы показывают, что она слаба и не имеет широкой поддержки населения. Какую оппозицию Вы хотели бы видеть в качестве своего оппонента? И ещё я хотел бы узнать о господине Кудрине. |
Full house translation — pending review П.Лавелль: Thank you. Mr. President, I will ask a short question. It is said that we live in the times of opposition: the Arab Spring, the crisis in Europe, the Occupy movement, which was excellently covered by the RT channel... And what about opposition in Russia? Polls show that it is weak and lacks broad public support. What kind of opposition would you like to see as your opponent? And I would also like to learn about Mr. Kudrin. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Salam Adil: Thank you, Margarita. Actually, I have only occupied my present position for a week. Before that, I spent twenty years working as a reporter. I’ve travelled practically all over the world, including many conflict areas. I haven’t lost my sense of danger in the process, and that’s why I’m still alive. |
| М.Симоньян: Не надо переводить? |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Do not translate? |
| 10 Legitimate Opposition and the Kudrin Question | |
| В.Путин: Нет. Вы знаете, любая оппозиция полезна. Вы упомянули сейчас Occupy Wall Street. Мы видели, как на каком‑то этапе органы власти, полиция – как жёстко они начали действовать в отношении активистов Occupy Wall Street. Я сейчас не буду говорить, правильно, неправильно, – я хочу сказать о том, что любая оппозиция хороша и правильна, и полезна, если действовать в рамках закона. А если законы не нравятся, то демократическим способом оппозиция должна стремиться к изменению этих законов, она должна добиваться привлечения симпатии избирателей на свою сторону, пройти в законодательные органы, иметь возможность влиять на законодательные процессы. И вот таким образом менять реалии. Если же какие‑то люди действуют вне рамок закона, то государство обязано в интересах большинства применять законные средства, для того чтобы всех вывести в законодательное поле. Это в Штатах так происходит, и так же происходит у нас. Правда, нас за это критикуют, а когда в Штатах это происходит – это считается нормой. Вот эти двойные стандарты, мы к ним уже давно привыкли и, в общем, уже мало обращаем внимания. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: No. You know, any opposition is useful. You have just mentioned Occupy Wall Street. We saw how, at a certain stage, the authorities and the police began to act harshly toward the Occupy Wall Street activists. I will not say now whether that was right or wrong; I want to say that any opposition is good, and right, and useful, if one acts within the law. And if the laws are not to one's liking, then by a democratic method the opposition must strive to change those laws; it must seek to draw the voters' sympathy to its side, enter the legislative bodies, and have the chance to influence the legislative process. And change realities in that way. If certain people act outside the law, then the state is obliged, in the interest of the majority, to apply lawful means so as to bring everyone into the field of the law. That is how it happens in the States, and that is how it happens with us. True, we are criticized for it, while when it happens in the States it is taken to be the norm. These double standards: we have long grown used to them and, on the whole, already pay them little heed. |
| М.Симоньян: Когда в Штатах происходит, мы критикуем. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: When something happens in the States, we criticize it. |
| В.Путин: Да, правильно делаете. Потому что подходы должны быть одинаковыми. Ведь это одно и то же на самом деле. Правда, скажем, наши дипломатические службы не сотрудничают активно с Occupy Wall Street, а ваша дипломатическая служба активно взаимодействует и напрямую поддерживает. На мой взгляд, это неправильно, потому что дипломатические службы призваны налаживать отношения между государствами, а не погружаться во внутриполитические дела. Так вот этот авантюризм никому не нужен, никому не нравится. Он является незаконным, если участники этих движений нарушают действующее законодательство. Если нарушений закона нет, если люди выражают свою позицию законными средствами, то они имеют на это право. И это положительно для любой страны, потому что это возможность донести до граждан оценку действий власти по тем или иным направлениям: по социальной политике, по внутренней, по внешней. Что касается господина Кудрина, то это мой давний товарищ. У нас по принципиальным вопросам мнения очень часто совпадают, что касается развития страны. Но иначе, наверное, и не могло бы быть, потому что мы с ним и в Петербурге работали вместе, и потом он был много лет членом Правительства, одним из наиболее эффективных людей. И обращаю Ваше внимание, что я всегда его поддерживал по принципиальным вопросам. Если бы я не поддерживал, он бы не смог работать, он бы не смог реализовывать те идеи и принципы, которые он защищал. Так что это в известной степени была наша общая политика. У него есть свой взгляд на определённые вещи. В своё время он разошёлся во взглядах с Дмитрием Анатольевичем Медведевым по ряду позиций, но господин Медведев был Президентом, он имел право принять определённое решение. Сейчас Алексей Кудрин утверждает, что он вернулся бы в исполнительную власть, если бы власть действовала более решительно. Но когда речь идёт о конкретике – в чём более решительно? Вот тогда не очень хочется говорить вслух. Почему? Потому что более решительно – это значит жёстче действовать в направлении проведения пенсионной реформы, поднять пенсионный возраст. Говорить вслух об этом не хочется никому, в том числе представителям оппозиции. Хоть они считают, что это правильно, а говорить не хотят. По некоторым другим вопросам – более жёстко. Сократить расходы нужно. И прежде всего социальные расходы. Многие наши либеральные экономисты считают, что мы завышаем социальные расходы, слишком быстро повышаем заработные платы, слишком быстро повышаем пенсии, социальные пособия. И этот рост реальных располагаемых доходов населения – в прошлом году 4,2 процента, в этом году за 4 месяца уже 5,9 процента, – что он является необоснованным и что производительность труда у нас отстаёт от темпов роста заработной платы, и это плохо и опасно для экономики. С этим трудно не согласиться, кстати говоря, на самом деле они в этом смысле правы. Но, может быть, нам нужно не снижать реально располагаемые доходы населения, а просто поработать больше над повышением производительности труда? Это, понимаете, известная шутка по поводу того, что хотелось, чтобы в России было не больше богатых, а меньше бедных. Вот это всегда такая сложная вещь, но об этом думающая часть оппозиции – она с нами в приватных и профессиональных беседах говорит открыто – публично‑то не решается сказать. На самом деле это неправильно. Я им много раз уже говорил об этом. Если у вас такая позиция, говорите об этом честно и прямо. И не бойтесь, что какой‑то части граждан это не понравится. Потому что, только занимая принципиальную позицию, можно добиться того, чтобы ваше мнение и поддержка вашего мнения расширялась, чтобы платформа вашей поддержки была более основательной. Потому что – как сейчас в Западной Европе происходит? Вот довели некоторые страны до банкротства, и чего бы людям сейчас ни говорили, они не хотят снижения заработных плат. Поэтому, может быть, было бы правильнее аккуратней повышать социальные расходы, аккуратней залезать в долги и так далее. И в принципе это и для власти было бы полезно, если бы кто‑нибудь об этом всё время говорил. Я, например, как я уже сказал, не считаю, что мы избыточно всё это делаем. Не считаю, что это избыточное повышение пенсий, зарплат, социальных пособий. Но в том, что нам говорят такие люди, как Кудрин, определённые резоны есть, и к ним надо прислушиваться. Вообще, это полезная вещь. И поэтому думающая национально ориентированная оппозиция, конечно, очень востребованна. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Yes, you are doing right. Because the approaches must be the same. After all, this is one and the same thing in fact. True, say, our diplomatic services do not cooperate actively with Occupy Wall Street, while your diplomatic service interacts actively and supports it directly. In my view this is wrong, because diplomatic services are called upon to arrange relations between states, and not to immerse themselves in domestic political affairs. So this adventurism is needed by no one; no one likes it. It is unlawful if the participants in these movements violate the existing legislation. If there are no violations of the law, if people express their position by lawful means, then they have a right to this. And this is positive for any country, because it is a possibility of bringing to citizens an assessment of the actions of the authority in one direction or another: in social policy, in domestic, in foreign. As for Mr. Kudrin, he is my old comrade. On questions of principle our opinions very often coincide, as regards the development of the country. But it probably could not have been otherwise, because we worked together in St. Petersburg too, and then he was for many years a member of the Government, one of the most effective people. And I draw your attention to the fact that I always supported him on questions of principle. If I had not supported him, he would not have been able to work; he would not have been able to realize the ideas and principles he defended. So this was to a known degree our common policy. He has his own view of definite things. In his time he diverged in views with Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev on a number of positions, but Mr. Medvedev was President; he had the right to take a definite decision. Now Alexei Kudrin asserts that he would have returned to the executive authority if the authority had acted more decisively. But when it comes to the specifics — more decisively in what? Then one does not very much want to say it aloud. Why? Because more decisively means acting more harshly in the direction of carrying out pension reform, raising the pension age. No one wants to say this aloud, including representatives of the opposition. Even though they consider that this is right, they do not want to say it. On some other questions — more harshly. Expenditures need to be cut. And above all social expenditures. Many of our liberal economists consider that we overstate social expenditures, raise wages too quickly, raise pensions and social benefits too quickly. And that this growth in the real disposable incomes of the population — last year 4.2 percent, this year over 4 months already 5.9 percent — is unfounded, and that our labor productivity lags behind the pace of wage growth, and that this is bad and dangerous for the economy. It is hard not to agree with this, by the way; in this sense they are in fact right. But perhaps we need not to lower the real disposable incomes of the population, but simply to work more on raising labor productivity? This, you understand, is the known joke to the effect that one would like there to be in Russia not more rich people but fewer poor ones. This is always such a complicated thing, but the thinking part of the opposition speaks of this openly with us in private and professional conversations — publicly it does not venture to say it. In fact this is wrong. I have already told them this many times. If you have such a position, say it honestly and straight. And do not be afraid that some part of the citizens will not like it. Because only by taking a principled position can one achieve a situation in which your opinion and support for your opinion expand, in which the platform of your support is more solid. Because — how is it happening now in Western Europe? They have brought some countries to bankruptcy, and whatever one says to people now, they do not want a reduction in wages. So perhaps it would have been more correct to raise social expenditures more carefully, to go into debt more carefully, and so on. And in principle this would have been useful for the authority too, if someone spoke of this all the time. I, for example, as I have already said, do not consider that we do all this excessively. I do not consider that this is an excessive raising of pensions, wages, social benefits. But in what people such as Kudrin tell us there are definite reasons, and one must listen to them. In general this is a useful thing. And so a thinking, nationally oriented opposition is of course very much in demand. |
| М.Симоньян: Оксана Бойко, тоже ведущая нашего только что «свежепроизведённого» шоу – недавно она стала ведущей из корреспондента английского канала. Тоже была боевым корреспондентом, объездила много войн. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Oksana Boyko, also the host of our just 'freshly produced' show – recently she became a host from a correspondent of the English channel. She was also a combat correspondent, traveled around many wars. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Unmanned aerial vehicles. |
| О.Бойко: Я, собственно, хотела задать вопрос, наверное, в продолжение Вашего предыдущего ответа в части принципов и принципиальной позиции. Мне бы хотелось, правда, привязать это к Ирану, где в ближайшее время будут президентские выборы. Я знаю, что Россия предпочитает не вмешиваться во внутренние политические процессы, поэтому я постараюсь сформулировать это очень общо, даже, мне кажется, немного философски. Как мне кажется, Иран – это такой очень яркий пример того, как можно довести двусторонние отношения до предельного накала на достаточно несущественных противоречиях, потому что ядерная программа, о которой все говорят последние десятилетия, по сути, основана на размытых подозрениях, которые из года в год даже самими американцами не подтверждаются. При этом за рамками остаётся тот факт, что на 99 процентов, а может быть, и все сто процентов Иран соблюдает режим нераспространения. Однако мы все сосредоточены на подозрениях, и, как мне кажется, ключевое здесь, конечно, это характер отношений между Штатами и Ираном. И Иран, безусловно, способствовал нагнетанию обстановки. Но, как мне кажется, в корне лежит позиция Соединённых Штатов, их основной, классический принцип подхода к внешней политике разделения стран на «друзей» и «врагов». Те, кто не с нами, те против нас. И, как мне кажется, порог толерантности к инакомыслию, к различиям достаточно низок, и за ним либо угроза войны, как в случае с Ираном, основанная на неподтверждённых подозрениях, либо содействие войне, как в случае с Сирией. Собственно, мой вопрос – извините за такое долгое вступление – заключается в следующем: как мне кажется, Россия достаточно аккуратно обходила острые углы, и из Ваших ранних некоторых заявлений ясно, что Вы понимаете цену вражды, открытого противостояния. В то же время, как мне кажется, у России и США есть идеологические, фундаментальные противоречия, особенно по вопросу применения силы, который Вы не можете решить ни при каких личных встречах. Потому что, на мой взгляд, они вообще лежат в национальной идее Соединённых Штатов, в том, что у них якобы есть большая ответственность, что на самом деле является большим правом. Как Вы для себя определяете эту грань: попытку не втянуть страну в открытое противостояние, что может быть чревато для нашей безопасности, в то же время отстаивание этих принципиальных противоречий, от которых тоже зависит наша безопасность? Извините, что так долго. Вы сейчас на кого наехали: на Иран или на США? |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: I, in fact, wanted to ask a question, probably continuing your previous answer regarding principles and fundamental positions. I would like, however, to link this to Iran, where presidential elections will take place in the near future. I know that Russia prefers not to interfere in internal political processes, so I will try to formulate this very generally, even, I think, somewhat philosophically. As I see it, Iran is such a very vivid example of how bilateral relations can be brought to a critical point over relatively insignificant contradictions, because the nuclear program, which everyone has been talking about for the last decades, is essentially based on vague suspicions that are not even confirmed by the Americans themselves year after year. Meanwhile, the fact that Iran complies with the non-proliferation regime to 99 percent, or perhaps even one hundred percent, remains outside the scope of discussion. However, we are all focused on suspicions, and, as I see it, the key here is, of course, the nature of relations between the United States and Iran. And Iran, undoubtedly, contributed to escalating the situation. But, as I see it, the root lies in the position of the United States, their main, classic principle of foreign policy of dividing countries into 'friends' and 'enemies'. Those who are not with us are against us. And, as I see it, the threshold of tolerance for dissent, for differences is quite low, and beyond it there is either the threat of war, as in the case of Iran, based on unconfirmed suspicions, or assistance in war, as in the case of Syria. In fact, my question - excuse me for such a long introduction - is as follows: as I see it, Russia quite carefully avoided sharp corners, and from some of your early statements it is clear that you understand the price of enmity, open confrontation. At the same time, as I see it, Russia and the United States have ideological, fundamental contradictions, especially on the issue of the use of force, which you cannot resolve under any personal meetings. Because, in my view, they lie in the national idea of the United States, in the fact that they supposedly have great responsibility, which is actually a great right. How do you define this boundary for yourself: an attempt not to drag the country into open confrontation, which could be fraught for our security, while upholding these fundamental contradictions, from which our security also depends? Excuse me for being so long. Who are you hitting right now: Iran or the United States? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Salam Adil: As you know, America employs drones to deliver airstrikes, almost on a daily basis. This happens especially often in Pakistan and a few other countries – you have already mentioned the explosive situation we are seeing at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Drones are arguably a very convenient means of warfare: there is no direct engagement, and no risk for your rank and file. It’s all remote controlled, like a computer game. However, and this is something we see in the news almost every day, this kind of warfare is fraught with massive casualties among civilians. So, on the one hand, drones are efficient in combat, but on the other hand, we are all aware of collateral damage. The public in many countries have found this shocking, and there has already been a motion for imposing an international ban on using drones. I would like to ask you about Russia’s attitude on this issue. Thank you. |
| М.Симоньян: Она у нас самая жёсткая. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: She is the hardest among us. |
| 11 Iran — Rights, Concerns, and US Instrumentalisation | |
| В.Путин: Вы знаете, на этот вопрос можно до утра отвечать. Он очень ёмкий. Я постараюсь, насколько это возможно, лаконично. Я считаю – и много раз об этом говорил, в этом заключается официальная позиция Российской Федерации, – Иран имеет право на ядерную мирную программу, и он не может быть дискриминирован в этом отношении по сравнению с другими участниками международного сообщества, международной жизни. Это первое. Второе. Несмотря на это, всё‑таки – и я говорил об этом нашим иранским друзьям – нельзя забывать, что Иран находится в очень сложном регионе. И когда мы слышим со стороны Ирана угрозы в отношении соседних стран, в частности, Израиля – мы слышим из Ирана, что Израиль может быть уничтожен, – я считаю, что это совершенно неприемлемо. Это не идёт на пользу. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: You know, one could answer this question until morning. It is a very large one. I will try to be concise, so far as that is possible. I consider — and I have said this many times; this is the official position of the Russian Federation — that Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program, and it cannot be discriminated against in this respect by comparison with other participants in the international community, in international life. That is the first thing. The second. Despite this, all the same — and I have said this to our Iranian friends — one must not forget that Iran is in a very difficult region. And when we hear threats from Iran toward neighboring countries, in particular Israel — we hear from Iran that Israel may be destroyed — I consider this wholly unacceptable. It does no good. |
| О.Бойко: Это не совсем корректное цитирование того, что говорил Президент. |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: This is not quite an accurate citation of what the President said. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: And now I would like to give the floor to Peter Lavelle, who is the presenter of one of our most popular shows CrossTalk. Peter has worked with RT since its very beginning. He will be speaking in English and I will translate the question for you |
| В.Путин: Корректное, некорректное, но если люди видят, что такое некорректное цитирование возможно, то лучше избегать этих двойных формулировок, с двойным смыслом, правда? Вот это второе. И поэтому внимание к этой проблеме, оно не пустое. То, что Иран соблюдает правила в этой сфере, у меня сомнений нет, потому что нет никаких доказательств, которые бы говорили об обратном. И последний доклад МАГАТЭ говорит о том, что в принципе Иран соблюдает взятые на себя обязательства. Есть ещё незакрытый вопрос. Но, я думаю, если набраться терпения, работать доброжелательно друг с другом, то выйти на эти ответы можно. Вы знаете, я лично отношусь к Ирану с большим уважением и большим интересом. Иран – это… Мы нечасто употребляем подобные слова, но Иран – это великая страна, страна с великой культурой, с великой историей и с великим народом. У них есть своя гордость, своё понимание их места – не только в регионе, но и в мире, и нужно относиться к этому с уважением. Вы сами, на мой взгляд, затронули суть проблемы, которая заключается в том, что иранцы, будучи людьми очень умными, грамотными и хитрыми, я бы сказал, политиками, они отчасти даже используют это противостояние с США… |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Correct, incorrect, but if people see that such incorrect citation is possible, then it is better to avoid these double formulations, with double meaning, right? That is the second point. And therefore, attention to this problem is not empty. The fact that Iran complies with rules in this sphere, I have no doubts about, because there are no proofs that would say the opposite. The latest IAEA report says that in principle Iran complies with the commitments undertaken. There is still an unresolved issue. But, I think, if we gather patience, work amicably with each other, then we can reach these answers. You know, I personally regard Iran with great respect and great interest. Iran is... We do not often use such words, but Iran is a great country, a country with a great culture, with a great history and with a great people. They have their own pride, their own understanding of their place – not only in the region, but also in the world, and we need to approach this with respect. You yourself, in my opinion, touched the essence of the problem, which consists in the fact that Iranians, being very smart, literate and cunning people, I would say, politicians, they partly even use this confrontation with the USA... |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Peter Lavelle: Thank you. Mr President, my question will be short. It is believed that we live in the times of opposition – the Arab spring, a crisis in Europe, the Occupy movement brilliantly covered by RT… What about opposition in Russia? Opinion polls suggest that it is weak and does not enjoy any wide public support. What kind of opposition would you like to see as your opponent? And I also wanted to know how is Mr Kudrin? |
| О.Бойко: И не они одни. |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: And they are not the only ones. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: Shall I translate it for you? |
| В.Путин: Но они особенно искусно это делают для решения внутриполитических проблем. Есть враг, он объединяет общество. То же самое, по‑моему, делают и Штаты. Потому что после того, как прекратил существование Советский Союз, нет внешней угрозы, которая позволила бы Штатам доминировать в западном сообществе. Штаты должны всегда своих союзников от кого‑то защищать. Это даёт преимущества не только в политике, но и в экономике. Если страна является лидером в защите других, то она имеет право на какие‑то преференции. Вот этот статус защитника – это очень важная вещь, которая позволяет решать очень многие вопросы, напрямую даже не связанные с внешней политикой, с международной политикой и безопасностью. Думаю, что и Штаты используют Иран для этого – для того чтобы объединять западных союзников против какой‑то реальной или несуществующей угрозы. Для нас здесь сложности большой‑то нет. Проблема непростая, но для России она не является сложной. Мы последовательно выполняем все свои международные обязательства, в том числе по мирной ядерной программе Ирана. Вы знаете, мы построили Бушер, мы довели это дело до конца. Мы и дальше готовы сотрудничать. Но мы, допустим, предложили обогащать ядерное топливо на нашей территории, но почему‑то наши иранские партнёры отказались. Не очень понятно почему. Они настаивают, что в рамках известных международных правил [будут] заниматься обогащением самостоятельно. Вот, я полагаю, как я Вам уже сказал вначале, отвечая на Ваш вопрос, если они ничего не нарушают, они имеют на это право. И мы будем это право поддерживать, но не будем забывать и об озабоченностях соседних государств, международного сообщества по соблюдению этих правил. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: But they do this especially skillfully in order to solve domestic political problems. There is an enemy; he unites society. The same thing, in my view, is done by the States too. Because after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, there is no external threat that would allow the States to dominate in the Western community. The States must always be protecting their allies from someone. This gives advantages not only in politics but also in the economy. If a country is the leader in protecting others, then it has a right to certain preferences. This status of protector is a very important thing, which allows one to settle a great many questions not even directly connected with foreign policy, with international politics and security. I think the States use Iran for this too — in order to unite Western allies against some real or nonexistent threat. For us there is no great difficulty here. The problem is not simple, but for Russia it is not a difficult one. We consistently fulfill all our international obligations, including on Iran's peaceful nuclear program. You know, we built Bushehr; we brought this matter to completion. We are ready to cooperate further too. But we, for example, proposed enriching nuclear fuel on our territory, but for some reason our Iranian partners refused. It is not very clear why. They insist that within the framework of the known international rules they [will] engage in enrichment on their own. So, I suppose, as I already told you at the beginning, answering your question, if they violate nothing, they have a right to this. And we will support this right, but we will not forget the concerns of neighboring states and of the international community about observance of these rules. |
| О.Бойко: Можно небольшое уточнение? Просто мой вопрос был не только об американо-иранских отношениях, но и американо-российских отношениях и наличии – согласны Вы с этим или нет – идеологических и фундаментальных противоречий по ключевым вопросам международного права. |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: May I make a small clarification? My question was not only about US-Iranian relations, but also about US-Russian relations and the existence – do you agree with this or not – of ideological and fundamental contradictions on key issues of international law. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Margarita Simonyan: When it happens in the US, RT grills America. |
| В.Путин: То есть перед встречей с Обамой Вы меня прямо так туда и толкаете. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: So just before the meeting with Obama you are pushing me straight in that direction. |
| О.Бойко: Это же очень важно! Потому что если страна считает, что ей позволено больше, чем всем остальным, то… |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: This is very important! Because if a country considers that it is allowed more than everyone else, then... |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Oksana Boyko: My question is a follow-up to your previous reply, concerning principles and a principled position. I would like, however, to apply these notions to the Iranian issue. Iran will be holding a presidential election soon. I know that Russia doesn’t like to meddle with domestic politics of other countries that’s why my question would be as general as possible. It’s more of a philosophical kind. To me, Iran is a great example of how you can create extreme tension in mutual relations by blowing out of proportion some insignificant differences. The Iranian nuclear issue that everyone’s been talking about for the last decade basically relies only on some vague suspicions which, year after year, have been dismissed even by Americans themselves. But that rhetoric has ignored the fact that Iran has been compliant with the non-proliferation regime by 99 or even 100 percent. The mainstream focus is on suspicions, but at the core, as I see it, is the relationship between the US and Iran. Tehran is partially to blame for the tension build-up, but the root of the problem is the stance of Washington, their signature foreign policy principle – friend and foe divide, meaning that if you are not their ally, you are their enemy. And it seems that the level of tolerance to dissent is quite low, and when it drops too much, we see threats of war based on groundless suspicions, as is the case with Iran, or assistance to war, as is the case with Syria. Russia has a good record of avoiding tension in relations with other countries. Your public statements indicate that you know the cost of enmity or, rather, open confrontation. However, I believe that Russia and the US have ideological, fundamental differences, on the use of force in particular, that no private meetings can resolve. It all stems from the national idea of the US. They believe they have a higher responsibility, which is actually just a bigger right. So where is this line for you between avoiding an all-out confrontation that could have an impact on Russian security and maintaining our principled position, which could, too, be critical to our security? |
| 12 Fundamental Russia–US Differences and the "Empire" Trap | |
| В.Путин: Я думал, что Вы не заметите, но нет – Вы заметили. Вы действительно такой цепкий боец. Значит, у нас идеологических противоречий на сегодняшний день практически нет – у нас есть фундаментальные, культурологические. В основе американского самосознания лежит индивидуалистическая идея. В основе российского – коллективистская. Вот есть один из исследователей Пушкина, который об этом очень точно и ясно сказал. Вот в «Унесённых ветром», помните, там главная героиня говорит: «Я не могу себе представить, что я буду голодать». Для неё это самое главное. А в нашем представлении, в представлении русского человека, всё‑таки другие задачи, что‑то такое, за горизонт уходящее. Что‑то такое душевное. Что‑то такое, связанное с Богом. Понимаете, это немного разные философии жизни. И поэтому понять друг друга довольно сложно. Но можно. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: I thought you would not notice, but no — you did notice. You really are a tenacious fighter. So, we have practically no ideological contradictions today — we have fundamental ones, cultural ones. At the base of American self-consciousness lies an individualist idea. At the base of the Russian one, a collectivist idea. There is a scholar of Pushkin who said this very exactly and clearly. In Gone with the Wind, remember, the heroine says: "I cannot imagine that I will go hungry." For her that is the most important thing. And in our idea, in the idea of a Russian person, the tasks are different all the same, something that goes beyond the horizon. Something of the soul. Something connected with God. You see, these are slightly different philosophies of life. And so it is rather hard to understand one another. But one can. |
| О.Бойко: Для этого, наверное, есть международное право, для того чтобы поставить всех в равные условия? |
Full house translation — pending review О.Бойко: For this, there is probably international law, to put everyone on equal footing? |
| В.Путин: Да… Вот Соединённые Штаты, безусловно, демократическая страна, и она развивалась изначально как демократическое государство. Ведь когда люди начали осваивать этот континент, они приезжали и выстраивали отношения друг с другом. И по факту жизни вынуждены были это делать в диалоге друг с другом. Поэтому она изначально зарождалась как фундаментальная демократия. Вместе с тем не будем забывать, что освоение Американского континента – Вы меня заводите прямо в дебри, мне не хочется об этом говорить, – освоение Американского континента началось с крупномасштабной этнической чистки, которая не имела себе равных в истории человечества. Ведь европейцы, когда туда приехали, они именно этим и занимались – надо прямо об этом сказать. Человечеству не так много известно из истории. Скажем, уничтожение Карфагена римлянами: когда они уходили, они даже землю – так легенда гласит – солью посыпали, чтобы там ничего не росло. А освоение Американского континента европейцами – там землю никто не посыпал, потому что её использовали, но уничтожали коренное население. После этого американская история знала рабство. И оно так глубоко проникло! Ведь Колин Пауэлл ещё в своей книжке написал, как ему было тяжело – человеку с тёмным цветом кожи – тяжело было пробиваться. Как он всё время чувствовал на себе взгляды окружающих. Значит, это сидит, сидит наверняка до сих пор, в душах и сердцах людей. Смотрите, мы знаем – во всяком случае, сегодня – разные стороны советского режима. Знаем Сталина. Так, как раньше мы его не знали. Знаем, что это был диктатор, тиран. Я очень сомневаюсь, что Сталин весной 1945 года, если бы у него была атомная бомба, применил бы её против Германии. В 1941–1942 годах, когда стоял вопрос о жизни или смерти государства, может быть, и применил бы, если бы у него было. А в 1945‑м, когда уже противник сдавался по сути дела, шансов у него никаких не было, – я сомневаюсь. Вот я лично. А американцы применили против Японии, терпящей поражение. Причём против неядерного государства. Знаете, у нас большие различия между нами. Но это ведь нормально, когда люди с такими большими различиями полны решимости искать пути, которые помогают понимать друг друга. И мне представляется, что у нас нет другого выбора. И более того, ведь не случайно, что в критические периоды современной новейшей истории Россия и США объединялись: и в Первую мировую войну, и во Вторую мировую войну. Как бы ни противостояли друг другу, а когда гром грянул, произошло объединение. Что‑то всё‑таки объединяет. Какие‑то фундаментальные интересы объединяют. Нам нужно на это обращать внимание прежде всего. Знать наши различия, но при этом всё‑таки обращать внимание на тот позитив, который поможет нам сотрудничать. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Yes… The United States is, without doubt, a democratic country, and it developed from the start as a democratic state. After all, when people began to settle this continent, they arrived and built relations with one another. And by the fact of life they were compelled to do this in dialogue with one another. So it arose from the start as a fundamental democracy. At the same time let us not forget that the settlement of the American continent — you are leading me right into the thickets; I do not want to speak of this — the settlement of the American continent began with a large-scale ethnic cleansing that had no equal in the history of humanity. After all, the Europeans, when they arrived there, occupied themselves precisely with this — one must say this straight. Not so very much is known to humanity from history. Say, the destruction of Carthage by the Romans: when they left, they even — so the legend has it — sprinkled the earth with salt, so that nothing would grow there. And the settlement of the American continent by the Europeans — no one sprinkled the earth there, because they used it, but they destroyed the indigenous population. After that American history knew slavery. And it penetrated so deeply! Colin Powell wrote back in his book how hard it was for him — a person with a dark skin color — how hard it was to make his way. How he constantly felt the gazes of those around him upon himself. So this sits, surely sits to this day, in people's souls and hearts. Look, we know — in any case, today — different sides of the Soviet regime. We know Stalin. Not as we knew him before. We know that he was a dictator, a tyrant. I very much doubt that Stalin in the spring of 1945, if he had had an atomic bomb, would have used it against Germany. In 1941–1942, when the question of the life or death of the state stood, perhaps he would have used it, if he had had it. But in 1945, when the opponent was in essence already surrendering, and he had no chances at all — I doubt it. That is me, personally. And the Americans used it against Japan, which was suffering defeat. And against a non-nuclear state. You know, there are great differences between us. But this is normal, after all, when people with such great differences are full of resolve to seek paths that help them understand each other. And it seems to me that we have no other choice. And moreover, it is not accidental, after all, that in the critical periods of modern recent history Russia and the United States united: both in the First World War and in the Second World War. However they opposed each other, when the thunder struck, a union took place. Something all the same unites. Some fundamental interests unite. We need to pay attention to this above all. To know our differences, but at the same time all the same to pay attention to the positive that will help us cooperate. |
| М.Симоньян: Для нас это тема важная – Америка, отношения с Америкой. Во многом потому, что у нас основная аудитория – США. Понятно, что Вам на других телеканалах – и на российских в первую очередь – не будут столько вопросов про это задавать, сколько мы. Но если даже смотреть статистику посещения сайта – просто посещения, где мы распространяемся, основная наша аудитория – Америка, поэтому для нас это главная тема, всё, что с этим связано. И Настя Чуркина специально из Нью-Йорка прилетела для нашего общения. Она работает как раз на нашем канале RT America, который из Штатов вещает на Штаты, и американские темы освещает. Настя. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: For us this is an important topic – America, relations with America. In large part because our main audience is the USA. It is clear that on other television channels – and primarily on Russian ones – you will not be asked as many questions about this as we are. But even if we look at website visit statistics – simply visits, where we broadcast – our main audience is America, so for us this is the main topic, everything connected with it. And Nastya Churkina flew in specifically from New York for our conversation. She works on our RT America channel, which broadcasts from the States to the States and covers American topics. Nastya. ] |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified BOYKO: This is not a proper quote of the Iranian president. |
| Н.Чуркина: Да, спасибо. В Нью-Йорке я последние пять лет. Вы затронули исторические более фундаментальные различия и вещи, которые объединяют Россию и США. Мне бы хотелось, если можно, вернуться к дипломатическим проблемам и, может быть, даже к проблемам международного права сегодняшнего дня. Поскольку в настоящий момент и в последнее время, общаясь зачастую с американскими политиками и с экспертами по российско-американским отношениям, мы слышим, как за кадром они говорят о том, что акт Магнитского превратился в продолжение и замену поправки Джексона–Вэника, соответственно, показывая какой‑то устаревший подход к отношениям с Россией. Барак Обама, как мы знаем, в прошлом году на саммите в Сеуле намекал Дмитрию Анатольевичу Медведеву о том, что после переизбрания у него будут более свободные… |
Full house translation — pending review Н.Чуркина: Yes, thank you. I have been in New York for the last five years. You have touched upon more fundamental historical differences and the things that unite Russia and the United States. I would like, if possible, to return to diplomatic issues and perhaps even to problems of international law today. Since at present and recently, when communicating often with American politicians and experts on Russia-U.S. relations, we hear behind the scenes that the Magnitsky Act has become a continuation and replacement of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, thereby showing some outdated approach to relations with Russia. Barack Obama, as we know, last year at the summit in Seoul hinted to Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev that after re-election he would have more free... |
| В.Путин: Вот привязались‑то. Как вы здесь работаете, я не пойму? (Смех). |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: You have really latched on. How you work here, I cannot understand. (Laughter.) |
| П.Лавель: Это всегда так. |
Full house translation — pending review П.Лавель: This is always so. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Oksana Boyko: They are not the only ones. |
| Н.Чуркина: Это последний вопрос, я обещаю. Намекал на то, что работать будет легче с Россией. Тем не менее мы не совсем это наблюдаем. И многие темы сегодня, естественно, затрагивались. Как Вы думаете, почему не состоялась всё‑таки перезагрузка и может ли она вообще в принципе состояться на реальных равных основаниях или же всё‑таки от нас всё время ждут, что мы будем поступаться своими интересами? |
Full house translation — pending review Н.Чуркина: This is the last question, I promise. He hinted that it would be easier to work with Russia. Nevertheless, we are not quite observing that. And many topics were naturally touched upon today. What do you think, why did the reboot not take place after all, and can it take place in principle on real equal grounds, or are we still expected to sacrifice our own interests? |
| В.Путин: Я уже, в принципе, начал отвечать на Ваш вопрос. Любое государство стремится к соблюдению своих национальных интересов, и в этом смысле Соединённые Штаты не исключение. Уникальность ситуации заключается в том, и это всем понятно, что после развала Советского Союза США остались на какое‑то время единоличным лидером. Но это для них определённая засада, которая заключается в том, что Штаты начали чувствовать себя империей. А империя порождает не только определённые элементы во внешней, но и во внутренней политике. Империя не может себе позволить проявление слабости, а любое стремление договориться на паритетных началах часто внутри страны воспринимается как слабость. А это руководство страны себе позволить не может по внутриполитическим соображениям. Я думаю, сегодняшнее руководство Штатов – я знаю об этом – понимает, что в одиночку основные проблемы сегодняшнего мира решить невозможно. Но очень хочется, во‑первых. А во‑вторых, невозможно действовать иначе, кроме как имперскими методами. Очень сложно по внутриполитическим соображениям. Иначе тебя сразу обвинят в слабости. Чтобы иметь возможность поступать иначе, нужно либо иметь какой‑то неограниченный кредит доверия от избирателей, населения, либо должно нечто такое произойти внутри страны, должно измениться сознание того, что договариваться и искать компромиссы – это гораздо выгоднее, чем навязывать свою точку зрения всем и всюду. Это время какое‑то должно пройти, чтобы такое понимание возобладало внутри собственной страны, в данном случае в Штатах. Причём, конечно же, прежде всего в правящей элите в широком смысле этого слова. Я не считаю, что это невозможно. Я считаю, что в целом мы к этому должны подойти, и очень на это рассчитываю. |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: I have, in principle, already begun to answer your question. Any state strives to observe its national interests, and in this sense the United States is no exception. The uniqueness of the situation consists in this, and this is clear to everyone: after the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States remained for some time the sole leader. But for them this is a certain ambush, which consists in the States having begun to feel themselves an empire. And an empire generates certain elements not only in foreign but also in domestic policy. An empire cannot allow itself a display of weakness, and any striving to agree on a parity basis is often perceived inside the country as weakness. And the leadership of the country cannot allow itself this, for domestic political considerations. I think today's leadership of the States — I know this — understands that the main problems of today's world cannot be solved alone. But one very much wants to, first of all. And second, it is impossible to act otherwise than by imperial methods. It is very difficult, for domestic political considerations. Otherwise you will at once be accused of weakness. In order to have the possibility of acting otherwise, one must either have some unlimited credit of trust from the voters, from the population, or something of the kind must happen inside the country; the consciousness must change, to the effect that agreeing and seeking compromises is much more advantageous than imposing one's point of view on everyone and everywhere. Some time must pass for such an understanding to prevail inside one's own country, in this case in the States. And, of course, above all in the ruling elite in the broad sense of that word. I do not consider this impossible. I consider that on the whole we must come to this, and I count on it very much. |
| 13 A Multipolar Information World (Closing) | |
| М.Симоньян: Спасибо, Владимир Владимирович. Те темы, которые мы сейчас обсуждали, – это, собственно, главные темы в нашем эфире. Это же не интервью в классическом смысле этого слова. Мы хотели поговорить с Вами о том, о чём разговариваем с аудиторией каждый день. И, конечно, эти темы сильно отличаются от того, что в российских СМИ – естественно, поскольку они вещают на совсем другую аудиторию – и главным образом от того, как в западных СМИ это освещается тоже. Мы здесь разные, у нас разные, конечно, ценности, разные взгляды и на внутренние российские дела, и на то, как вообще всё должно быть устроено в мире, но, я думаю, не ошибусь, если я скажу, что мы сходимся в одном. Нам представляется, что в мире не должен доминировать кто‑то один, в том числе и в информационном мире. Если все каналы в миллион голосов рассказывают, что главная новость сегодня – ну не сегодня, а в другой день – заключается в том, что в Ливии сбит натовский беспилотник, должен быть кто‑то, кто расскажет, что в этот же день в Ливии натовский снаряд убил семью из 13 человек. У нас просто был как раз такой день, когда мы так сильно отличались от коллег. Мы это делаем, мы рады, что у нас есть возможность это делать, потому что это действительно то, во что мы верим при всех различиях. Сегодня мы Вам хотели показать, как и где мы это делаем. Спасибо, что зашли к нам в гости. |
Full house translation — pending review М.Симоньян: Thank you, Vladimir Vladimirovich. The topics we are currently discussing are, in fact, the main topics of our broadcast. This is not an interview in the classical sense of the word. We wanted to talk with you about what we discuss with the audience every day. And, of course, these topics differ significantly from what is in Russian media – naturally, since they broadcast to a completely different audience – and mainly from how this is covered in Western media as well. We are different here; we have different values, different views on internal Russian affairs, and on how everything should be organized in the world, but I think I would not be wrong if I said that we agree on one thing. We believe that no one should dominate in the world, including in the information world. If all channels with a million voices tell that the main news today – well, not today, but on another day – is that a NATO drone was shot down in Libya, there should be someone who tells that on the same day in Libya a NATO projectile killed a family of 13 people. We actually had such a day when we differed so much from our colleagues. We do this, we are glad that we have the opportunity to do this, because this is indeed what we believe in despite all differences. Today we wanted to show you how and where we do this. Thank you for coming to visit us. |
| В.Путин: Спасибо вам за приглашение. Хочу пожелать вам удачи, спасибо большое. Всего хорошего, до свидания. Темы Информационное общество Связь и телекоммуникации СМИ |
Full house translation — pending review В.Путин: Thank you for the invitation. I want to wish you luck; thank you very much. All the best, goodbye. Topics Information society Communications and telecommunications Mass media |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Vladimir Putin: I thought you wouldn’t notice my deviation. But you did. Indeed, you are very persistent. To date, we don’t have any significant ideological differences. But we do have fundamental cultural differences. Individualism lies at the core of the American identity while Russia has been a country of collectivism. One student of Pushkin legacy has formulated this difference very aptly. Take Scarlett O'Hara from ‘Gone with the Wind’ for instance. She says ‘I’ll never be hungry again’. This is the most important thing for her. Russians have different, far loftier ambitions, more of a spiritual kind, it’s more about your relationship with God. We have different visions of life. That’s why it is very difficult to understand each other but it is still possible. The US is a democratic state, there’s no doubt about that, and it has originally developed as a democratic state. When the first settlers set their foot on this continent, life forced them to forge a relationship and maintain a dialogue with each other to survive. That’s why America was initially conceived as a fundamental democracy. With that in mind, we should not forget that America’s development began with a large-scale ethnic cleansing, unprecedented in human history. I wouldn’t like to delve so deeply into it, but you are forcing me to do it. When Europeans arrived in America, that was the first thing they did. And you have to be honest about it. There are not so many stories like that in human history. Take the destruction of Carthage by the Roman Empire. The legend has it that Romans plowed over and sowed the city with salt so that nothing will ever grow there. Europeans didn’t use the salt because they used the land for agriculture but they wiped out the indigenous population. Then there was slavery, and that’s something that is deeply ingrained in America. In his memoirs, US Secretary of State Colin Powell revealed how hard it was for him as a black man to grow his way up, how hard it was to live with other people staring at you. It means this mentality has taken root in the hearts and minds of the people, and is likely to be still there. Now take the Soviet Union. We know a lot about Stalin now. We know him as a dictator and a tyrant. But still I don’t think that in the spring of 1945 Stalin would have used a nuclear bomb against Germany, if he had had one. He could have done it in 1941 or 1942 when it was a matter of life or death. But I really doubt that he would have done it in 1945 when the enemy had almost given up and had absolutely no chance to reverse the trend. I don’t think he would. Now look at the US. They dropped the bomb on Japan, a country that was a non-nuclear state and was very close to defeat. So there are big differences between us. But it’s quite natural that people with such differences are determined to find ways to understand each other better. I don’t think there is an alternative. Moreover, it’s not by chance that Russia and the US forged an alliance in the most critical moments of modern history – that was the case in WWI and WWII. Even if there was fierce confrontation, our countries united in the face of a common threat, which means there is something that unites us. There must be some fundamental interests that bring us together. That’s something we need to focus on first. We need to be aware of our differences but focus on a positive agenda that can improve our cooperation. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Margarita Simonyan: America and Russia’s relations with the US are important issues for our network, largely because Americans make up most of our audience. That explains why you wouldn’t get that many questions about America from any other channel, particularly any Russian channel. If you simply look at our website’s hit statistics, you’ll see that most of our audience comes from America, so anything related to the US is a key topic for us. And here is Anastasia Churkina, who has specially come over from New York for this meeting. She works at our US-based channel, RT America, which caters to an American audience and focuses specifically on American issues. Is that right, Anastasia? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Anastasia Churkina: Yes, thank you. I’ve lived in New York for the past five years. You have mentioned the fundamental differences as well as the common features that Russia shares with the United States. I would like to go back to our diplomatic relations and the present issues of international law. When I meet American politicians and Russia experts these days, I often hear them acknowledge off-record that the Magnitsky Act has effectively come to replace the Jackson-Vanik amendment, which demonstrates the same outdated approach towards Russia. As we know, when Barack Obama met with Mr Medvedev during the summit in Seoul last year, he made some hints, saying he would have more flexibility after re-election… |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Vladimir Putin: I see you guys just won’t get off their backs, will you? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Peter Lavelle: This always happens. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Anastasia Churkina: This is the last question, I promise. Obama hinted that it would be easier for him to cooperate with Russia. However, that is not what we are seeing today. We’ve already touched upon many of our remaining issues with the US. Why do you think the reset has not worked? And can it ever take place in the first place as an equal, reciprocal process? Or is it that Russia is always expected to sacrifice its national interest? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Vladimir Putin: Any state pursues its national interests, and the US is no exception. What’s unique here is that the collapse of the Soviet Union left America as the world’s single leader. But there was a catch associated with it in that it began to view itself as an empire. But an empire is not only about foreign policy, it’s also about domestic policies. An empire cannot afford to display weakness, and any attempt to strike an agreement on equitable terms is often seen domestically as weakness. But the leadership cannot afford to display weakness due to domestic policy considerations. I think that the current administration realises that it cannot solve the world’s major issues on its own. But first, they still want to do it, and second, they can only take steps that are fit for an empire. Domestic policy considerations play a huge role. Otherwise you would be accused of weakness. In order to act otherwise you either have to win overwhelming support or there must be a chance in mentality, when people will understand that it’s much more beneficial to look for compromises that to impose your will on everyone. But it certainly takes time to change those patterns of thinking in any country, in this case it’s the US. First and foremost, this change should take place in the minds of the ruling elite in the broad sense of this phrase. I don’t think that it’s impossible. I this we’ve almost come to that point. I very much hope we will reach it soon. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Margarita Simonyan: Thank you very much, Mr Putin. The issues we have just discussed are the headlines on our air. It is not a classic interview – we wanted to talk to you on those problems that we talk about daily to our audience. Those are very much different from what you can hear in the Russian media – since they have a different audience – and from the interpretation of the Western media as well. We are different – we have different values and views on both Russia’s domestic issues and the world’s system on the whole. But I think it would be right to say that we share one view: there shouldn’t be one leader in the world that is running the show, and it applies to the media, too. And when all the TV channels say with one accord that the main headline of the day is that a NATO drone is shot down in Libya – there should be some other channel that will tell the world about a NATO shell that on the same day killed a family of 13 people there. We actually had such a story, when our coverage was completely different from the coverage of our colleagues. We do that and we are happy to have this opportunity, as that is what we believe in, given all the differences. That’s exactly what we tried to show you today – how and where we do it. Thank you very much for paying a visit. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified | Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the invitation. I would like to wish you all the best of luck. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Topics Information society Media Telecommunications |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Thanks for inviting me. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I have to say, it was somewhat unexpected for me that our talk would be on air, not to mention it being live. But I was happy when Margarita just told me about it. I knew that we were having a meeting with journalists but I had no idea that you’d arranged such an ambush as live broadcast of it. Well, it’s all yours. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: There’s nothing to hide, indeed. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I have good impressions. When we designed this project back in 2005 we intended introducing another strong player on the international scene, a player that wouldn’t just provide an unbiased coverage of the events in Russia but also try, let me stress, I mean – try to break the Anglo-Saxon monopoly on the global information streams. And it seems to me that you’re succeeding in this job. I’d like to emphasise something of key importance. We never expected this to be a news agency or a channel that would defend the position of the Russian political line. We wanted to bring an absolutely independent news channel to the news arena. Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so it cannot help but reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our country and in the rest of the world one way or another. But I’d like to underline again that we never intended this channel, RT, as any kind of apologetics for the Russian political line, whether domestic or foreign. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: He told us nothing we didn’t know before. I think everybody has long been aware that signals intelligence is about surveillance of individuals and organizations. It is becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combatting international terrorism, and such methods are generally practicable. The question is how well those security agencies are controlled by the public. I can tell you that, at least in Russia, you cannot just go and tap into someone’s phone conversation without a warrant issued by court. That’s more or less the way a civilised society should go about fighting terrorism with modern-day technology. As long as it is exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities, it’s alright. But if it’s unlawful, then it’s bad. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: First of all, I can tell you that Lyudmila and myself agree that it’s much more appropriate to be outspoken about the actual state of our relations rather than try to keep it secret. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Well, thanks for that much. As for the religious aspect of our marriage, there is none, because we never wed in church. You didn’t wed? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: No. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: As RT’s CEO, you should know that this isn’t right. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: No, I’m serious here. Some friends of mine, including your colleagues from European countries, professionals who dedicated their life to journalism, believe that. One of them told me that you cannot keep a reporter in a warzone for that long. The reason for that is because people… Start to lose touch with reality. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Exactly, lose touch with reality and lose the sense of danger. That’s very true. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: This is very risky, it’s no joke. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: You mean me as the president or you as the president? No, no! ( Laughter ) I meant to say I wanted to ask you, as the president. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: That was such a long question, so I’ll try to be concise. First of all, you mentioned I once said that Bashar al-Assad was no angel. I said no such thing, as I try to be very careful about the way I put things. What I did say, however, is that the country was obviously ripe for some kind of change, drastic change. The country’s leadership should have realised this and started implementing the necessary reforms. It’s obvious that had they done that, what we see now in Syria wouldn’t have happened. That was my first point. Secondly, I said that we’re not advocates of the incumbent Syrian government or the country’s incumbent president, Bashar al-Assad. And one more thing – what we wouldn’t want to do is get involved in the conflict among various denominations of Islam, between Sunni and Shia. This is their internal issue. We have very good relations with the Arab world, and we have good relations with Iran and other countries. So I will tell you what we are concerned about and why we assumed our current stance. Look at the region as a whole. There’s still unrest in Egypt. There’s no stability in Iraq, and there’s no certainty that it will stay united within its current borders in the future. There’s no stability in Yemen, and Tunisia is far from peaceful. Libya is suffering from clashes between various ethnic and tribal groups. So the region as a whole finds itself in a state of, at the very least, uncertainty and conflicts. And now Syria joined the rest. In my opinion, this is happening because some people from the outside believe that if the region were to be brought in compliance with a certain idea – an idea that some calls democracy – then peace and stability would ensue. That’s not how it works. You can’t ignore this region’s history, traditions and religious beliefs, and you can’t just interfere. Look at what happened in Libya. Whether the regime was good or bad, the living standards in the country were the highest in the region. And what do we have now? There’s fighting over resources, incessant clashes between tribes, and no one knows where that might lead. We are very concerned that if we try the same thing with Syria, the result will be similar. Is the pocket of uncertainty between Afghanistan and Pakistan not enough? No one is controlling that territory, except militants who set up their bases there. Is that what we want? It’s very close to our borders. So this is our primary concern. Secondly, we are concerned over the future of all ethnic and religious groups living in Syria. We want this country to have lasting peace and security, with the people’s interests and rights guaranteed. So we believe that first of all the Syrian people are to be given an opportunity to decide how their state should be organized, how their lawful rights, interests and security should be ensured. When there is consensus on these issues, systemic change should take place, not vice versa, when you eliminate some forces and try to establish order, and chaos engulfs the country instead. There’s a question our Western counterparts fail to answer. One of the main armed opposition groups – specialists in Arab countries will correct me if I’m wrong – is called the Al-Nusra Front. The US State Department dubbed it a terrorist organisation connected with Al-Qaeda. The Al-Nusra itself doesn’t make a secret out of it. So these are the people that will make up Syria’s future government? Our Western counterparts say that it will not happen. “How will you get rid of them, then? Chase them away like flies?” I ask. “No,” they say. So what is going to happen? They say they don’t know. This is no joke, though, this is very serious. I’ll give you another example. On the one hand, some Western countries support some organisations that are at war with Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, but these same Western countries fight these same organisations in Mali. They’re not even the same organisations – they are the same people. Some have left Syria and come to Mali. The West is fighting them in Mali, but once they cross the border into Syria, they get support from the West. What is the logic in all of this? Where will it take us? You need to understand, this is not just rhetoric. I very much hope that the current initiatives, such as the one put forward by the Egyptian president – we have recently met in Sochi, and he proposed the countries of the region take a more active part in resolving the conflict – and by the British Prime Minister, who believes the permanent members of the UN Security Council need to be more involved, and the joint initiative of Russia and the United States, that the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US State Department have been working on together, I hope that this will enable us to resolve the Syrian conflict. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: It is a correct approach for them. And what about Russia? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: It is incorrect for us – we have got different economies. Russia is a developing economy and a developing market, while Europe mostly consists of well-developed, advanced economies, the state of which is different in each country. The Russian economy is rather healthy, and, I must say, it is unburdened by an external debt the way it is in Europe or the USA. The average national debt across Europe is about 90 percent, and the USA is well over 100 percent. They have a high unemployment rate. All of the budgets are deficit-ridden. So not only do they have a huge national debt, but also a massive budget deficit. Russia’s external debt is 2.5 percent, our overall debt is 10 percent. Russia is deficit free, our unemployment rate is 5.6 percent, whereas in some European countries it reaches 25–26 percent, and among young people it is up to 40 or sometimes even 60 percent. It is a disaster. So we are in different situations. Obviously, Russia can use the so-called oil-money and rely on oil and gas exports. But I’d like to note that we don’t use monetary mission – we don’t print more money in reserve currencies the way they do in the Western countries. So it’s not just about Russia having oil and gas reserves, but it’s rather about Russia restricting its spending. The Central Bank of Russia is often criticised for high interest rates – I guess it is about 8 or 8.5 percent at the moment, or maybe 8.25 percent. It doesn’t matter – it is still high, while in the US, for instance, it is 0.25 percent, if I’m not mistaken. Europe has similar rates, too. Some say Russia should have the same numbers as well, but the Central Bank is keeping its rates this high in order to avoid financial bubbles. Of course, we could provide cheap loans, low-interest credits, which would be used by manufacturers to produce some goods that would not be much in demand later on. So you have a bubble that is about to erupt. The highest performance is finding balance between having a more liberal monetary policy and toughening spending cuts, in a way that would ensure maximum growth. I don’t think we are there yet. I believe we are not that efficient in everything we do as a government. I do hope that following our repeated meetings the Russian Government Cabinet will make an effort and come up with some additional proposals to stimulate the economic growth and business activity in Russia. Speaking of which, one of such measures is something we use constantly, for which we get criticised by our counterparts – liberal economists: that is active support of growth in real income of the population. Last year it was about 4.5–4.6 percent, and beginning February through April this year it has gone up to over 5 percent. That is the growth of actual income of the population, which implies an increase in domestic demand. So the conditions we find ourselves in are different. Generally, I do share the viewpoint of some of our European colleagues who suggest we should consolidate budgets and bring discipline to the economy to get out of the crisis. Still, everything has its boundaries, and we can’t shift the entire burden to the shoulders of the population. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: We have different starting positions with the West. In the Western Europe and, by the way, partially in the United States all these migration problems are, in my view, more severe; they are more explicit and more dangerous. As we know, Western Europe and the United States have to deal with people who come from different countries and who find it difficult to assimilate in their new homeland. They fail to learn the local language, they fail to speak it, and they fail to find their way in the labour market. One of my Western European counterparts once told me that immigrants from, say, North Africa would live in a new country for ten years and still fail to speak the local language. In that instance he was referring to Spanish. And what about Russian immigrants? I guess they’re doing better now, but those who immigrated to the United States back in 1980s and 1990s… Someone I know once was visiting an area where Russian immigrants have been settling… Comment: Brighton Beach. Exactly. So there was an old lady who’s lived there for 15 years, and didn’t speak English. She was telling her guests that tomorrow she would go shopping in New York. She didn’t even realise she was living in New York. So it is a general problem which is related primarily to the economy and to the need to attract cheap labour force. Actually the same thing is happening in Russia. But in our country, despite how acute this problem is, it’s still not as severe and dangerous as it is in Europe and in the States. Why? If we speak about immigrants, i.e. citizens of other countries in Russia, most migrants come here from different parts of the former Soviet Union. This new generation might not be speaking good Russian but their families do one way or another. We still do share a common mentality, a common historic memory. Some of them or perhaps their relatives may have lived in the regions of Russia. These factors make it much easier for these people to integrate in the lives of those ethnic groups where they are resettling for permanent residence. Nonetheless, even in Russia we should make more efforts in preparing those people who are willing to come and live to Russia. As we’ve said, we should set up Russian language and history classes in those former republics, in those new states – so far we haven’t done a very good job at it. This way we would help people understand each other better from the start. And of course we need to educate our citizens or those aspiring to become Russian citizens in a sense of responsibility. We have to help them realise that they are in a different country now and so they have to observe our traditions and our laws; they have to respect our culture and our history. This is an entirely separate field of work. It used to be ignored in the past but now we need to pay attention to this matter, and we need to contribute more centralised efforts to it. As for the domestic migration, it also is a complicated issue. Back in the Soviet Union, there used to be a domicile registration ( propiska ). Those who violated it were thrown in jail or banished beyond 101 km from large urban centres. This situation is much more complicated now. The Russian Constitution delegitimises propiska , so we need more modern mechanisms to regulate this matter. But let me repeat that we do have an advantage in our country that we are a multi-ethnic people, and we are an integrated civilisation as a whole. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: It’s easier to get citizenship than in Russia |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: We have to be very careful here, making sure we protect the interests of the majority. Our country is Russia, and 85% of our citizens consider themselves Russians. Other people groups living on our territories are closer to us than those living outside Russia. These are our indigenous people. And there are over 120 ethnicities indigenous to Russia. You’ve lived here for 11 years? But it takes 5–6 years to get citizenship you said. You should’ve filed already. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I think if you really wanted to become a citizen, you could’ve bought a room in an apartment outside Moscow, just to meet necessary requirements to file for citizenship and observe the formalities. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: It is. I think you are right. We do have to adjust our immigration policies in some cases. We have to welcome professionals like you. You are a young and beautiful woman. I am sorry, but it is true that you are a woman of childbearing age. Your boss here sets a good example, by the way… Some countries, Canada, for example, have special programs to attract certain categories of people from other countries. Unfortunately, our system is very outdated in this respect. There have been some developments in this area. There are initiatives to make the citizenship procedure easier for certain categories of people from the former Soviet Union. But as a whole, our immigration policy lacks flexibility. It has to protect interests of Russian citizens, but it also needs to allow for an inflow of specialists that our country needs. So you are absolutely right, and like I said, the government is working on that. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I have talked about this on many occasions, voicing Russia’s opinion. I think that President Saakashvili made a big mistake. We have discussed it with him several times, so I don’t think he would deny this. I used to tell him, “Mr Saakashvili, whatever you do, please make sure there is no bloodshed.” To which he would always respond, “Of course not! We will be patient and try to work things out with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” Unfortunately, it all ended up in a war. Many of your colleagues, especially in Europe, the US, and Georgia itself, often blame Russia. But I think any unbiased observer would agree that Russia had nothing to do with this. This ethnic conflict has been going on for decades or even centuries. And people in Georgia are well aware of this. They know about what happened in 1919, in 1921. They know about relationships between people groups. They had to have patience and political wisdom if they wanted to build relations with South Ossetia and Abkhazia as part of one state. Unfortunately, they failed. Russia reacted to what was going on at the time, and eventually this response led us to recognising independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I can’t imagine how this could be reversed, it’s simply impossible. But this is also the red line that Georgia cannot cross. Because for Tbilisi this is a strife to restore its territorial integrity. This is a complicated issue that has to be dealt with very carefully. And it requires not just a competent solution, but there must be a will to solve this issue on the basis of respect towards interests of all people who live on those territories. Here is what I think. If interests of all people living on those territories are considered and respected, and this respect becomes a basis for solutions, this might become a long-term fix. But it can only be done by people living there, no decision should be imposed from the outside. As for the new government of Georgia deciding to participate in the Olympics and make other reconciliation steps, it’s not lost on us. We appreciate those steps and respond in the same manner, as you have probably noticed. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: . Of course, we are ready to work with Georgia. We want to restore relations with Georgia, we like Georgia. We have close ties with Georgians. You live here, you have Russian citizenship. And how many Georgians live in Russia? We are proud of their contribution, we see them as our own people. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I won’t go back as far as the War of 1812, we all know which war general I am talking about. Georgians did great things for Russia back then, during the Soviet period, and they are still doing them now… So we are very close culturally and otherwise. Not to mention the religious aspect. I have met with the Catholicos-Patriarch… |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Yes, he is a very kind person and a true Georgian. The whole time he kept talking about the interests of Georgians. But there was so much wisdom in what he had to say, and his tone was very gentle and calm. As you know, we have decided to allow Georgian products back on the Russian market. We understand that this may not be the key issue, but it is still a very important step that will help Georgia’s economy. We will continue developing our relations, but the most important and complicated issues have to be solved by people living there through a dialogue and without any external pressure. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: If we work together fighting crime and terror, it will become possible. I don’t think I will reveal a big secret by saying that terrorists often get to Russia’s Caucasus region from Georgia. When 6–7 years ago we had to attack Georgian territories, those were not just strikes on Georgia, we targeted militant groups that came very close to Sochi – they were only 30 km away. Do you realise how serious the situation was? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: No, the Kodori Gorge was a different situation. In any case, Georgian police vehicles were transporting the militants to the Russian border. So we had to take some pre-emptive measures. And I informed the president about this. We don’t want to see this ever happen again. We want to work with Georgia, want to restore relations. Again, if we begin to work with law enforcement and security agencies, this would be the first step towards cancelling visas. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Thank God. Yes, thank God. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: God bless you. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Gunpowder was originally invented in China, and no one has managed to keep it from spreading ever since. Then came nuclear arms, and they also started to spread. Modern means of warfare keep evolving, and they always will. I doubt if it’s possible to simply ban it all. But you certainly can – and should – introduce certain rules and exercise control. I’m sure the United States does not target civilians on purpose. And the drone operators you’ve mentioned are people, too, and I think they understand all those things. But you still need to combat terrorism. I know they are currently debating this issue in the United States, and a notion is being advocated increasingly often within the UN framework that you need to put drones under control, you need to lay out certain rules of engagement in order to prevent or minimise collateral casualties. It is extremely important. I don’t know whether our [Western] counterparts will choose this option, but I would suggest it would be in their best interest. However, there are other threats, too. For example, they are presently debating the option of using non-nuclear ballistic missiles in the United States. Can you imagine how potentially dangerous that is? What if such a missile were to launch from somewhere in the middle of an ocean, and get spotted by a nuclear power’s early warning system? How should that nuclear power react to a missile coming its way? How are they supposed to know whether that missile comes with a nuclear warhead or not? What if the missile impacts right next to its border, or inside its territory? Do you realise how perilous that can be? Or take the notion of low-yield nuclear weapons – do you realise how badly it can blur the very notion of using nuclear arms, or how low it might bring down the threshold for authorising such a strike? Can you imagine the possible implications? Where are the limits for lowering that threshold, and who is setting them? There are many threats in the world of today, and there is only one way to address them efficiently: that is, working together within the boundaries of international law. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: No. Well, every opposition can prove useful. You just mentioned Occupy Wall Street. At a certain point we saw the police cracking down on the Occupy Wall Street activists. I won’t call the actions of police appropriate or inappropriate. My point is that every opposition movement is good and useful if they act within law. If they don’t like the law, they should use democratic ways to change those laws. They should win voters on their side, they should get elected into legislatures so that they have a chance to influence the laws. This is the way to change things on the ground. If there are people who act outside the law, then the state must use legal means to impose law in the interests of majority. That’s the way it’s done in the US, and that’s the way it’s done in Russia. Truth be told, we are grilled for that, but when the same thing happens in the US, it is considered to be normal. Never mind, these are double standards and we have got accustomed and pay little attention to it. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: Way to go! Everyone must be treated in the same fashion. Because these situations are identical. The only difference is that our diplomatic missions don’t actively cooperate with Occupy Wall Street, and your diplomatic mission works together and directly supports Russian opposition. I think this is wrong because diplomatic missions must forge ties between states and not meddle with their domestic politics. Getting back to popular movements. Reckless behaviour is not appreciated by people. If these activists are breaking the law, then it’s illegal. If they express their will by legal means, without breaking the law then they are fully entitled to do that. Then it would be beneficial to any state because it’s a way to provide grassroots feedback on state policies – social, domestic or foreign ones. As for Mr Kudrin, he is my long-standing associate. We see eye-to-eye on many vital issues of Russia’s development. But that’s for an obvious reason – we’ve known each other for a long time now. We worked together back in St Petersburg, and then he became a member of the cabinet and proved to be one of the most efficient ministers. I have always backed him on key decisions. If I didn’t support him he wouldn’t have been able to work, to implement those ideas and principles that he promoted. So to a certain extent that was our joint policy. He has his own view on certain things. It so happened that they had a disagreement with Mr Medvedev on a number of issues and since Mr Medvedev was president, he had the right to take the decision that he eventually took. Today Alexei Kudrin says that he is ready to re-join the executive branch if the authorities were more decisive. But he is quite reluctant to specify what he means by being more decisive when I ask him to. Why? Because ‘more decisive’ means ‘taking tougher steps’, for example, in terms of pension reforms, in terms of raising the retirement age. No one, including the opposition, wants to speak about it to the public. They think it’s the right way but they don’t want to talk loudly about the issue. Also, taking tougher steps on other issues, like slashing budget expenditures, and social spending, first of all. Many of our liberal economists think that our social expenditures are too high, that we raise salaries and pensions and social benefits too fast. They point out that the growth in real disposable income is unjustified – last year we had a 4.2 percent increase, and it’s been up 5.9 percent during the four months of this year already. They argue that salaries are growing faster that labour efficiency, which is bad and dangerous for the economy. There’s no denying it, and they are absolutely right. But maybe it’s best not to decrease real disposable incomes but rather to improve our labour efficiency? Russians often say that the goal is not to expand the amount of the wealthy people but rather to reduce the amount of the poor. That’s a very hard thing, but the best part of the opposition has admitted that in private and professional meetings with us. But publicly they are afraid to speak about it. And this is wrong. I have told them many times now. If you stick to some idea, you have to be straightforward about it. Don’t be afraid that some part of the nation won’t like it. If we are to rally a bigger support for your ideas, you have to stick to your principles to expand your electoral base. Look at today’s Western Europe. They brought their countries on the precipice of bankruptcy, but whenever they talk of lower salaries, people are up in arms. So it would have made more sense to increase your social spending and debt more gradually. Also, it would have been great for the authorities if there had been someone who could have told them about it. I don’t think our social spending is too high, I don’t think that we increase pensions, salaries and social benefits too much. But generally, Mr Kudrin and the likes of him have a point to make, and we need to listen to them. It’s a very useful thing. So I believe that an opposition that has national interest at heart will be in demand. Next question is from Oksana Boyko, the presenter of our new show. She moved into presenting after several years of reporting for RT, she, too, went to many war zones. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: I didn’t quite get – was it a punch at the US or Iran? She’s our tough guy. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: A response to your question could take hours. It’s so complex. I will try to be as concise as possible. First, I have repeatedly voiced Russia’s official stance – Iran has the right for a peaceful nuclear program and it cannot be singled out for discrimination. Second, we need to be aware that Iran is located in a very challenging region. I have told our Iranian partners about that. That’s why Iranian threats made towards neighbouring countries, in particular Israel, threats that Israel can be destroyed, are absolutely unacceptable. This is counterproductive. Oksana |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: It doesn’t quite matter whether it’s a proper quote or not. It means it’s best to avoid a wording that could be improperly quoted or could be interpreted differently. That’s why the focus on Iran does have a reason behind it. I have no doubts that Iran is compliant with the rules, simply because there is no proof of the opposite. According to the latest IAEA report, Iran has been abiding by the commitments it has taken up. True, there are some outstanding issues but with due patience and friendly attitudes, they can be resolved. I have a great respect to Iran and a great interest in it. This is a great country indeed. You don’t often hear this attribute mentioned in relation to Iran but this is true. This is a country with a great culture, a great history and a great nation. They are very proud of their country, they have their own understanding of their place both in the region and in the world, and that’s something you have to respect. You have grasped the core of the problems. Iranians are very smart and cunning politicians. To a certain degree, they have exploited this confrontation with the United States. |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: They are extremely crafty in this, and they do it to tackle their domestic political issues. When there is an external enemy, it united the nation. But I guess the United States has been employing the same technique. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been no external threats that would allow Washington to dominate in the West. There must be a threat so that the US can protect their allies from it. This position yields political and economic benefits. If everyone relies on one country for protection, then this country is entitled to some preferences. So it’s very important to possess this status of a global defender to be able to resolve issues even beyond the realm of foreign policy and security issues. I think the US has been using Iran for this very purpose, that is to unite their allies in the face of a real or fake threat. It’s quite a complicated issue but it’s not an issue for Russia. We have been complying with our international commitments, including on Iran’s peaceful nuclear program. As you know, Russia built the Bushehr power plant in Iran, we have completed this project and are prepared for further cooperation. Yet when we proposed to enrich uranium on the Russian territory, our Iranian partners refused, for reasons unknown to us. They argue that they will enrich uranium on their own in line with existing international regulations. And, as I said earlier, if they don’t break any rules, they are fully entitled to do that. We will endorse this right but we will also remain aware of the concerns that other states and the international community has concerning full compliance with these rules. Can I clarify something? The thing is, I was asking you not only about the US-Iranian relations but also about the US-Russian relations. Would you agree that we have fundamental ideological differences on key issues of international law? |
| Matching Russian passage has not been identified |
Cached English source — passage alignment not verified Vladimir Putin: So right on the eve of my meeting with Barack Obama, you are pushing me to make some serious statements… |